a/k/a Johnny Toledo

@irfanit93 @Isaiah_LXX [Jesus himself clearly explains that he is not Absolute goodness, only God is.] -- Since Lord Jesus did not say 'absolute' where are you getting that from? + What does 'absolute goodness' mean?

@InfinitelyManic @Isaiah_LXX Jesus himself clearly explains that he is not Absolute goodness, only God is.

So apparently I'm blocked from the thread, but I can continue this exchange here: And that’s exactly the difference between Islam and Christianity. In Islam, prophets are considered sinless by theological decree, not because their narratives show moral perfection. The doctrine defines the conclusion. In Christianity, the Scriptures openly record the failures of even the greatest figures: – Moses disobeyed and was barred from the land. – Noah got drunk. – David committed adultery and murder. Their flaws aren’t hidden, they’re part of the story. God uses imperfect people to accomplish His will, but they are not the moral standard. That’s what sets Jesus apart. He isn’t sinless by decree; He’s sinless by record. His life is the perfect example of what humanity was meant to be, His obedience, His submission to the Father, His teachings, and His character are the standard Christians follow. So when I asked for an immoral act Jesus committed, and you said He committed none, you actually affirmed the very point I’ve been making from the start.

@irfanit93 @Isaiah_LXX [The main difference is in mark 10:18 , jesus speaking about absolute goodness but in mat 5:45 and luke 23:50, its not about absolute goodness] -- Where is the term 'absolute' coming from?

@InfinitelyManic @Isaiah_LXX The main difference is in mark 10:18 , jesus speaking about absolute goodness but in mat 5:45 and luke 23:50, its not about absolute goodness

[you: "My definition is below" (describes hypostatic union and ontological trinitarianism as the definition of "being")] -- Did I use the term 'hypostatic union'??? [we believe that God still does speaks and that He never stopped speaking.] <-- How do you know who the speaker is? [that's my point. define "being".] -- A nature/substance/essence/ousia that is the whatness of a person/hypostasis.

me: 'idk, define "being"...' you: 'I ask because' (not answering) me: 'that didn't answer the prompt.' (reiterating, on 'define "being"') you: "My definition is below" (describes hypostatic union and ontological trinitarianism as the definition of "being") [[source? God.] -- Did this 'God' speak something or write something explicitly. Are you referring to your Heavenly Father???] -- "Did"? no, we believe that God still does speaks and that He never stopped speaking. people just didn't want to listen and so they closed the "biblical" canon and killed anyone that disagreed. [[that didn't answer the question.] -- No, there are many kinds of 'beings' in the world.] -- that's my point. define "being".

[you said that was your definition of "being".] -- Nope. Please quote what I said. [source? God.] -- Did this 'God' speak something or write something explicitly. Are you referring to your Heavenly Father??? [that didn't answer the question.] -- No, there are many kinds of 'beings' in the world.

[[if the only definition of "being" = hypostatic union,] <-- That's not what I said.] -- you said that was your definition of "being". that would necessitate the categorization of "being" without any other qualification. [[in Latter-day Saint theology, we have all existed eternally.] -- What is your source for that information; e.g., the Bible?] source? God. [[so the only being in existing is your version of "god"?] -- I assume you have your own version of 'god' that's not like ours.] that didn't answer the question.

@irfanit93 @Isaiah_LXX [These both verses doesn't use the greek word "hen". Get yourself educated] -- What does 'hen 'refer to sir?

@InfinitelyManic @Isaiah_LXX These both verses doesn't use the greek word "hen". Get yourself educated

[if the only definition of "being" = hypostatic union,] <-- That's not what I said. [in Latter-day Saint theology, we have all existed eternally.] -- What is your source for that information; e.g., the Bible? [so the only being in existing is your version of "god"?] -- I assume you have your own version of 'god' that's not like ours.

[that didn't answer the prompt.] -- My definition is below: Father/God = 1 uncaused, a se hypostasis + Word/Son = 1 eternally begotten hypostasis + Holy Spirit = 1 eternally spirated hypostasis ---------------------- = 3 hypostases subsisting in one (1) divine ousia = #being = nature = essence = form] -- so the only being in existing is your version of "god"? no other usage of the word "being" is valid? again, this is why i specifically said that Latter-day Saints don't care for your presuppositions or theological drivel. if the only definition of "being" = hypostatic union, then that means i'm (as a "being") in the trinity right? and we're all in the trinity? [[ Latter-day Saint ontology dictates that all beings have existed eternally.] -- So, do you every person (past, present & future) is beginningless???] -- in Latter-day Saint theology, we have all existed eternally. [[I'm a Latter-day Saint.] <-- Is that NOT a Mormon???] -- bit confused by the usage of the double-negative but that's not really here nor there. [[yes, with theological drivel and presuppositional apologetics.] -- There's certainly nothing wrong w/ that.] -- meaning what? that conversations should be predicated on one party's presuppositions and theological drivel?

[Then maybe stop engaging?] -- Why would I want to do that??? [You know you’re not forced to comment.] -- TRUE [Ever notice me go on your page to try to disprove your beliefs?] -- What's a page??? [Because I’m firm in my faith and don’t need to disprove others in order to feel better about my own beliefs.] -- Good for you, but why do you have so comments that seem try to disprove others? 👇 x.com/search?q=from%… [Self control is an amazing thing. Highly recommend it.] --> Is that right? 👇 x.com/search?q=from%…

Then maybe stop engaging? You know you’re not forced to comment. Ever notice me go on your page to try to disprove your beliefs? No? That’s right. Because I’m firm in my faith and don’t need to disprove others in order to feel better about my own beliefs. Self control is an amazing thing. Highly recommend it.

[that didn't answer the prompt.] -- My definition is below: Father/God = 1 uncaused, a se hypostasis + Word/Son = 1 eternally begotten hypostasis + Holy Spirit = 1 eternally spirated hypostasis ---------------------- = 3 hypostases subsisting in one (1) divine ousia = #being = nature = essence = form [ Latter-day Saint ontology dictates that all beings have existed eternally.] -- So, do you every person (past, present & future) is beginningless??? [I'm a Latter-day Saint.] <-- Is that NOT a Mormon??? [yes, with theological drivel and presuppositional apologetics.] -- There's certainly nothing wrong w/ that.

[idk, define "being"...] -- I ask because I see Mormons use that term a lot in the context their objections to the Trinity.] -- that didn't answer the prompt. [Are you LDS/Morrmon? [sic]] -- no, I'm a Latter-day Saint. [[also, just for future reference, presuppositional apologetics doesn't work on Latter-day Saints. you're doing to have to start from demonstrable reality, not theological drivel.] -- I'm just replying to posts & asking questions.] -- yes, with theological drivel and presuppositional apologetics. [Speaking of reality: Where does Heavenly Mother come from?] -- that's a non-sequitur. Latter-day Saint ontology dictates that all beings have existed eternally.

[idk, define "being"...] -- I ask because I see Mormons use that term a lot in the context their objections to the Trinity. Are you LDS/Morrmon? [also, just for future reference, presuppositional apologetics doesn't work on Latter-day Saints. you're doing to have to start from demonstrable reality, not theological drivel.] -- I'm just replying to posts & asking questions. Speaking of reality: Where does Heavenly Mother come from?

@InfinitelyManic @ThisMomSaid @imstillrich_eth @DiscipleFidei idk, define "being"... also, just for future reference, presuppositional apologetics doesn't work on Latter-day Saints. you're doing to have to start from demonstrable reality, not theological drivel.

@seanproxy @ThisMomSaid @imstillrich_eth @DiscipleFidei [my favorite part is that the bible says none of that.] -- What's the Bible? Where does 'being' come from?

@InfinitelyManic @ThisMomSaid @imstillrich_eth @DiscipleFidei my favorite part is that the bible says none of that. love your textbook example of eisegesis.

I didn't really engage Mormons on the Trinity topic until after the Kirk shooting when all of a sudden my search filter starting returning some of their "illogical Trinity" posts. Their view is unlike anything I've ever seen before & many of them seem to have never looked the Monarchy of the Father model.

@InfinitelyManic @ThisMomSaid @DiscipleFidei You’d think Mormons at least try to learn Trinitarian theology before attempting to refute it haha

[Yes its exclusive to only father. Jesus himself told that which if you deny, means you deny jesus words] -- Then why did Lord Jesus use the same term in those verses? Mat 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the #good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Luk 23:50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a #good and righteous man

@InfinitelyManic @Isaiah_LXX Yes its exclusive to only father. Jesus himself told that which if you deny, means you deny jesus words

[That conclusion doesn’t follow from the text.] -- Yes, it does, since Lord Jesus clearly said in Jn 17:1 that the Father has a Son, which CANNOT be your Allah, right? Jn 17:1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, So, according to Lord Jesus' words, your Allah is NOT the only true God.

That conclusion doesn’t follow from the text. In Gospel of John 17:1, Jesus Christ says: ‘Father… glorify Your Son.’ But just calling someone “Son” does not automatically make them God. In the Bible, “son of God” is used in diff ways: Adam in Luke 3:38 Believers in Matthew 5:9

[That’s not “one being speaking about itself”…. that’s two distinct beings with different roles.] -- Yes, Father & Word/Son are distinct hypostases as also the Holy Spirit. [In trinitarian doctrine, the Father and Son are supposed to be co-equal. Jesus directly says the Father is greater.] -- The Word/Son shares His Father's nature since kind beget kind, so, They are equal in essence/nature. The Father is greater in His hypostasis in that He is uncaused, unoriginate, a se, first principle, monarchia. [He doesn’t collapse them into one being.] -- In that case, the term 'being' does not equal hypostasis/person, but They are of one (1) nature/essence/substance/ousia. [Not one being “in different modes.”] -- Correct. Three (3) hypostases that subsist in one (1) nature/essence/substance/ousia. [That’s not one person switching roles… that’s three distinct persons interacting simultaneously.] -- TRUE [... it shows two distinct beings acting in love and purpose together.] -- Two (2) distinct hypostases. [If they are the same being, that statement doesn’t make sense… this shows relationship and distinction.] -- They are three (3) distinct hypostases that subsist in one (1) ousia/nature/essence/substance [The Father knows something the Son does not. That directly challenges the idea of co-equal, all-knowing sameness.] -- The Father knows nothing that the Son does not know. The Son is ignorant of nothing which the Father knows. The Son knows the hour, but would not disclose it. This is feigned ignorance or figure of speech which exists in the Bible. Luk 24:15 While they were talking and discussing, #Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. ... 24:18 One of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "#Are #You the only one visiting Jerusalem and #unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" 24:19 And He said to them, "#What #things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Gen 22:12 for now I #know that you fear God Deut 8:2 to #know what was in your heart Deut 13:3 to #know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul Gen 18:20-21 And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will #know.

Oh. You also want explanations: John 17:3 “That they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” ✌🏻 Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” and then separates Himself as the one sent. That’s not “one being speaking about itself”…. that’s two distinct beings with different roles. John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.” ✌🏻 In trinitarian doctrine, the Father and Son are supposed to be co-equal. Jesus directly says the Father is greater. 1 Corinthians 8:6 “To us there is but one God, the Father… and one Lord Jesus Christ…” ✌🏻Paul clearly distinguishes: •One God = the Father •Jesus = Lord (separate role) He doesn’t collapse them into one being. Acts 7:55–56 Stephen saw “Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” ✌🏻 That’s two separate individuals in real space: •God •Jesus at His right hand Not one being “in different modes.” Matthew 3:16–17 (Jesus’ baptism) The Son is baptized, the Spirit descends, and the Father speaks from heaven. ✌🏻 All three are present at the same time: •Jesus in the water •The Father speaking •The Spirit descending That’s not one person switching roles… that’s three distinct persons interacting simultaneously. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” ✌🏻 The focus isn’t that God loved His Son (though He does), but that: •God (the Father) •loved the world •and gave His Son This verse highlights separation and relationship, not sameness: •God is the one giving •Jesus is the one being sent/given You can’t meaningfully “give yourself to yourself” in the way this verse describes… it shows two distinct beings acting in love and purpose together. John 20:17 “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” ✌🏻Jesus calls the Father “my God.” If they are the same being, that statement doesn’t make sense… this shows relationship and distinction. 1 Corinthians 11:3 “The head of Christ is God.” ✌🏻 This establishes order and authority. God is over Christ. Luke 22:42 “Not my will, but thine, be done.” ✌🏻 Two separate wills: •Jesus’ will •The Father’s will That’s not one being… it’s two aligned, but distinct, persons. Revelation 3:12 “I will write upon him the name of my God…” ✌🏻 Even glorified, resurrected Jesus still refers to “my God.” That ongoing relationship shows distinction doesn’t disappear. Mark 13:32 “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man… neither the Son, but the Father.” ✌🏻 The Father knows something the Son does not. That directly challenges the idea of co-equal, all-knowing sameness. Across these verses, you consistently see: •Jesus praying to God •Jesus submitting to God •Jesus calling the Father “my God” •Differences in knowledge and authority

Origen is the first to use #Lucifer as a proper name for the satan & subject of Isa 14:12, not the 1611 KJV, so other Patristics followed including Jerome. 👇 Origen Adamantius (182-254 AD) noted the following in Commentary on John, book I, chap 13 The Angels Also Are Evangelists, “the Earth, that seat of war, on which #Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.” The Latin term #lucifer appears #5x in the Latin OT (likely translated from a Greek OT) & NT. It's in pre-Vulgate Vetus Latina MSS. 1611 KJV's marginal note at Isa 14:12 is "O #day #star" KJV's 2 Pet 1:19 "... as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the [#day #star] arise in your hearts:" The Latin NT's of Erasmus & Beza use #lucifer at [#day #star] in 2 Pet 1:19. Lucifer entered the English language as early as the Anglo-Saxon period. Job 38:32 "Whether thou bryngist forth Lucifer, `that is, dai sterre, in his tyme..." - #Wycliffe 1382 So, in the Anglo-Saxon Church hymn, Wycliffe & 1611 KJV, it's a #poetic #celestial #metaphor. Lucifer = Venus personified = morning star = day star = son of Aurora (#dawn). BTW, it's symbolically connected to Easter (#dawn).

The name Lucifer appears only 1 time in the KJV, cementing his unique identity as the primary fallen entity associated with pride and "victory" apart from God.

The name Nike (Greek for "Victory") is often linked to Lucifer (the "Morning Star") in occult studies. Both are depicted as winged "bringers of light" or triumph who fell from high celestial status. Some correlate the "Just Do It" slogan with the Thelemic "Do what thou wilt,"

It's because Lord Jesus is the only true Son of God that He is divine as His Father, so He is rightfully predicated #God. Kind begets kind. Jn 1:1 and the #Word was #God Jn 5:18 making Himself equal with #God Jn 10:33 make Yourself #God Heb 1:8 But to the #Son He says: "Your throne, O #God

@Isaiah_LXX Jews misunderstood jesus claim divnity. Jesus never claimed divinity but the jews accused of him for blasphemy but in fact he didnt claimed to be God I said in context jesus is not God. The word hen didnt change meaning depending on context.Jesus is also not eternal, divine, etc

It's because Lord Jesus is the only true Son of God that He is divine as His Father, so He is rightfully predicated #God. Kind begets kind. Jn 1:1 and the #Word was #God Jn 5:18 making Himself equal with #God Jn 10:33 make Yourself #God Heb 1:8 But to the #Son He says: "Your throne, O #God

@ACTBrigitte just embrace islam brigitte jesus is not god, he is a human being

This video is not from a third world country. It’s from South Carolina. We are being invaded.

The underlying term for #good is not exclusive to the Father. E.g., Mat 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the #good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Luk 23:50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a #good and righteous man So, the sense of Mar 10:18 is that the Father is intrinsically & essentially #good. The Son of God is essentially #good since He has His Father's divine nature.

@Isaiah_LXX Nope. This clearly tells us he is not the absolute goodness. Why call him good when he is not the true good. Jesus is saying for people like you who misunderstood him as God. “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” So Jesus is not God. He is not the true Good

It's because Lord Jesus is the only true Son of God that He is divine as His Father, so He is rightfully predicated #God. Kind begets kind. Jn 1:1 and the #Word was #God Jn 5:18 making Himself equal with #God Jn 10:33 make Yourself #God Heb 1:8 But to the #Son He says: "Your throne, O #God

It's because Lord Jesus is the only true Son of God that He is divine as His Father, so He is rightfully predicated #God. Kind begets kind. Jn 1:1 and the #Word was #God Jn 5:18 making Himself equal with #God Jn 10:33 make Yourself #God Heb 1:8 But to the #Son He says: "Your throne, O #God

@itsmorganariel How does it feel to be 100% wrong? Amazing? The only thing you got right is Jesus, but you excluded Yahuah/ GOD. Jesus/ Yeshua is NOT GOD. His son yes, made from God yes. Not God. We are in tribulation now as we speak. Go repent and relearn the Bible. May I suggest the Ethiopian

Everything you think you know about the end times is Jewish propaganda. The rapture is a lie. The 7 year tribulation is a lie. The doomsday misinterpretation of Matthew 24 is a lie. Premillennialism is a lie. Deprogram your mind from it now and set yourself free. There is only one covenant and it’s with those who have faith in Jesus Christ. There is only one church. One body of Christ.