- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,08:41) Hi PD This is really hilarious and totally ridiculous.
Let me see if I understand your analogy.
You say God does not have a gender so to refer to God as “it” is scriptural.
How about this, My Son is a male.
So if I say “[It is my son] that avengeth me… “
Then that means my son is an [it]?
You quote…
Quote (Paladin @ June 01 2009,16:08) “IT” is God
Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.Really the way it should read by your rule is…
Phil 2:13 For it is [THE IT] which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Oh how Amazing it is and to what degree some will go to preach their agenda.
WJ
Oh not so my friend. I did not say God does not have gender. In fact it was MY post that shows God revealing that he is “eesh;” angels are eesh; men are eesh; male animals are eesh; females are eeshee; female animals are eeshee; so to say God does not have gender makes it hard to understand all those references to “He” that reference God.Women are “eeshee” because they were taken out of “eesh.”
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called “eeshee” [Woman], because she was taken out of “eesh” [Man].
bodhitharta said:
Quote God is not a Male or Female, He is not physical, we say “He” as a literary device not as a biological description. The Bible said that God made man in His image Male and Female. So the fact is that Mankind is composed of two types of men, Males who have no womb and woman or a wombed Man.
Man just like Manna came from God but God is not and cannot be what we would call a Male.
I never said that God has gender. I said that He is personal.
thinker
Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,10:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,08:41) Hi PD This is really hilarious and totally ridiculous.
Let me see if I understand your analogy.
You say God does not have a gender so to refer to God as “it” is scriptural.
How about this, My Son is a male.
So if I say “[It is my son] that avengeth me… “
Then that means my son is an [it]?
You quote…
Quote (Paladin @ June 01 2009,16:08) “IT” is God
Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.Really the way it should read by your rule is…
Phil 2:13 For it is [THE IT] which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Oh how Amazing it is and to what degree some will go to preach their agenda.
WJ
Oh not so my friend. I did not say God does not have gender. In fact it was MY post that shows God revealing that he is “eesh;” angels are eesh; men are eesh; male animals are eesh; females are eeshee; female animals are eeshee; so to say God does not have gender makes it hard to understand all those references to “He” that reference God.Women are “eeshee” because they were taken out of “eesh.”
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called “eeshee” [Woman], because she was taken out of “eesh” [Man].
PdGod is not a Man nor is he a son of Man. “He” is a literary device and nothing more.
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
Hosea 11:9 (King James Version)9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.
Paladin said:
Quote Two anti-trinitarians who support my understanding are John and Jesus. If Jesus believed God was impersonal then why did He call God His “Father”? And why would He pray to an “it”? I will discuss Monotheism with you on the premise that we both are speaking about a personal God. Otherwise I am not interested and this will be my last word to you on this subject. Your idea that God is impersonal is not Biblical Theism at all. You're just another kook that thinks he is educated.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2009,11:07) Hi TT,
So God is the Father and God of Jesus?
That clears up the trinity misconception.
Nick,Here we have Paladin and bd saying things that God is an “it” and a “literary device” and you let them slide? God is not “father” to Jesus in the sense you think.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 02 2009,11:49) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2009,11:07) Hi TT,
So God is the Father and God of Jesus?
That clears up the trinity misconception.
Nick,Here we have Paladin and bd saying things that God is an “it” and a “literary device” and you let them slide? God is not “father” to Jesus in the sense you think.
thinker
I didn't say God was an it I said that God was beyond gender.Father means Originator, Creator, The former of forms.
God is not a Father in the sense that He physically begets children, he didn't have sex with Mary.
That is why in the Quran it clarifies this point because Many had made Mary “The Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven” but Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ.
Jesus can only be said to have been begotten through the Word of God. Jesus was created by the command of God. God said “be” and he was conceived.
bodhitharta said:
Quote I didn't say God was an it I said that God was beyond gender. bd,
Thanks for clarifying this. You gave the impression you were denying the personality of God like Paladin. Why did you say “literary device” after I clarified that “he” simply means that God is a person? Paladin is a nut case. God is love and an “it” does not love. Anyway, Paladin's errors are far more serious than anyone's on ths board and Nick is giving him a free ride unchallenged. Paladin wants to discuss Monotheism. But in biblical Monotheism God is a person.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 02 2009,11:49) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2009,11:07) Hi TT,
So God is the Father and God of Jesus?
That clears up the trinity misconception.
Nick,Here we have Paladin and bd saying things that God is an “it” and a “literary device” and you let them slide? God is not “father” to Jesus in the sense you think.
thinker
Hi TT,
The trinity deceit costs far more souls.Folk do not know who God is, who to worship and who to pray to.
Hi TT,
So long as you know Jesus is the Son of God and he told us that God is the Father you may see the light.Nick said:
Quote The trinity deceit costs far more souls. Folk do not know who God is, who to worship and who to pray to.
Nick,
That's ridiculous Nick. Trinitarians go to church and are a community. But this site openly says, “We do not go to church. We are the church.” Which is more destructive to souls. Trinitarian community or this site's isolationism?Jesus said that the Father is worshipped through the worship of Christ. God commanded that Jesus be worshipped (Heb. 1:6).
thinker
Hi TT,
Is fellowship with deception of eternal value?
To fellowship with the Father and the Son abide in the Word.[2Jn9]Quote (thethinker @ June 02 2009,20:18) bodhitharta said: Quote I didn't say God was an it I said that God was beyond gender. bd,
Thanks for clarifying this. You gave the impression you were denying the personality of God like Paladin. Why did you say “literary device” after I clarified that “he” simply means that God is a person? Paladin is a nut case. God is love and an “it” does not love. Anyway, Paladin's errors are far more serious than anyone's on ths board and Nick is giving him a free ride unchallenged. Paladin wants to discuss Monotheism. But in biblical Monotheism God is a person.thinker
Love is a “this” not an “it.”2 John 1:6 And THIS is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
All those who love Christ are “IT.”
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he “IT” is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
The problem you are having, is divorcing yourself from all those doctrines of men that make claims based on pronouns, that have no reality in the grammar of the Greek testament.
They are arguing from the standpoint of a translation, not from scripture. I am simply showing how rediculous it all is.
But I am not changing anything in scripture, just direct quotes with all the little pronouns in their correct place. Also showing how little those theologians are who do not take all the scriptures into account.
Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.
If that is true, it must be true for every occasion of “pros ton” followed by accusative, such as Mark 11:7 wich most certainly is NOT a “close intimate relationship;” It is between Jesus and a colt, the foal of an ass. Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt “pros ton” to [accusative] Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.
Trinity arguments get even sillier than that, but trinitarians won't even consider that fact, as they cling to what they “clearly perceive” in reading scriptures, and commentaries, and books about the bible.
Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,05:35) Quote (thethinker @ June 02 2009,20:18) bodhitharta said: Quote I didn't say God was an it I said that God was beyond gender. bd,
Thanks for clarifying this. You gave the impression you were denying the personality of God like Paladin. Why did you say “literary device” after I clarified that “he” simply means that God is a person? Paladin is a nut case. God is love and an “it” does not love. Anyway, Paladin's errors are far more serious than anyone's on ths board and Nick is giving him a free ride unchallenged. Paladin wants to discuss Monotheism. But in biblical Monotheism God is a person.thinker
Love is a “this” not an “it.”2 John 1:6 And THIS is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
All those who love Christ are “IT.”
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he “IT” is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
The problem you are having, is divorcing yourself from all those doctrines of men that make claims based on pronouns, that have no reality in the grammar of the Greek testament.
They are arguing from the standpoint of a translation, not from scripture. I am simply showing how rediculous it all is.
But I am not changing anything in scripture, just direct quotes with all the little pronouns in their correct place. Also showing how little those theologians are who do not take all the scriptures into account.
Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.
If that is true, it must be true for every occasion of “pros ton” followed by accusative, such as Mark 11:7 wich most certainly is NOT a “close intimate relationship;” It is between Jesus and a colt, the foal of an ass. Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt “pros ton” to [accusative] Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.
Trinity arguments get even sillier than that, but trinitarians won't even consider that fact, as they cling to what they “clearly perceive” in reading scriptures, and commentaries, and books about the bible.
Hi PDQuote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,05:35) But I am not changing anything in scripture, just direct quotes with all the little pronouns in their correct place. Also showing how little those theologians are who do not take all the scriptures into account. Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.
So since you think you know more than the 100s or even thousands of Hebrew, Greek scholars, Theologians, and Commentators, then please at least tell us what credentials you have, or what Theological Degrees, Biblical Greek or Hebrew degrees do you have.Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks that he knows more than anyone else.
If you have no formal training or background in these matters than what gives you the right to change what the Translators or experts bring us? Most of them have dedicated their entire lives to bring us the scriptures and truth that we have?
Why should we believe you?
The truth is, when ever someone begins questioning the Translations and the Translators they are always someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about and who do not have any Degrees in Biblical Hebrew or Greek.
These apologists just bring us more of the same with variations of their false teachings while claiming that they are the ones speaking the truth and the Biblical experts are deceiving or do not know what they are talking about.
Some things never change!
WJ
WorshippingJesus said:
Quote So since you think you know more than the 100s or even thousands of Hebrew, Greek scholars, Theologians, and Commentators, then please at least tell us what credentials you have, or what Theological Degrees, Biblical Greek or Hebrew degrees do you have. Yeah pd…
Show us your credentials. I am still waiting for Gene to show his Greek credentials regarding His butcher job of Titus 2:13.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2009,21:02) Hi TT,
Is fellowship with deception of eternal value?
To fellowship with the Father and the Son abide in the Word.[2Jn9]
Then find a church that fellowships without deception. The Scripture says to “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together”. Isolationism is destructive to the soul.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 02 2009,20:18) bodhitharta said: Quote I didn't say God was an it I said that God was beyond gender. bd,
Thanks for clarifying this. You gave the impression you were denying the personality of God like Paladin. Why did you say “literary device” after I clarified that “he” simply means that God is a person? Paladin is a nut case. God is love and an “it” does not love. Anyway, Paladin's errors are far more serious than anyone's on ths board and Nick is giving him a free ride unchallenged. Paladin wants to discuss Monotheism. But in biblical Monotheism God is a person.thinker
This is what I meant by literary deviceUsage Note:
Traditionally the pronouns he, him, and his have been used as generic or gender-neutral singular pronouns, as in A novelist should write about what he knows best and No one seems to take any pride in his work anymore. Since the early 20th century, however, this usage has come under increasing criticism for reflecting and perpetuating gender stereotyping.·Defenders of the traditional usage have argued that the masculine pronouns he, his, and him can be used generically to refer to men and women. This analysis of the generic use of he is linguistically doubtful. If he were truly a gender-neutral form, we would expect that it could be used to refer to the members of any group containing both men and women. But in fact the English masculine form is an odd choice when it refers to a female member of such a group. There is something plainly disconcerting about sentences such as Each of the stars of As Good As It Gets won an Academy Award for his performance. In this case, the use of his forces the reader to envision a single male who stands as the representative member of the group, a picture that is at odds with the image that comes to mind when we picture the stars of As Good As It Gets. Thus he is not really a gender-neutral pronoun; rather, it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical convention; it also suggests a particular pattern of thought.·It is clear that many people now routinely construct their remarks to avoid generic he, usually using one of two strategies: changing to the plural, so they is used (which is often the easiest solution) or using compound and coordinate forms such as he/she or he or she (which can be cumbersome in sustained use). In some cases, the generic pronoun can simply be dropped or changed to an article with no change in meaning. The sentence A writer who draws on personal experience for material should not be surprised if reviewers seize on that fact is complete as it stands and requires no pronoun before the word material. The sentence Every student handed in his assignment is just as clear when written Every student handed in the assignment.·Not surprisingly, the opinion of the Usage Panel in such matters is mixed. While 37 percent actually prefer the generic his in the sentence A taxpayer who fails to disclose the source of _ income can be prosecuted under the new law, 46 percent prefer a coordinate form like his or her; 7 percent felt that no pronoun was needed in the sentence; 2 percent preferred an article, usually the; and another 2 percent overturned tradition by advocating the use of generic her, a strategy that brings the politics of language to the reader's notice. Thus a clear majority of the Panel prefers something other than his. The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive. See Usage Notes at each, every, neither, one, she, they.bodhitharts said:
Quote This is what I meant by literary device Usage Note:
Traditionally the pronouns he, him, and his have been used as generic or gender-neutral singular pronouns, as in A novelist should write about what he knows best and No one seems to take any pride in his work anymore. Since the early 20th century, however, this usage has come under increasing criticism for reflecting and perpetuating gender stereotyping.·Defenders of the traditional usage have argued that the masculine pronouns he, his, and him can be used generically to refer to men and women. This analysis of the generic use of he is linguistically doubtful. If he were truly a gender-neutral form, we would expect that it could be used to refer to the members of any group containing both men and women. But in fact the English masculine form is an odd choice when it refers to a female member of such a group. There is something plainly disconcerting about sentences such as Each of the stars of As Good As It Gets won an Academy Award for his performance. In this case, the use of his forces the reader to envision a single male who stands as the representative member of the group, a picture that is at odds with the image that comes to mind when we picture the stars of As Good As It Gets. Thus he is not really a gender-neutral pronoun; rather, it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical convention; it also suggests a particular pattern of thought.·It is clear that many people now routinely construct their remarks to avoid generic he, usually using one of two strategies: changing to the plural, so they is used (which is often the easiest solution) or using compound and coordinate forms such as he/she or he or she (which can be cumbersome in sustained use). In some cases, the generic pronoun can simply be dropped or changed to an article with no change in meaning. The sentence A writer who draws on personal experience for material should not be surprised if reviewers seize on that fact is complete as it stands and requires no pronoun before the word material. The sentence Every student handed in his assignment is just as clear when written Every student handed in the assignment.·Not surprisingly, the opinion of the Usage Panel in such matters is mixed. While 37 percent actually prefer the generic his in the sentence A taxpayer who fails to disclose the source of _ income can be prosecuted under the new law, 46 percent prefer a coordinate form like his or her; 7 percent felt that no pronoun was needed in the sentence; 2 percent preferred an article, usually the; and another 2 percent overturned tradition by advocating the use of generic her, a strategy that brings the politics of language to the reader's notice. Thus a clear majority of the Panel prefers something other than his. The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive. See Usage Notes at each, every, neither, one, she, they.So you maintain your notion that God is not a personal being? Right?
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 03 2009,04:22) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2009,21:02) Hi TT,
Is fellowship with deception of eternal value?
To fellowship with the Father and the Son abide in the Word.[2Jn9]
Then find a church that fellowships without deception. The Scripture says to “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together”. Isolationism is destructive to the soul.thinker
Hi TT,
So fellowshiping with deception is quite acceptable to you.
Does your jealous God mind?The way is narrow and few choose it,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
