- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote I’m stunned. You wrote something to me that vaguely resembled a friendly remark….. 
We are on starkly different sides of a debate. As a result, I have probably been less than “friendly” in my tone towards you in the past. If you have found that to be the case, then I apologize. Earnest debate does not have to be acrimonious.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote I simply pointed out that a contra-distinction in ontology was not explicitly or implicitly expressed in the verse you quoted to me. Which is true, and I don't see how your reasoning challenges this. The writer certainly could have applied “simple grammar” to make a distinction of this nature, if that was his intention. Obviously it wasn’t. There is no way to pursue this any further without getting riduculously semantic. It's simply a matter of perspective. You are looking at this passage and noting that there is no explicit or implicit denounciation of the trinity doctrine. I am looking at this passage and noting that the author's implicit understanding of who “God” and Yashua are makes the trinity doctrine seem very awkward in this passage, and therefore untenable as one of the author's presuppositions.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote I would argue the opposite is true. Firstly, the NT writers conveyed in very explicit and unambiguous language that both the the persons of Yahshua and His Father ARE in fact ‘God’. Great. We have a reasonable point of contention. Let's start with Paul. Where does he “in very explicit and unambiguous language” call Yashua “God”?
(For the record, Titus 2:13 is disputed, even in Trinitarian circles. Also, Hebrews 1:8, whether or not Paul is the author of the book, is not Paul speaking. Understanding how and why he quotes this verse is an entire post in itself.)
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote The NT authors obviously needed to employ some literary mechanism to differentiate the individual persons of the Father and Son, or their statements would have been grossly confusing to their readers. If 'theos' was used for each within the same sentence, how would readers have possibly determined which person was being referred to, and when? Then why didn't Paul just use the phrases “God the Father” and “God the Son” like a well studied trinitarian would? (See below for more on this.)
Quote Kurios was usually used to denote Yahshua and theos was usually used to denote the Father. But each term wasn't exclusively applied to only one of these persons, and I see no reason to assign a weaker connotation to 'Lord'. Luke, for instance, showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of this term relative to Jesus and God the Father. And, notably, 'kurios' was used in all the NT quotations of Deut 6:4-5 (Matt 22:37, Mk 12:29-30, Lk 10:27), where the it was directly substituted for the tetragamatron – so on that evidence alone I would find it difficult to accept that 'kurios' is a weaker appellative than 'theos'. If calling someone “kurios” is equivalent to calling someone “theos”, then you need to expand your trinity to include these people:
Saul, (1 Samuel 24:8),
David, (1 Samuel 25:24),
the angel who visited Cornelius, (Acts 10:4),
etc..As you may know, during the first century, it was common practice not to utter the actual name of [YHWH] but to instead use the word “lord” as a substitution for His name. To this day, we see this practice in our bibles, making it seem like YHWH's name is “the LORD”. In actual fact, “lord” is just a title that denotes authority. Calling Yashua “lord” is no different than David's application of the term to Saul:
1 Samuel 24:8
“David also arose afterward, went out of the cave, and called out to Saul, saying, 'My lord the king!' And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed down.”(It's also interesting to note that David, in this passage, “bowed down” to Saul, YHWH's annointed, [1 Samuel 24:10].)
When YHWH is called “the LORD” in the NT, it is simply a continuation of the practice of not “uttering” his name. Whether the NT originally had YHWH's name in it or not is a topic for another day.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote I wonder if you can categorically prove to me that every every time theos is used it never refers to an “entity composed of more than one person”? I am seeing a lot of these emphatic statements lately, but where is the proof? You are asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible. It also means that my claim is unsubstantiated, so I will withdraw it and replace it with this:
I have never come across a use of the term “God” in the NT that could not be understood in any other way except as a reference to a three person being. Have you?
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote Also regarding your point about the redundancy of trinitarians formulating extra-biblical terminology to define what you perceive to be unbiblical concepts, I personally don't have a problem with this practice. The word 'grandfather' is not found anywhere in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean we can’t invoke a title to cover the biblical-demonstrated concept of grandfatherlyness (I think I made up a new word then!). Abraham was, after all, the 'grandfather' of Jacob. If Yahshua is called “God the Son” it's because the Bible teaches us that He is both a ‘Son’ and 'God' – therefore this description is not extra-biblical in nature. This is another point which will quickly turn into a semantic quibble if pursued, so I will drop this as well. But before I do –
– I will say this:“Grandfather” is not a word that was in use in the time that scripture was written. All of the words in the phrase “God the Son” were used repeatedly throughout scripture. They just never appeared in the order that Trinitarians find indispensible. It is a glaring omission of the “inspired” texts if the trinity doctrine was intended all along.
Quote I&#
39;m writing a post to Artizan007 expanding on my statements to you. Hopefully I can better explain to you why I believe what I do. If not, oh well…..I'll keep my out for it and respond if it seems appropriate and if my schedule permits. (It sounds like it will be a lengthy post.) Hopefully, I won't miss it. Where are you going to post it?
Hi WIT,
Of course it matters little who actually penned Hebrews as the real writer was the Spirit of God as is every word written in scripture [2 Peter 1.20f]. The fact that none know the author of Job does not reduce it's precious content either does it?Hi WIT,
Did the earlier versions of the NT have the name of God in them? Perhaps there is a better thread to put it under?Hi WIT, sorry it's taken me a while to respond, hard to find the time to sit down, collect and annotate my thoughts atm. I'm also working on several posts concurrently, which doesn't help. Hope this finds you well.
Quote I’m stunned. You wrote something to me that vaguely resembled a friendly remark….. We are on starkly different sides of a debate. As a result, I have probably been less than “friendly” in my tone towards you in the past. If you have found that to be the case, then I apologize. Earnest debate does not have to be acrimonious.
He he. Your ‘qualified’ apology is accepted. I don’t take it to heart WIT. I’ve been around Christian MBs long enough to know that pleasantness and niceties are the exception – not the rule. Ironic, isn’t it. I agree that animosity doesn’t need to prevail in these types of debates. I find myself becoming increasingly sensitive to the bad witness of acrimonious argument. I recently read one thread (another so called ‘Christian-based’ site) where intellectual one-upmanship, point scoring, nasty personal attacks and belittling was thick on the ground – what a disgrace. If any unsaved searcher happened upon that particular thread it would have reaffirmed the ‘hypocrisy’ stereotype firmly.Quote ]I simply pointed out that a contra-distinction in ontology was not explicitly or implicitly expressed in the verse you quoted to me. Which is true, and I don't see how your reasoning challenges this. The writer certainly could have applied “simple grammar” to make a distinction of this nature, if that was his intention. Obviously it wasn’t. There is no way to pursue this any further without getting riduculously semantic. It's simply a matter of perspective. You are looking at this passage and noting that there is no explicit or implicit denounciation of the trinity doctrine. I am looking at this passage and noting that the author's implicit understanding of who “God” and Yashua are makes the trinity doctrine seem very awkward in this passage, and therefore untenable as one of the author's presuppositions.
If the verse challenges a plurality within unity concept of God, I don’t see how. The two persons of the Father and Son are discretely identified – yes. This would soundly refute the modalist position, but not the binatarian or trinitarian one – they acknowledge, and in fact affirm, the this distinction. There is not make even a hint of a intended conveyence of ontological disparity in 1 Tim 6:13.With regard to the your opinion on the author’s ”implicit understanding of who God and Yahshua are”, I have already addressed this in writing:
”Kurios was usually used to denote Yahshua and theos was usually used to denote the Father. But each term wasn't exclusively applied to only one of these persons, and I see no reason to assign a weaker connotation to 'Lord'. Luke, for instance, showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of this term relative to Jesus and God the Father. And, notably, 'kurios' was used in all the NT quotations of Deut 6:4-5 (Matt 22:37, Mk 12:29-30, Lk 10:27), where the it was directly substituted for the tetragamatron – so on that evidence alone I would find it difficult to accept that 'kurios' is a weaker appellative than 'theos'”
Quote I would argue the opposite is true. Firstly, the NT writers conveyed in very explicit and unambiguous language that both the (sic) persons of Yahshua and His Father ARE in fact ‘God’. Great. We have a reasonable point of contention. Let's start with Paul. Where does he “in very explicit and unambiguous language” call Yashua “God”?
(For the record, Titus 2:13 is disputed, even in Trinitarian circles. Also, Hebrews 1:8, whether or not Paul is the author of the book, is not Paul speaking. Understanding how and why he quotes this verse is an entire post in itself.)
He he, I can see where this is going…..I was actually trying to convey that more than one NT writer made these types of emphatic statements of deity – but that was evidently unclear due to my sloppy language. I will happily concede that explicit statement of deity are not found in every book of the NT. John confers a very elevated Christology, Mark a low one. Some letters, like James for instance, are more themed on practical aspects the Christian faith, and ignore issues pertaining to Christ's nature and identity completely.I have gone on record with this assertion:
Quote Pg 24 of this thread:
If I call Him:“God” – John 1:1
“My God” – John 20:28
“O God” – Heb 1:8 (definitive article used)
“Mighty God” – Isaiah 9:6
“Great God” – Titus 2:13
“First and Last” – Revelation 1:17, 2:8….
“Alpha and Omega” – Revelation 22:13
“I AM” – John 8:24, 28 & 58
“The YHWH or Righteousness” – Jeremiah 23:6
“Lord of Lords and King of Kings” – Revelation 19:16
“Most High” – Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27.
or even “YHWH” or “YHWH of Hosts” (Zech 14)…I am being entirely scriptural. These are all appellatives assigned directly to Jesus in the Bible.
I stand by what I wrote here.Quote The NT authors obviously needed to employ some literary mechanism to differentiate the individual persons of the Father and Son, or their statements would have been grossly confusing to their readers. If 'theos' was used for each within the same sentence, how would readers have possibly determined which person was being referred to, and when? [Then why didn't Paul just use the phrases “God the Father” and “God the Son” like a well studied trinitarian would? (See below for more on this.)
Does the absence of the phrase “God the eternal being” disprove the fact that God is a ‘being’ who is ‘eternal’. I don’t see this as a legitimate argument WIT. The absence of a phrase used to encapsulate a biblical concept does not invalidate the concept itself…Quote Kurios was usually used to denote Yahshua and theos was usually used to denote the Father. But each term wasn't exclusively applied to only one of these persons, and I see no reason to assign a weaker connotation to 'Lord'. Luke, for instance, showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of this term relative to Jesus and God the Father. And, notably, 'kurios' was used in all the NT quotations of Deut 6:4-5 (Matt 22:37, Mk 12:29-30, Lk 10:27), where the it was directly substituted for the tetragamatron – so on that evidence alone I wo
uld find it difficult to accept that 'kurios' is a weaker appellative than 'theos'.If calling someone “kurios” is equivalent to calling someone “theos”, then you need to expand your trinity to include these people:
Saul, (1 Samuel 24:8),
David, (1 Samuel 25:24),
the angel who visited Cornelius, (Acts 10:4),
etc..As you may know, during the first century, it was common practice not to utter the actual name of [YHWH] but to instead use the word “lord” as a substitution for His name. To this day, we see this practice in our bibles, making it seem like YHWH's name is “the LORD”. In actual fact, “lord” is just a title that denotes authority. Calling Yashua “lord” is no different than David's application of the term to Saul:
1 Samuel 24:8
“David also arose afterward, went out of the cave, and called out to Saul, saying, 'My lord the king!' And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed down.”(It's also interesting to note that David, in this passage, “bowed down” to Saul, YHWH's annointed, [1 Samuel 24:10].)
When YHWH is called “the LORD” in the NT, it is simply a continuation of the practice of not “uttering” his name. Whether the NT originally had YHWH's name in it or not is a topic for another day.
WIT, I didn’t state or even imply that “kurios’ has an extremely narrow application and always designates deity, did I? Yes, its patently obvious that this word has a diversity of meanings. If you read what I wrote carefully you will see my point was that when ‘kurios’ was used to designate Yahshua in NT scriptures, I see no reason to interpret it as denoting non-deity. Neither do I have a good reason to think the Paul was connoting or denoting non-deity by using the name “Jesus Christ” in 1 Tim 6:16.Quote I wonder if you can categorically prove to me that every every time theos is used it never refers to an “entity composed of more than one person”? I am seeing a lot of these emphatic statements lately, but where is the proof? You are asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible. It also means that my claim is unsubstantiated, so I will withdraw it and replace it with this:
I have never come across a use of the term “God” in the NT that could not be understood in any other way except as a reference to a three person being. Have you?
He he…I like the way you turn the question back on me like that. You’re very good at that WIT, maybe you're an attorney.
Yes I do accept that it wasn’t reasonable to ask you to prove a negative. I suppose I could re-phrase it to the positive, but you and I both know that it’s not possible to make absolutely dogmatic assertions about the true meaning of the references to “God” where it’s not abundantly clear whether Yahshua or The Father is the subject. There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly states that God is a uni-personal or a multi-personal being, so it’s not possible to categorically prove it one way or the other, from the verses alone. I read into them compound unity, based on the scriptural evidence I think attests to this. While you read into them absolute singularity, based on the evidence you feel proves monarchial monotheism.
Quote Also regarding your point about the redundancy of trinitarians formulating extra-biblical terminology to define what you perceive to be unbiblical concepts, I personally don't have a problem with this practice. The word 'grandfather' is not found anywhere in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean we can’t invoke a title to cover the biblical-demonstrated concept of grandfatherlyness (I think I made up a new word then!). Abraham was, after all, the 'grandfather' of Jacob. If Yahshua is called “God the Son” it's because the Bible teaches us that He is both a ‘Son’ and 'God' – therefore this description is not extra-biblical in nature. This is another point which will quickly turn into a semantic quibble if pursued, so I will drop this as well. But before I do –
– I will say this:“Grandfather” is not a word that was in use in the time that scripture was written. All of the words in the phrase “God the Son” were used repeatedly throughout scripture. They just never appeared in the order that Trinitarians find indispensible. It is a glaring omission of the “inspired” texts if the trinity doctrine was intended all along. .
I don’t find it “indispensable”. I almost never use it in identifying Yahshua. Do you find the term ‘anti-trinitarianism’ or ‘pre-existence’ indispensable when demonstrating the basis for your belief in those areas? Either way, what difference would it make?Quote I'm writing a post to Artizan007 expanding on my statements to you. Hopefully I can better explain to you why I believe what I do. If not, oh well….. I'll keep my out for it and respond if it seems appropriate and if my schedule permits. (It sounds like it will be a lengthy post.) Hopefully, I won't miss it. Where are you going to post it?
If I was the cynical type I would understand “respond if it seems appropriate” to mean ‘respond to the perceived weakest point(s) and ignore all the rest’. But I’m not quite that cynical….yet.I’ll respond to his numerous questions in the Son of God thread. Given that he’s given me about 15 well-framed questions, I’ll have to do it piecemeal – otherwise it would be a VERY long post. [BTW, thanks a lot Artizan007! – in writing your 20 minute post you’ve assigned me about 25hrs work – not that I don’t enjoy it though….]
Take care
Hi Is 1 18,
Your work ethic is undenied.
But if it takes twenty hours to answer questions does that not ask a few questions of it's own? If the answers you give are directly from scripture then twenty minutes with a concordance will give you all those answers already written for you. And those answers are the only ones we are interested in.The derivations and speculations and intellectual thoughts of men do not add to the substance of the Word of God, which is truth. If it is not of simplicity is it of the truth?
Ps 19.7
” The Law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul. the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the SIMPLE.The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;the commandment of the Lord is pure,enlightening the eyes”
Ps 116.6
“The Lord preserves the SIMPLE;I was brought low and He saved me”
Ps 119.129
“Your testimonies are wonderful;therefore my soul observes them. The unfolding of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the SIMPLE”
Pr 3.5
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways make your paths strainght. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your body and refreshment to your bones”
Pr 7.1f
” My son keep My words and treasure My commandments within you….that they may keep you from an adulteress, from the foreigner who flatters with her words”
2Cor 11.3f
“For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceved Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the SIMPLICITY and puruty of devotion to Christ”EDITED FOR CLARITY:
Hi WIT, sorry it's taken me a while to respond, hard to find the time to sit down, collect and annotate my thoughts atm. I'm also working on several posts concurrently, which doesn't help. Hope this finds you well.
Quote I’m stunned. You wrote something to me that vaguely resembled a friendly remark….. We are on starkly different sides of a debate. As a result, I have probably been less than “friendly” in my tone towards you in the past. If you have found that to be the case, then I apologize. Earnest debate does not have to be acrimonious.
He he. Your ‘qualified’ apology is accepted. I don’t take it to heart WIT. I’ve been around Christian MBs long enough to know that pleasantness and niceties are the exception – not the rule. Ironic, isn’t it. I agree that animosity doesn’t need to prevail in these types of debates. I find myself becoming increasingly sensitive to the bad witness of acrimonious argument. I recently read one thread (another so called ‘Christian-based’ site) where intellectual one-upmanship, point scoring, nasty personal attacks and belittling was thick on the ground – what a disgrace. If any unsaved searcher happened upon that particular thread it would have reaffirmed the ‘hypocrisy’ stereotype firmly.Quote ]I simply pointed out that a contra-distinction in ontology was not explicitly or implicitly expressed in the verse you quoted to me. Which is true, and I don't see how your reasoning challenges this. The writer certainly could have applied “simple grammar” to make a distinction of this nature, if that was his intention. Obviously it wasn’t. There is no way to pursue this any further without getting riduculously semantic. It's simply a matter of perspective. You are looking at this passage and noting that there is no explicit or implicit denounciation of the trinity doctrine. I am looking at this passage and noting that the author's implicit understanding of who “God” and Yashua are makes the trinity doctrine seem very awkward in this passage, and therefore untenable as one of the author's presuppositions.
If the verse challenges a plurality within unity concept of God, I don’t see how. The two persons of the Father and Son are discretely identified – yes. This would soundly refute the modalist position, but not the binatarian or trinitarian one – they acknowledge, and in fact affirm, this distinction. There is not make even a hint of an intended conveyance of ontological disparity in 1 Tim 6:13.With regard to the your opinion on the author’s ”implicit understanding of who God and Yahshua are”, I have already addressed this in writing:
”Kurios was usually used to denote Yahshua and theos was usually used to denote the Father. But each term wasn't exclusively applied to only one of these persons, and I see no reason to assign a weaker connotation to 'Lord'. Luke, for instance, showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of this term relative to Jesus and God the Father. And, notably, 'kurios' was used in all the NT quotations of Deut 6:4-5 (Matt 22:37, Mk 12:29-30, Lk 10:27), where the it was directly substituted for the tetragamatron – so on that evidence alone I would find it difficult to accept that 'kurios' is a weaker appellative than 'theos'”
Quote I would argue the opposite is true. Firstly, the NT writers conveyed in very explicit and unambiguous language that both the (sic) persons of Yahshua and His Father ARE in fact ‘God’. Great. We have a reasonable point of contention. Let's start with Paul. Where does he “in very explicit and unambiguous language” call Yashua “God”?
(For the record, Titus 2:13 is disputed, even in Trinitarian circles. Also, Hebrews 1:8, whether or not Paul is the author of the book, is not Paul speaking. Understanding how and why he quotes this verse is an entire post in itself.)
He he, I can see where this is going…..I was actually trying to convey that more than one NT writer made these types of emphatic statements of deity – but that was evidently unclear due to my sloppy language. I will happily concede that explicit statement of deity are not found in every book of the NT. John confers a very elevated Christology, Mark a low one. Some letters, like James for instance, are more themed on practical aspects the Christian faith, and basically ignore issues pertaining to Christ's nature and identity completely.I have gone on record with this assertion:
Quote Pg 24 of this thread:
If I call Him:“God” – John 1:1
“My God” – John 20:28
“O God” – Heb 1:8 (definitive article used)
“Mighty God” – Isaiah 9:6
“Great God” – Titus 2:13
“First and Last” – Revelation 1:17, 2:8….
“Alpha and Omega” – Revelation 22:13
“I AM” – John 8:24, 28 & 58
“The YHWH or Righteousness” – Jeremiah 23:6
“Lord of Lords and King of Kings” – Revelation 19:16
“Most High” – Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27.
or even “YHWH” or “YHWH of Hosts” (Zech 14)…I am being entirely scriptural. These are all appellatives assigned directly to Jesus in the Bible.
I stand by what I wrote here.Quote The NT authors obviously needed to employ some literary mechanism to differentiate the individual persons of the Father and Son, or their statements would have been grossly confusing to their readers. If 'theos' was used for each within the same sentence, how would readers have possibly determined which person was being referred to, and when? [Then why didn't Paul just use the phrases “God the Father” and “God the Son” like a well studied trinitarian would? (See below for more on this.)
Does the absence of the phrase “God the eternal being” disprove the fact that God is a ‘being’ who is ‘eternal’. I don’t see this as a legitimate argument WIT. The absence of a phrase used to encapsulate a biblical concept does not invalidate the concept itself…Quote Kurios was usually used to denote Yahshua and theos was usually used to denote the Father. But each term wasn't exclusively applied to only one of these persons, and I see no reason to assign a weaker connotation to 'Lord'. Luke, for instance, showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of this term relative to Jesus and God the Father. And, notably, 'kurios' was used in all the NT quotations of Deut 6:4-5 (Matt 22:37, Mk 12:29-30, Lk 10:27), where the it was directly substituted for th
e tetragamatron – so on that evidence alone I would find it difficult to accept that 'kurios' is a weaker appellative than 'theos'.If calling someone “kurios” is equivalent to calling someone “theos”, then you need to expand your trinity to include these people:
Saul, (1 Samuel 24:8),
David, (1 Samuel 25:24),
the angel who visited Cornelius, (Acts 10:4),
etc..As you may know, during the first century, it was common practice not to utter the actual name of [YHWH] but to instead use the word “lord” as a substitution for His name. To this day, we see this practice in our bibles, making it seem like YHWH's name is “the LORD”. In actual fact, “lord” is just a title that denotes authority. Calling Yashua “lord” is no different than David's application of the term to Saul:
1 Samuel 24:8
“David also arose afterward, went out of the cave, and called out to Saul, saying, 'My lord the king!' And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed down.”(It's also interesting to note that David, in this passage, “bowed down” to Saul, YHWH's annointed, [1 Samuel 24:10].)
When YHWH is called “the LORD” in the NT, it is simply a continuation of the practice of not “uttering” his name. Whether the NT originally had YHWH's name in it or not is a topic for another day.
WIT, I didn’t state or even imply that “kurios’ has an extremely narrow application and always designates deity, did I? Yes, its patently obvious that this word has a diversity of meanings. If you read what I wrote carefully you will see my point was that when ‘kurios’ was used to designate Yahshua in NT scriptures, I see no reason to interpret it as denoting non-deity. Neither do I have a good reason to think the Paul was connoting or denoting non-deity by using the name “Jesus Christ” in 1 Tim 6:13.Quote I wonder if you can categorically prove to me that every every time theos is used it never refers to an “entity composed of more than one person”? I am seeing a lot of these emphatic statements lately, but where is the proof? You are asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible. It also means that my claim is unsubstantiated, so I will withdraw it and replace it with this:
I have never come across a use of the term “God” in the NT that could not be understood in any other way except as a reference to a three person being. Have you?
He he…I like the way you turn the question back on me like that. You’re very good at that WIT, you must be an attorney or something.Yes I do accept that it wasn’t reasonable to ask you to prove a negative. I suppose I could re-phrase it to the positive, but you and I both know that it’s not possible to make absolutely dogmatic assertions about the true meaning of the references to the “One God” where it’s not abundantly clear whether Yahshua or The Father is the subject. There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly states that God is a uni-personal or a multi-personal being, so it’s not possible to categorically prove it one way or the other, from the verses alone. I read into them compound unity, based on the scriptural evidence I think attests to this. While you read into them absolute singularity, based on the evidence you feel proves monarchial monotheism.
Quote Also regarding your point about the redundancy of trinitarians formulating extra-biblical terminology to define what you perceive to be unbiblical concepts, I personally don't have a problem with this practice. The word 'grandfather' is not found anywhere in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean we can’t invoke a title to cover the biblical-demonstrated concept of grandfatherlyness (I think I made up a new word then!). Abraham was, after all, the 'grandfather' of Jacob. If Yahshua is called “God the Son” it's because the Bible teaches us that He is both a ‘Son’ and 'God' – therefore this description is not extra-biblical in nature. This is another point which will quickly turn into a semantic quibble if pursued, so I will drop this as well. But before I do –
– I will say this:“Grandfather” is not a word that was in use in the time that scripture was written. All of the words in the phrase “God the Son” were used repeatedly throughout scripture. They just never appeared in the order that Trinitarians find indispensible. It is a glaring omission of the “inspired” texts if the trinity doctrine was intended all along. .
I don’t find it “indispensable”. I almost never use it in identifying Yahshua. Do you find the term ‘anti-trinitarianism’ or ‘pre-existence’ indispensable when demonstrating the basis for your belief in those areas? Either way, what difference would it make? I’m sure we could find “glaring omissions” of a number of words or phrases that are almost universally used, by Christians, in reference to clearly-taught biblical concepts (omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence immediately come to mind). Does this challenge their validity?Quote I'm writing a post to Artizan007 expanding on my statements to you. Hopefully I can better explain to you why I believe what I do. If not, oh well….. I'll keep my out for it and respond if it seems appropriate and if my schedule permits. (It sounds like it will be a lengthy post.) Hopefully, I won't miss it. Where are you going to post it?
If I was the cynical type I would understand “respond if it seems appropriate” to mean ‘respond to the perceived weakest point(s) and ignore all the rest’. But I’m not quite that cynical….yet.I’ll respond to his numerous questions in the Son of God thread. Given that he’s given me about 15 well-framed questions, I’ll have to do it piecemeal – otherwise it would be a VERY long post. [BTW, thanks a lot Artizan007 – in writing your 20 minute post you’ve given me about 25hrs work! – not that I don’t enjoy it though….]
Take care
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2006,19:41) Hi Is 1 18,
Your work ethic is undenied.
But if it takes twnty hours to answer questions does that not ask a few questions of it's own? If the answrers you give are directly from scripture then twenty minutes with a concordance will give you all those answers already written for you. And those answers are the only ones we are interested in.
Some questions do take 20 minutes to answer, others much longer. For example if I asked you:1. I've searched the entire Bible and can't find any evidence attesting to a pr-incarnation begettal. Can you please tell me exactly how you reached your conclusion that The logos had a beginning 'in the beginning'?
or
2. I've checked my Bible and I can't find a single verse that tells me that Jesus is “a god”. Can you explain to me, in detail, how you reached this conclusion?
I would expect it woud take you a lot longer than 20 minutes to compose a reasonable, well constructed answer. BTW, it would be good to have a comprehensive answer to both of those questions – so I can better understand where you are coming from.
Quote The derivations and speculations and intellectual thoughts of men do not add to the substance of the Word of God, which is truth. If it is not of simplicity is it of the truth?
I have seen you offer derivations and speculations and intellectual thoughts, frequently in fact.Matthew 7:1-2
Blessings
Hi Is 1.18,
If you cannot find acceptable scriptural evidence for something then
It may be true but not written
It may be written and you cannot find it
You may have seen evidence but it is unacceptable to you
Or it may not be trueIf it is not written clearly in scripture you should not teach it-like trinity.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Therefore God (Jesus) THY God (Jehovah), hath anointed thee with ……
Jesus is the ONLY begotten of the Father and IS God. But His God Jehovah is greater than He.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Christ the head of man
man the head of woman
Jehovah the head of ChristI believe Christ IS the Son of God which makes Him God but not equal with the Father.
Quote (kenrch @ May 29 2006,02:53) Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Therefore God (Jesus) THY God (Jehovah), hath anointed thee with ……
Jesus is the ONLY begotten of the Father and IS God. But His God Jehovah is greater than He.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Christ the head of man
man the head of woman
Jehovah the head of ChristI believe Christ IS the Son of God which makes Him God but not equal with the Father.
Hmmm, interesting Kenrch. Can you tell me specifically what you understand “greater” to mean?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 29 2006,03:00) Hi Is 1.18,
Do you believe “the Word” in Jn.1 and 1 Jn.1 is Jesus Christ?
Do I believe that The Logos described in John 1:1-2, where the context is the timeless environment of 'the beginning', (in 1 John 1:1 the Logos of God is described as being “from the beginning') was a man with the Hebrew name Yahshua? No.Do I believe that the Logos existed in the form of God, emptied Himself, took on the form of a bond servant and became flesh as described in Phil 2:6-7 and John 1:14? Yes.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 29 2006,04:01) Quote (kenrch @ May 29 2006,02:53) Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Therefore God (Jesus) THY God (Jehovah), hath anointed thee with ……
Jesus is the ONLY begotten of the Father and IS God. But His God Jehovah is greater than He.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Christ the head of man
man the head of woman
Jehovah the head of ChristI believe Christ IS the Son of God which makes Him God but not equal with the Father.
Hmmm, interesting Kenrch. Can you tell me specifically what you understand “greater” to mean?
Sure it's called “honor your Father”.Hi Is 1:18, hope you're well.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 29 2006,02:06) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2006,19:41) Hi Is 1 18,
Your work ethic is undenied.
But if it takes twnty hours to answer questions does that not ask a few questions of it's own? If the answrers you give are directly from scripture then twenty minutes with a concordance will give you all those answers already written for you. And those answers are the only ones we are interested in.
Some questions do take 20 minutes to answer, others much longer. For example if I asked you:1. I've searched the entire Bible and can't find any evidence attesting to a pr-incarnation begettal. Can you please tell me exactly how you reached your conclusion that The logos had a beginning 'in the beginning'?
Sound reasoning, both of you!(I don't believe that Jesus existed at all before his birth in the gospels.)
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 29 2006,04:18) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 29 2006,03:00) Hi Is 1.18,
Do you believe “the Word” in Jn.1 and 1 Jn.1 is Jesus Christ?
Do I believe that The Logos described in John 1:1-2, where the context is the timeless environment of 'the beginning', (in 1 John 1:1 the Logos of God is described as being “from the beginning') was a man with the Hebrew name Yahshua? No.Do I believe that the Logos existed in the form of God, emptied Himself, took on the form of a bond servant and became flesh as described in Phil 2:6-7 and John 1:14? Yes.
Hi Is 1.18,
So the being in flesh is the Logos?
So the Logos was with God in the beginning?
So who came in the flesh according to scripture?
Does the name “Jesus Christ” only apply to the being in flesh?
The Son was sent and descended from heaven according to scripture?
If it was the only begotten Son, is this Son also the Logos?
Are these terms interchangeable?He he. Might take 20 minutes to demonstrate the scriptural basis for this belief, but a life time to defend it though. The prooftexts used to argue for pre-existence are very difficult to explain away IMHO.
Okay, thanks kenrch. So, for you, its merely function of position or authority, not a disparity in nature/essence/substance?
It's easy to ask questions, but takes more effort to answer them. How about you answer these two of mine…
1. I've searched the entire Bible and can't find any evidence attesting to a pre-incarnation begettal. Can you please tell me exactly how you reached your conclusion that The logos had a beginning 'in the beginning'?
or
2. I've checked my Bible and I can't find a single verse that tells me that Jesus is “a god”. Can you explain to me, in detail, how you reached the conclusion that He is one of these?
…and then I'll answer yours.
You only have two to answer, but I have seven. Sounds like a good deal for you….
Bllessings
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
