- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ, do you proof read your statements or just rattle them off.
First and foremost, the use of the prefix 'tri' carries the definition of three.
Hence, triads adhere to the Athanasian Creed.
Then you proceed with 'God is a plural' (with a sure response from yourself and thinker that you have shown that Elohim is plural, without of course dealing with the prefix of 'El' itself, another time perhaps)
Quote Go and learn what a Trinitarian believes! Go where to learn, I thought you to be the scholar in the belief.
Quote Can you name one thing in the created Universe that is not plural in nature? What does nature have to do with combining gods to make one god.
Quote Good luck! I don't believe in luck, is this part of the triads teaching also.
Quote You guys limit God and his ability to be what ever he wants! You manifest your ego on what you want your god to be.
You worship a human male as your deity, then proceed to teach he ousted his father out of his kingdom and took it over for himself.
If you did not believe in three gods WJ, there would be no need to label yourself as a triad.
One WJ, no other. By the by WJ, several times I have asked Is your god a jealous god, or in your belief are you shareware.
WJ,
Is an Atom 'plural in nature'?
Is an Atom more than One?
Is a spoon 'plural in nature'?
Is a car 'plural in nature'?
Is a man 'plural in nature'?
Is the universe 'plural in nature'?
Is Jesus 'plural in nature'?
Is God Almighty 'plural in nature'?
Please think carefully before you answer.
Quote (princess of the king @ April 10 2010,13:17) WJ, do you proof read your statements or just rattle them off. First and foremost, the use of the prefix 'tri' carries the definition of three.
Hence, triads adhere to the Athanasian Creed.
Then you proceed with 'God is a plural' (with a sure response from yourself and thinker that you have shown that Elohim is plural, without of course dealing with the prefix of 'El' itself, another time perhaps)
Quote Go and learn what a Trinitarian believes! Go where to learn, I thought you to be the scholar in the belief.
Quote Can you name one thing in the created Universe that is not plural in nature? What does nature have to do with combining gods to make one god.
Quote Good luck! I don't believe in luck, is this part of the triads teaching also.
Quote You guys limit God and his ability to be what ever he wants! You manifest your ego on what you want your god to be.
You worship a human male as your deity, then proceed to teach he ousted his father out of his kingdom and took it over for himself.
If you did not believe in three gods WJ, there would be no need to label yourself as a triad.
One WJ, no other. By the by WJ, several times I have asked Is your god a jealous god, or in your belief are you shareware.
POK………Good post.peace and love…………….gene
Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,06:46) WJ, Is an Atom 'plural in nature'?
Is an Atom more than One?
Is a spoon 'plural in nature'?
Is a car 'plural in nature'?
Is a man 'plural in nature'?
Is the universe 'plural in nature'?
Is Jesus 'plural in nature'?
Is God Almighty 'plural in nature'?
Please think carefully before you answer.
Yes to all!Now explain how they are not?
WJ
WJ,
Uh-errh.., wrong answer. You're FIRED!
Once again you have cried off for posting anything of any value. What's wrong?
Ok, but you could have done the decent thing and just held your hand up and said 'You got me on this, have a good chuckle – for now'.
A bit of bravado in your distress ain't a bad thing if it is a lesson learnt.
Ok, I guess you are chomping at the bit waiting for the answers.
Well, here they are.
But before I tell you, why did you only post a single word response.
That's not like you?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,06:01) Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,06:46) WJ, Is an Atom 'plural in nature'?
Is an Atom more than One?
Is a spoon 'plural in nature'?
Is a car 'plural in nature'?
Is a man 'plural in nature'?
Is the universe 'plural in nature'?
Is Jesus 'plural in nature'?
Is God Almighty 'plural in nature'?
Please think carefully before you answer.
Yes to all!Now explain how they are not?
WJ
WJwhy because you can not prove it that they are
good try ,no deal
it is your turn to prove your words, let see it ??
Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,17:48) WJ, Uh-errh.., wrong answer. You're FIRED!
Once again you have cried off for posting anything of any value. What's wrong?
Ok, but you could have done the decent thing and just held your hand up and said 'You got me on this, have a good chuckle – for now'.
A bit of bravado in your distress ain't a bad thing if it is a lesson learnt.
Ok, I guess you are chomping at the bit waiting for the answers.
Well, here they are.
But before I tell you, why did you only post a single word response.
That's not like you?
JAWhy do you claim somekind of victory when you have not answered my question when in fact I answered yours?
None of those things you mentioned are a “Solitary single Unit” are they?
You have failed in your answer to prove that there is anything in the created order that is not a “Plural Unity”!
WJ
Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2010,17:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,06:01) Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,06:46) WJ, Is an Atom 'plural in nature'?
Is an Atom more than One?
Is a spoon 'plural in nature'?
Is a car 'plural in nature'?
Is a man 'plural in nature'?
Is the universe 'plural in nature'?
Is Jesus 'plural in nature'?
Is God Almighty 'plural in nature'?
Please think carefully before you answer.
Yes to all!Now explain how they are not?
WJ
WJwhy because you can not prove it that they are
good try ,no deal
it is your turn to prove your words, let see it ??
JASure I can. The molecular structure of the Universe is made up of Atoms which are a “Plural Unity”!
Do you deny this?
The creation reveals the Glory of God!
WJ
Hi Terra,
WJ didn't even have the guts just to own up to something so obvious.
What then can be expected from him when things are not so obvious? Well, no answer required.
We have seen it over and over.
Both he, and TT, survive, and frustrate honest members, in this forum by means of such underhanded practices.
This is a remarkable scriptural 'faux pas'!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,09:54) Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2010,17:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,06:01) Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,06:46) WJ, Is an Atom 'plural in nature'?
Is an Atom more than One?
Is a spoon 'plural in nature'?
Is a car 'plural in nature'?
Is a man 'plural in nature'?
Is the universe 'plural in nature'?
Is Jesus 'plural in nature'?
Is God Almighty 'plural in nature'?
Please think carefully before you answer.
Yes to all!Now explain how they are not?
WJ
WJwhy because you can not prove it that they are
good try ,no deal
it is your turn to prove your words, let see it ??
JASure I can. The molecular structure of the Universe is made up of Atoms which are a “Plural Unity”!
Do you deny this?
The creation reveals the Glory of God!
WJ
WJi see your point ,but you change the structure of all things by doing that
so in your view you are saying that all pieces all materials of units are composed, and are a multi component enclosure,?
i can agree to that ,
but they can not be divided or they lose their structure,or unit
status,right,?in a way atom is a unit that is compose of +++,but if we subtract one + then it is no longer an atom is it .??
there for it as to remain singular by all means or it loose it name.right ?
Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2010,18:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,09:54) Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2010,17:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,06:01) Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,06:46) WJ, Is an Atom 'plural in nature'?
Is an Atom more than One?
Is a spoon 'plural in nature'?
Is a car 'plural in nature'?
Is a man 'plural in nature'?
Is the universe 'plural in nature'?
Is Jesus 'plural in nature'?
Is God Almighty 'plural in nature'?
Please think carefully before you answer.
Yes to all!Now explain how they are not?
WJ
WJwhy because you can not prove it that they are
good try ,no deal
it is your turn to prove your words, let see it ??
JASure I can. The molecular structure of the Universe is made up of Atoms which are a “Plural Unity”!
Do you deny this?
The creation reveals the Glory of God!
WJ
WJi see your point ,but you change the structure of all things by doing that
so in your view you are saying that all pieces all materials of units are composed, and are a multi component enclosure,?
i can agree to that ,
but they can not be divided or they lose their structure,or unit
status,right,?in a way atom is a unit that is compose of +++,but if we subtract one + then it is no longer an atom is it .??
there for it as to remain singular by all means or it loose it name.right ?
JABut God is not of the created order and is not limited to the same structure.
God is Spirit, and the scritpures clearly tell us there is only One Spirit, yet we find places where Jesus the Father and the Comforter are called the Spirit.
The essence of God is One, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share that same essence!
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,18:05) Hi Terra, WJ didn't even have the guts just to own up to something so obvious.
What then can be expected from him when things are not so obvious? Well, no answer required.
We have seen it over and over.
Both he, and TT, survive, and frustrate honest members, in this forum by means of such underhanded practices.
This is a remarkable scriptural 'faux pas'!
JAWhy do you constantly have to belittle and puke out lame accusations without any supporting evidence?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,10:21) Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2010,18:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,09:54) Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2010,17:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 11 2010,06:01) Quote (JustAskin @ April 10 2010,06:46) WJ, Is an Atom 'plural in nature'?
Is an Atom more than One?
Is a spoon 'plural in nature'?
Is a car 'plural in nature'?
Is a man 'plural in nature'?
Is the universe 'plural in nature'?
Is Jesus 'plural in nature'?
Is God Almighty 'plural in nature'?
Please think carefully before you answer.
Yes to all!Now explain how they are not?
WJ
WJwhy because you can not prove it that they are
good try ,no deal
it is your turn to prove your words, let see it ??
JASure I can. The molecular structure of the Universe is made up of Atoms which are a “Plural Unity”!
Do you deny this?
The creation reveals the Glory of God!
WJ
WJi see your point ,but you change the structure of all things by doing that
so in your view you are saying that all pieces all materials of units are composed, and are a multi component enclosure,?
i can agree to that ,
but they can not be divided or they lose their structure,or unit
status,right,?in a way atom is a unit that is compose of +++,but if we subtract one + then it is no longer an atom is it .??
there for it as to remain singular by all means or it loose it name.right ?
JABut God is not of the created order and is not limited to the same structure.
God is Spirit, and the scritpures clearly tell us there is only One Spirit, yet we find places where Jesus the Father and the Comforter are called the Spirit.
The essence of God is One, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share that same essence!
WJ
WJGod is spirit so he is one and not composed ,
he also is invisible,
he is also the most powerful power know(because of his creation)he also is one directional,(Holy)
he is thought (spirit) and there for as to be addressed in thought(spirit)WJ
ok i am back i was interrupted.
since God is spirit(thought)can not be divided,can not be composted neither,it has to stand alone or it is not Spirit (thought)any longer,
to bring changes it at to external not internal,(you can add to a spirit not retract)so you can expand not reduce.
now Christ is the image ,this is in line with the spirit(thought)scriptures say Jesus at the same spirit (thought)
Adam show us the he lost the spirit(thought) of God,Christ came to show us how to get it back that spirit (thought)
this is the way wen all the believers and righteous men will one and after all Christ gives back all thing to his father ,then God will be all in all ,get it ??
one spirit (thought) in all.
WJ,
Because I am like you.You are looking in a mirror at the reverse, the reflection of yourself.
You look in a mirror to see your faults and your image helps you see to clean yourself of the offense of exspousing unscriptural doctrine.
This, I do for you freely, in the name of Jesus Christ, in the hope that your may obtain life with God, through Christ.
It was first offered this to TT (remember?), but he rejected it. Please, I urge you not to also be a rejecter of God's Grace and Mercy!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2010,16:32) Hi Paul, Thanks for the links. I'm not sure about you. First you say:
Yes – so the inference is Paul probably wrote Hebrews….
Then you say:
Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering.
That was a slip. It happens….Quote You said: because it stands to reason that Yeshua is not THE Lord of the Father. This would fly in th face of many NT passages which make it plain that the Father is “greater than” the Son
What?!? You admit the Father is greater? What about the equality thing?
In some senses they are equal, in some they are not. By affirming this I am conforming to scripture.Quote You said:
There is clearly a line of authority from the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians do not dispute this.I'm being floored here. So now the three are co-equal, but the Father is greater? How does that make sense to you?
The Father is greater in the sense that the president is greater than the vice president. He has a higher rank/position/station but He is not greater in His being, Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 2:9 make this plain. It's important you understand this distinction Mike.These comments of mine would not surprise you if you knew the doctrine as well as you should. You continue to demonstrate to me (and others) that you do not understand the doctrine of the trinity very well at all. Certainly not well enough to engage someone in a debate (not a productive one anyway). Go and study it, if you still think it's implausible at least you have an educated opinion.
Quote You said:
The Greek word “kurios” is used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. That’s well known.No. The word “lord”, like “God” and “Father” are titles. For an unknown reason, probably a Jewish superstition, the Jews stopped calling Jehovah by his name at some point. They substituted the TITLE “lord” in place of the divine name. It has NEVER meant that anytime someone is called “lord”, they are being called “Jehovah”. Even in reference to Jehovah, it is one of His titles, not a substitute for His name. Now when you read the word “LORD”, in all caps, is when the divine name YHVH is actually in the OT, but rendered as “LORD”.
This is a smoke screen. Irrespective of what phraseology was, and is, used to denote God, the fact remains that that God is most assuredly in view in Ps 102:25, i.e. the verse was written of that God.Let’s take this back one step. Tell me something Mike, do you acknowledge that Psalm 102:25 was written in reference to the Most High God?
“ In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” (Ps 102:25, LXX, Brenton)
This is a “yes” or “no” question. If you chose to answer “no” I’d like some explanation around that please.
Quote You said:
But also, when used in the NT as an honorific (“lord”) it signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or station to the addresser. The slave addresses his mater as “lord”, not the other way around. This is principal is without exception.
The exception, as you admit, is when God is said to have called Jesus “lord”.
I did not admit an exception, I wrote “without exception”, which of course means the opposite.Quote Your admission:
So there are two possible scenarios here:1) The Father was addressing the Son in a way that denoted His subservience, or inferiority in rank, to Yeshua. Or,
2) He was addressing the Son as YHWH.
I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son.
I agree that #1 is not correct, not because Jehovah is “superior in office” only, but because He is superior, period.
Okay, so that rules out #1 for you. Your default answer is #2 until you can name a legitimate third option.Quote You said:
So that leave only one possibility – The Father addresses the Son as YHWH.Why would anyone address someone named Jesus as Jehovah? Jehovah our God is one.
What you have done here is create a false dichotomy. The assumption being that the subject is either one or the other, but not both. Your statement hinges on the premise that YHWH is a unipersonal being. You have not proven this yet.Quote And why are those the only two possibilities? Your reasoning is nonsensical.
Can you name a legitimate third option? What else could “kurios” denote in a NT context?Quote There is only one with the name of Jehovah, and Jesus isn't Him, as the Scriptures I quoted (but you've ignored) show.
The scriptures you quoted did not show that at all. Not one of them even begins to deal with the issue of Yeshua’s (or the Father’s) ontology. You’ve just imposed your presupposition that ‘only the Father is God’ onto the texts.You’ll never grow in your understanding toward truth until you correct your proclivity for eisegetic interpretation (and jettisoning your Watchtower axioms would help too!).
Quote I've given you a third and fourth possibility, but you believe it must be one of your two?
You have provided me with no legitimate possibilities outside of #1 & 2.Quote You said:
This would align perfectly with the context of Hebrews Ch 1 as a whole, which is about the absolute supremacy of the Son.
The Scriptures I posted for you from Hebrews pu
t a damper on your “absolute supremacy of the Son” thinking. (Including one from chapter 1, I believe.)
The proof texts you offered do not contradict Hebrews 1:10. Most of them simply appeal to the writer’s use of different titles for the Father and Son. While this may debunk the sabellianistic concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the deity of the Son. The Hebrew’s writer’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Jesus” or “Son” to designate Yeshua is a LITERARY DEVICE Mike.I want to be clear about this. When the Father and Son are both in view in a passage it makes sense to assign them different appellatives. This serves to distinguish the two individuals of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for both). It does not, however, delineate them ontologically.
Do a word study yourself. Study Paul’s writings, for instance, you’ll find he usually applies “theos” in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Luke shows more of an ambiguity in the application of “kurios” to the Father and the Son. John, however, has seemingly no hesitation at all in applying “theos” to the Son. Taking the whole NT into account both kurios and theos are appropriate words to use in reference to the Most High God.
If this still isn’t clear enough for you let me know and I’ll go through your quoted passages one at a time.
Quote You said:
You use Watchtower arguments and cite the NWT in you posts Mike.Proudly! But not in the post you accused me of using them. I'm glad the Witnesses are hated and harrassed by the trinitarians. Jesus said the world would hate his true followers. But the world sure loves the millions and millions of trinitarians, as WJ likes to point out. And it's funny that it's always a stupid insult with out any backing of what thought or Scripture they got wrong in that particular case. I didn't even use anything of theirs, and yet you and thinker were going off on them. Like kicking someone who wasn't even capable to defend himself.
This is nothing more than emotive invective that bears little relationship to the the debate at hand. I choose not to respond.Quote You said:
I'm waiting for something to rebutt. Can you answer my question please and I'll obligue you.I said it. Then I said it with all caps and bolded. And your respose was:
I thought you may have been able to work this out for yourself but it looks like I'll need to explicate it for you.Answer to my bolded post, man! Not with a flippant remark, but actually show me why what I said cannot be.
Your bolded and CAPPED “answer” was not in reality an answer at all but an excuse not to.BTW, I'm still waiting on your answer. You still haven't given me one. In what sense is the Son “LORD” to the Father?
Quote Then you proceed with 'God is a plural' (with a sure response from yourself and thinker that you have shown that Elohim is plural, without of course dealing with the prefix of 'El' itself, another time perhaps) Disregard this statement, my apologies, Martian has defined the meaning in another thread. Very well I may add.
Hi Paul,
You said:
Quote In some senses they are equal, in some they are not. By affirming this I am conforming to scripture.
To me, equality is equality. If Jesus is God Almighty, he is not just equal in “some senses”.You said:
Quote The Father is greater in the sense that the president is greater than the vice president. He has a higher rank/position/station but He is not greater in His being, Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 2:9 make this plain. It's important you understand this distinction Mike. You say that all three are equal, but one “outranks” another? Does that really make sense to you? And let's look at the Scriptures you mention.
Heb 1:3 says,
Quote 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. To me, this says:
1. The Son radiates the glory of his God, just as all of God's creations do.
2. A representation is not the original.
3. Jesus' word is powerful because he speaks not of his own initiative, but God's words.
4. He is now sitting at the right hand of his God, not a position of equality.Phil 2:6 says,
Quote 6Who, being in very form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,1. Jesus was a spirit creature before coming as a man.
2. Jesus didn't consider himself equal to God.Col 2:9 says,
Quote 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 1. The fullness of God (a being who is not Christ) dwells in Christ ( a being who is not God)
You are undecided as to whether or not Paul wrote Hebrews. To me, he seems the most sensible choice, especially considering the way Timothy is talked about toward the end. But we agree that Paul wrote Phillipians and Colossians. And wasn't it Paul who wrote the following Scriptures?
Quote Romans 3:30 NIV
since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.Ephesians 4:6 NIV
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.1 Timothy 2:5 NIV
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,I don't understand how anyone can read these Scriptures and still be blind to the fact that only the Father is God, and Jesus is someone besides God. So even if at the outset, you like the “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” translation of Phil 2:6, after reading what else the author wrote, you would have to be dishonest with yourself to insist that translation is what Paul meant to convey.
You said:
Quote These comments of mine would not surprise you if you knew the doctrine as well as you should. You continue to demonstrate to me (and others) that you do not understand the doctrine of the trinity very well at all. Let's see how the inventers of the doctine put it:
Quote “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia That pretty much sounds like my understanding of it – the one I posted for you earlier. Yet you say I don't understand the doctrine. Well how could I? No one else seems to either.
Quote The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” Quote Monsignor Eugene Clark said: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Quote Cardinal John O’Connor stated: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Quote And Pope John Paul II spoke of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.” Quote A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” You said:
Quote Go and study it, if you still think it's implausible at least you have an educated opinion.
Do you give me that much credit? Can I understand what even the inventers and experts cannot?You said:
Quote Let’s take this back one step. Tell me something Mike, do you acknowledge that Psalm 102:25 was writ
ten in reference to the Most High God?“ In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” (Ps 102:25, LXX, Brenton)
Yes. But does that mean that Jesus is now God? No. Now your turn. Does Heb 1:5 apply something originally said of Solomon to Jesus? Does that mean that Jesus is now actually Solomon?
You said:
Quote I did not admit an exception, I wrote “without exception”, which of course means the opposite.
But then you immediately paste the quote where you admitted the exception:Quote I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son. After a bunch of stuff I've already answered clearly to, you said:
Quote If this still isn’t clear enough for you let me know and I’ll go through your quoted passages one at a time. Please do. Start with the ones I posted today. One by one, explain how Paul could have wrote these and still thought Jesus was God Almighty.
You said:
Quote Your bolded and CAPPED “answer” was not in reality an answer at all but an excuse not to. BTW, I'm still waiting on your answer. You still haven't given me one. In what sense is the Son “LORD” to the Father?
Jehovah can call Jesus Lord, because he is Lord. And Jehovah should know, He is the One that set him up as Lord. Clear enough yet? Not God, not YHVH, but Lord.
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
