The First Commandment

Originally posted by ppm56: ↑

Another one of your famous decoys.
WHAT part of my question did you NOT grasp?
Answer it!

No decoy at all, matter of fact it’s the decoy you throw in accusing me of decoys that is the real decoy you throw in, in order to alleviate your basic lack of understanding of the historical Christian faith along with church history, as if you knew it you would know your version is coming from individual decedents who originally first departed from the CC.

You would also know what you adhere to has originated from the division of Protestantism and coming from the outcome of American religious revival after revival

I don’t grasp what you say along with what you don’t grasp what I say, as when you truly understand Christianity and history you will realise your take is null and void
I notice you threw in another decoy to Mr G, to avoid addressing where he nailed you with the Bible.

You often do it to him, it appears to be a trait of yours.

Very funny, Mrg along with you are only good for misquoting verses, matter of fact by your logic Mrg has also nailed you as his take is completely different than yours
Do explain why the WT version of anti-trinitarian is completely different than yours yet you use the same bible, matter of fact also do explain why all the other non-trinitarian don’t agree among themselves yet all Trinitarian being, CC, Protestants, Orthodox etc. all agree on the theology nature of Christ and the Trinity

It also appears that it’s a trait of yours to accuse me of decoys when actually you are throwing this as a decoy as you are oblivious to history and rather like to stick only with the bible as you can twist and render verses like you, please to suit your narrative

Again, face the truth, you CC's cannot stand anyone saying you can rely on the Bible alone, as it shows up many of your traditions as flaws.
The fact is all of what’s in the bible is derived from what’s inbuild in the catholic faith, with you only taking misconception of the faith coming due from history, seen as truth by you

Then this concept must also be found in the bible, that is “bible alone” to hold any water, the fact is it’s not taught in the bible, it’s an invention by Luther as he was excommunicated by the CC and had nothing to fall back on, it’s that simple

Like I asked you 7 years ago, show in the bible that only the bible must be used

Then, which bible, Hebrew, Greek, Septuagint, Latin, Bede, Lindisfarm, John Whcliffe, William Tyndale, Erasmus, Miles Converdale, The Great Bible, King James, The new King James, NWT and countless others, plus numerous denominational take on what the bible is saying

These are some basic facts among many that you should be acquainted with, all using the same bible alone, they all assume to have nailed the CC, but all have different teaching not only with the CC but along with each other

Why? are they all different when using and relying on the bible alone this is the part of my question which you do NOT grasp? As when you grasp it you will realise that the notion of bible alone only leads to division after division has it has, having no substance

Why should I believe your version above any other version of bible understanding

Why is your rendering on verses are superior to say the WT

Answer it!
Here is a basic example of divisions to which we never had before the concept of bible alone came about and you’re advocating

Expand

Part 2

We see from the Jewish prayer of the “Shema” Det 6:4 is embedded Jewish concept of God, that God is one, there is no other period, not even for a Son. To love God with all your heart is a way of life. We have no understanding of the nature of God. The only access we have to God is via His Teachers. In the case of the Jews it was Moses, for Christians it is Christ. To then love God with all your heart can only be reflected in how you treat your fellow human, without prejudice, judgement, sexism, etc, etc. So this has nothing to do with Jews becoming Christians. For the most part it was how Christians lived their lives that attracted people. Even the Romans were eventually defeated by the love, kindness, tolerance, compassion of Christians, primarily through Christian women who built bridges to the Roman women who then influenced their husbands. Christianity was powered by women while the men argued over words.

The Jews consider that making the claim that Jesus is God is pure idolatry. The Oneness of God is not effected by Moses, or Jesus, or the return of a Jesus figure who will fulfil the prophecies of the OT as required to be considered the Messiah. The confusion comes about because the Bible attributes prophecy to both Jesus and the figure who returns and is like Jesus. We can conclude this because Jesus clearly and without question, did not fulfil the prophecies required to be considered the Messiah of the Jews. He was of course the Messiah of Christianity.

Its very clear in the OT only God saves, yet Christ death and resurrection is the turning point of where salvation now can be found, no human can ever save especially if Christ was only a prophet, Paul describes it, “then if this is the case our faith is in vain”. To be saved means you have enriched your spirit with the love of God, via love of Christ, obedience to His Teachings, precepts and the morals, virtues and deedful life that then flows on from that. Each human spirit is immortal, but the quality of that immortality is subject to how we live, in the case of a Christian, in accordance with the Teachings of Christ. Drawing nearer to God is life and moving away from God is death.

Christ is a Manifestation of God. The opportunity to develop one's spiritual capacity is best found in obedience to the Teachings of Christ and in this sense one is saved. The resurrection of Christ is a spiritual concept. See my response to Gum.

Later People started putting different takes on Christ nature, a simple look at the heresies of the time confirms this, when we bounce off the different take of these it becomes very clear what the main body of Christianity believed in, and that was the Trinity.

There is a Trinity, but not in any literal sense. God, the divine force of God and a pure individual who becomes the Primal Point for the dissemination of the Will of God with complete obedience and self-sacrifice. God is beyond descent into the realm of relative imperfection. Even Jesus was imperfect compared to God. I appreciate that the church attempted to define the Christ in relation to God, but in going too far and declaring Jesus some third aspect of an indivisible God was a grave contradiction of their belief in God. It had far reaching effects on humanity and caused much of the oppressive colonialism of Christianity and the obliteration of many wonderful cultures.

The concept of the Trinity of today has only came about because of these heresies. Yes, it was a defensive position, not a reality.

As for my take on the Trinity being addressed. I have read on this subject extensively.