FAKE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

[n9newunsixx5150]

Reply part 1:

NINEWUNSIX5150,

YOU STRESSED, "Why does it?"

CAUSE IT DO. IT gOES AgAINST HIS UNIVERSAL LAW. WHAT gOOD DOES IT DO WHEN WE KNOW (gOD) IS NOT ABLE TO SIN? WHY WOULD HE COME DOWN HIMSELF?

What does God not being able to sin have to do with Him coming down or not?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Then what is the value of your "why" question? If any answer is gonna be "philosophyin", then you better go ask God why."

I HAVE, TIME AND AgAIN. MY VALUE OF MY WHY QUESTION ENTAILS ANSWERS BACCED BY SCRIPTURE AND NOT JUST gUESSIN'.

Originally you asked: "...WHY WOULD (gOD) DO SUCH AN ACT TO MAKE HIMSELF A MERE MORTAL AND PRAY TO HIMSELF IF HE CAN JUST DO WHAT HE WANTED FROM THE HEAVENS?"

Even if the Bible specifically stated that God did do this, how would that necessarily give you an answer to why He did it? The only philosophizing I am doing is based on a premise that we should be able to agree on, i.e.: God's omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

Furthermore, you said: "WHO WAS UP IN HEAVEN THEN, WHEN HE WAS JESUS? WHO WAS LOOKIN' AFTER THE HEAVENS IF HE WAS DOWN ON EARTH? IF HE WAS A MAN, HOW COULD HE HEAR OTHER'S PRAYERS?"

This is your "guess" about God's ability. Even if the Bible does not specifically state that God does such, He is very much capable nevertheless. So if you know He is capable of being in multiple places at the same time, why do you ask such questions? If you want answers backed up by Scriptures then why do you ask questions pertaining to God ability when you know very well that He lacks in no ability?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "But how would that satisfy your "why" question?"

EASY. IT WOULD SPECIFICALLY ANSWER MY DOUBTS AND EXPLAIN IT IN FULL DETAIL.

Not necessarily.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "You may accept it because it says in the Bible, but how does, "because it says so" answer your "why" question???"

YOU gOT ME TWISTED WITH THESE CHRISTIANS OF TODAY. I JUST AIN'T gOIN' ON SOMETHIN' JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS SO(LIKE THIS FAKE TRINITY DOCTRINE), AND IT CAN BE TRANSLATED OUT OF CONTEXT. I'M gOIN' BY HOW SCRIPTURE BREAKS IT DOWN(IF IT WERE TO BREAK IT DOWN, LIKE EXPLAINED IN MY PREVIOUS REPLY).

Your “why” question stands apart from Scriptural injunction because even if the Bible clearly stated that the trinity doctrine is fact, but it did not break it down, would you still have the same discrepancies? Or would you just accept it as it is written?
My responses, as I explained before, are based on your questions that suggest a difficulty on your part of understanding God’s ability. You ask how God can be in Heaven and on earth at the same time. You ask why God would appear to us as a “mere mortal”. So my responses were reasons based on things we do know about God. Do you expect the Bible to tell you every single thing an eternal God does??

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Why wouldn't it make sense to do so?"

AIN'T NO POINT IN IT.

You have come to this conclusion based on your reasoning, just as I have come to the opposite conclusion based on my reasoning. So when I ask you how it doesn’t make sense I was hoping for you to give me your reasoning. Why does it make sense that God creates this universe at all???

THEN YOU STRESSED, "You may not be trying to philosophize what God might do, but your inquiry suggests that God doing such is preposterous, when actually it isn't.
In other words, why are you tryin to philosophize on why God wouldn't come here Personally?"

gOOD WAY TO FLIP IT. PROPS ON THAT ONE. BUT YOU FORgETTIN' WHAT HIS WRITTEN WORD SAYS. BUT IT IS PREPOSTEROUS. IT'S LIKE YOU DOIN' SOMETHIN' WITHOUT HAVIN' TO DO SO. THAT'S WHY IT'S PREPOSTEROUS. AND I AIN'T PHILOSOPHYIN' ON MY OWN ACCORD, I'M gOIN' BY WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS, AND QUESTIONIN' WHY WOULD PEOPLE BELIEVE SUCH.

I’m not flipping anything. My responses were in the context of your questions. I was just showing how we are both going based on our own reasoning. Now, that reasoning should be based on things we do know about God. For example, I am saying that God can be on earth and in Heaven at the same time based on the fact that God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Also, I am saying that God may very well come to earth out of His causeless mercy. He does not need to come to earth, but neither does He need to create the universe in the first place. We should be able to rationalize these activities based on what God is and what He has already done.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I already answered why He would do anything at all concerning this world. Why in your mind does God's coming down have to prove something??"

CAUSE THERE'S A REASON BEHIND IT ACTUALLY OCCURIN'. IT DON'T MAKES SENSE FOR HIM TO ACTUALLY COME DOWN HIMSELF.

But does that reason behind that occurrence have to be for God to prove something? God never needs to prove anything, so how can that ever be a reason? I am sure there is a reason as to why God would come to earth, and I don’t see that reason being any different from the reason He created the earth in the first place.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Reply part 2:

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I act like it's a fact that God can and has good reason to do such. That reason is explained when you understand why God acts upon this universe at all. You cannot limit His mercy. It is His mercy that He sustains this universe. Furthermore, it is also His mercy that He may decide to descend upon the earth in order to please His devotees. Everything God does is out of His mercy and for our benefit."

AND HIS MERCY WAS THE SACRIFICE OF HIS ONLY BEgOTTEN SON. THAT IS MORE MERCIFUL THEN JUST COMIN' DOWN YOURSELF, KNOWIN' YOU PERFECT AND AIN'T PRONE TO ERROR.

Of course, God is merciful in everything He does. Whether or not sending His only begotten son or coming Himself is more merciful is definitely a matter of opinion. Is it not possible that God may come down to dwell with the people who are devoted to Him? For those people would such an act not be merciful? Also, was Jesus prone to error? If so, how can we trust what He says? There might be errors in his teachings.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "So why does it not make sense for God to come here Personally?"

CAUSE FOR ONE, HE HAS NO BUSINESS ON EARTH. N-E-THANg HE DOES, HE CAN DO IT FROM THE HEAVENS. IT SERVES NO PURPOSE FOR HIM TO BELITTLE HIMSELF AND COME IN THE FLESH,
XCONDLY,
IT gOES AgAINST HIS WORD AND UNIVERSAL LAW. (gOD) CANNOT LIE. SO WHEN IT IS WRITTEN THAT NO MAN CAN SEE (gOD) AND LIVE, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE CAME TO EARTH?

1. What business did God have in creating earth? I am sure He can do anything from the Heavens, but why are you limiting Him to a specific place? Why can’t God simultaneously be in the Heavens and on earth? If God creates and sustains this world for our well being and pleasure then how is it off the wall to consider that God may come down to earth ever once in a while in order to please His devotees in that capacity? And how does God coming down here belittle Him?
2. So you are saying that God is bound to these rules? That God cannot decide to let people see Him if He desired?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Are you implying that the purpose of prayer is to fulfill God?"

NOPE. QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE PURPOSE OF PRAYER IS TO HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH (gOD).

I agree.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "That God requires our prayer?"

IF WE WANT TO BE CLOSE TO HIM, YES.

I mean, that God requires our prayer as if He is dependent on it, which of course you reject.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "That He is dependent on it??"

NAW, I NEVA SAID THAT.

Then why did you bring up prayer? How does prayer lose its value if God is to come to earth Personally?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Prayer is for you. Prayer brings you closer to God. God doesn't need to be closer to God because He is God"

NO SHIT. BUT YHWH IS (gOD) ALMIgHTY. gET IT RIgHT.

I haven’t got it wrong. What are you talking about?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "so how does prayer benefit He who is eternally benefitted?"

IT gIVES HIM A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO HIS CREATION AND LET'S HIM KNOW THAT HE IS LOVED AND NEEDED.

God already knows that He is loved and needed. But do you really think it would be any sweat off of God’s brow if His creation did not acknowledge Him?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The reason God sends us teachings is the same reason He may come here Personally. That is His mercy. One may have a close relationship with God through the Scriptures, but it can grow even closer from His Personally descending here."

YOU TOO STUK ON (gOD) ACTUALLY DESCENDIN' HERE TO BE CLOSE TO US, BUT HIS WILL AIN'T IN THE FLESH. IF HE WANTED TO COME DOWN HERE TO TEACH US HIMSELF, THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED HIS WORD OR PRAYER. BUT HE WOULD OF BEEN A LIAR DOIN' ALL THAT.

How did you come to this conclusion? How is it that we would not need His word or prayer if He were to come down to earth? Perhaps He came to earth, taught us what we needed to know, left, and then those things were written down and passed down in disciple succession. How would this make God a liar?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "You should not claim to know the extent of His will."

I CLAIM WHAT I READ IN SCRIPTURE(SOMETHIN' YOU SHOULD DO MORE OF TO LEARN OF HIS WILL).

Then you use Scriptures to show how any of this is against God's will, cuz I haven't seen it. It is only your speculation that it is against His will, just as it may be my speculation that it isn't. But it was your initial speculation that led me to respond in such a way. I agree that we should reason based on what has been revealed in Scripture and that is what I am doing. If you can explain the reasoning for any of your points then maybe this conversation can go somewhere.