- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Oxy,
Three?
God is one.
He gives His Spirit
The Spirit proceeds from Him.
Jesus said these things but you are greater?Yes Oxy. God is one. There is one God the Father. Not one God the Father, Son, Spirit. The latter is an alien doctrine that the first century believers wouldn't recognise.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 18 2010,19:54) David, Once a teacher told me that to find out what something is, you must know what it is not.
do you agree with that statement. because im confused about that.
Sounds like the old: “Eliminate the impossible and whatever you have left, no matter how improbable, must be true” idea.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 18 2010,20:08) Quote (david @ June 18 2010,18:10) “Almighty” is most often associated with “God,” and the term “God Almighty” occurs frequently. Since Jehovah is specifically and without question called God a thousand times in scripture, the “burden of proof” clearly rests on anyone who wants to prove that the words “God Almighty” refers to anyone but Jehovah. Yet, somehow, Is 1:18 is trying to flip it around in some kind of Ad Ignorantiam burden of proof fallacy.
It's also interesting that this word is never applied to the holy spirit.
How do you know that El Shaddai is never applied to the Yeshua in the OT?How do you know that El Shaddai is never applied to the Holy Spirit in the OT?
Do you have any lexical proof for this or are you just letting a watchtower presupposition dictate how you understand the passages?
Paul, first, I checked. That's how I know. Not many people actually check every reference. Have you? I made it easy. I listed what I believe are all occurances.None of them apply to the holy spirit. And the only ones that anyone could ever claim apply to Jesus are found in Revelation, and you have to ignore a lot to make it appear so.
If you believe any of these scriptures in the OT are in reference to Jesus, why don't you just tell us which ones, because I can't see any.
In answer to your question, many of those scriptures specifically refer to “Jehovah” and have his name in the scripture itself. You can easily see this. Others if you check the context, have Jehovah's name in a verse before or after and it is just plain obvious that they are referring to “Jehovah.”
No such scripture exists where “Jesus” is specifically or in any sense, clearly, called “Almighty,” and especially so in the OT. Again, if such a scripture exists, why not just tell us which one. (I've listed them all.)
Again, the BURDEN OF PROOF clearly rests on your shoulders regarding this argument. Here is why:
1. “Almighty” is used with reference to “God,” or more specifically, the God of the Bible.
2. “Jehovah” is unquestionably and specifically called “God” 1000 times and about 6000 other times, he is called God, but not so specifically.
3. Therefore, we know and all agree that Jehovah is God, and since the Almighty refers to God, it is obvious that Jehovah is Almighty.
4. However, “Jesus” is never specifically or clearly called “Almighty.”So again I say, if in the OT, Jesus is called “Almighty” simply point it out. There are many many many places where we all agree that “Jehovah” is called Almighty. The burden rests with you.
Quote (david @ June 19 2010,11:20) The burden rests with you.
No David. It's your assertion, the burden of proof rests firmly on you.We've been through this before, remember? I asked you to show me from the contextual details of the Genesis El Shaddai passages that the appelative is explicitly applied to the Father of Yeshua. You declined. It wasn't surprising that you did as it's indeterminable who the writer is referencing.
If you have some new evidence, kindly bring it forward.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,11:32) Quote (david @ June 19 2010,11:20) The burden rests with you.
No David. It's your assertion, the burden of proof rests firmly on you.We've been through this before, remember? I asked you to show me from the contextual details of the Genesis El Shaddai passages that the appelative is explicitly applied to the Father of Yeshua. You declined. It wasn't surprising that you did as it's indeterminable who the writer is referencing.
If you have some new evidence, kindly bring it forward.
Hi David,I refused to play because it's a game one can't decisively win. But I offered Paul a game of my own. Prove from scripture that Jesus is the Son of Man. He has tried, but so far he can't. After refuting his last “proof” scripture as not proof at all, he said, “You are grasping at straws”.
Now he finally knows how the trinitarian “games” like this one he devised feel from the other side.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,13:36) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,11:32) Quote (david @ June 19 2010,11:20) The burden rests with you.
No David. It's your assertion, the burden of proof rests firmly on you.We've been through this before, remember? I asked you to show me from the contextual details of the Genesis El Shaddai passages that the appelative is explicitly applied to the Father of Yeshua. You declined. It wasn't surprising that you did as it's indeterminable who the writer is referencing.
If you have some new evidence, kindly bring it forward.
Hi David,I refused to play because it's a game one can't decisively win. But I offered Paul a game of my own. Prove from scripture that Jesus is the Son of Man. He has tried, but so far he can't. After refuting his last “proof” scripture as not proof at all, he said, “You are grasping at straws”.
Now he finally knows how the trinitarian “games” like this one he devised feel from the other side.
peace and love,
mike
I dropped the standard “bar” low enough (i.e. inference) to fly over it with the “Son of man” proof texts. You didn't even try to inferentially-prove that the Father of Yeshua is in view in the Genesis El Shaddai verses.Didn't even try.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,13:36) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,11:32) Quote (david @ June 19 2010,11:20) The burden rests with you.
No David. It's your assertion, the burden of proof rests firmly on you.We've been through this before, remember? I asked you to show me from the contextual details of the Genesis El Shaddai passages that the appelative is explicitly applied to the Father of Yeshua. You declined. It wasn't surprising that you did as it's indeterminable who the writer is referencing.
If you have some new evidence, kindly bring it forward.
Hi David,I refused to play because it's a game one can't decisively win. But I offered Paul a game of my own. Prove from scripture that Jesus is the Son of Man. He has tried, but so far he can't. After refuting his last “proof” scripture as not proof at all, he said, “You are grasping at straws”.
Now he finally knows how the trinitarian “games” like this one he devised feel from the other side.
peace and love,
mike
I dropped the standard “bar” low enough (i.e. inference) to fly over it with the “Son of man” proof texts. You didn't even try to inferentially-prove that the Father of Yeshua is in view in the Genesis El Shaddai verses.Didn't even try.
From the trinity part 2 thread:Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:02)
Yes but who's defining the requisite standard of proof in the son of man proof texts? You. It's no great accomplishment to tighten up the criteria to such a degree that almost nothing could be proven scripturally.By contrast I'm making it super easy for you Mike. I only want some inference in the El Shaddai = the Father of Yeshua Genesis passages. That's all.
I have given that to you, Paul.
If there is ONLY ONE Almighty – which is what the word means – the mightiest of the mighty, and the Almighty is the “God of gods”, and Jesus calls the Father “our God and his God” and further calls Him “my God”, then how much more do you want me to infer?
The Father is THE GOD of your God #2, therefore he MUST be the Almighty. Ergo (I love Jack's words), since there is ONLY ONE Almighty, it MUST ALWAYS refer to the Father.
mike
No Mike. I'm asking you to exegete the Genesis El Shaddai passages and show me inferentially that it's the Father of Yeshua in view.
You know this Mike. Stop playing silly games now….
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,15:17) No Mike. I'm asking you to exegete the Genesis El Shaddai passages and show me inferentially that it's the Father of Yeshua in view. You know this Mike. Stop playing silly games now….
And I'm asking you to show proof that Jesus is the Son of Man.You see, Paul? They are both stupid games. There is only one Almighty. He is immutable. Therefore, if it says it is the Father or Jehovah once, that is all it takes.
Can't say it huh? Okay I'll say if for you…
Sorry Is 1:18, I understand that you're not asking me for a high standard of proof at all, but just can't give you any inferential evidence that the Genesis El Shaddai passage speak of the Father. I now concede that I have set up a false dichotomy by assigning appelatives to the Father and Yeshua without lexically subtantiating that these appelatives are exclusive to either subject.
There, was that so hard….
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,15:47) Can't say it huh? Okay I'll say if for you… Sorry Is 1:18, I understand that you're not asking me for a high standard of proof at all, but just can't give you any inferential evidence that the Genesis El Shaddai passage speak of the Father. I now concede that I have set up a false dichotomy by assigning appelatives to the Father and Yeshua without lexically subtantiating that these appelatives are exclusive to either subject.
There, was that so hard….
AMG my brain melted, but I think you're right!Hi Is 1.18,
Stop scrabbling around in the dark with theories and seek the God of Israel and His son.Quote (RokkaMan @ June 19 2010,16:37) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,15:47) Can't say it huh? Okay I'll say if for you… Sorry Is 1:18, I understand that you're not asking me for a high standard of proof at all, but just can't give you any inferential evidence that the Genesis El Shaddai passage speak of the Father. I now concede that I have set up a false dichotomy by assigning appelatives to the Father and Yeshua without lexically subtantiating that these appelatives are exclusive to either subject.
There, was that so hard….
AMG my brain melted, but I think you're right!Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,17:47) Can't say it huh? Okay I'll say if for you… Sorry Is 1:18, I understand that you're not asking me for a high standard of proof at all, but just can't give you any inferential evidence that the Genesis El Shaddai passage speak of the Father. I now concede that I have set up a false dichotomy by assigning appelatives to the Father and Yeshua without lexically subtantiating that these appelatives are exclusive to either subject.
There, was that so hard….
Wow Is.. so many big words!! lolQuote (Oxy @ June 19 2010,18:47) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,17:47) Can't say it huh? Okay I'll say if for you… Sorry Is 1:18, I understand that you're not asking me for a high standard of proof at all, but just can't give you any inferential evidence that the Genesis El Shaddai passage speak of the Father. I now concede that I have set up a false dichotomy by assigning appelatives to the Father and Yeshua without lexically subtantiating that these appelatives are exclusive to either subject.
There, was that so hard….
Wow Is.. so many big words!! lol
Actually I was speaking for Mike, he just couldn't bring himself to say it, so I did it for him.Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,12:35) Yes Oxy. God is one. There is one God the Father. Not one God the Father, Son, Spirit. The latter is an alien doctrine that the first century believers wouldn't recognise.
Alien t8? From little green men in spaceships? Perhaps it was them that gave me my Bible because that's what it teaches me… oh but wait, I have about 10 versions….. Did the little green men write all of them?Quote (Oxy @ June 19 2010,13:59) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,12:35) Yes Oxy. God is one. There is one God the Father. Not one God the Father, Son, Spirit. The latter is an alien doctrine that the first century believers wouldn't recognise.
Alien t8? From little green men in spaceships? Perhaps it was them that gave me my Bible because that's what it teaches me… oh but wait, I have about 10 versions….. Did the little green men write all of them?
You should use a dictionary as alien has a meaning and little green men is not it. Though perhaps they fit that description depending on if you are from the same place they are or not.
One attempt at humor deserves another.
God cannot be tempted by evil. If you choose to believe in a God that can be tempted by evil then you do not believe in the same God that Jesus teaches. That is your choice and you will reap the results of that choice just like everyone else reaps the result of their choices.
I dislike discussing an issue that people seem to be fixed in their ways about as it seems vain to do so and this is often such an issue. In fact I do not see much to discuss because the simple truth is God cannot be tempted by evil and Jesus was tempted in every way just as we are but without sin. That simple truth cannot be broken.
Your Fellow Student,
Kerwin
Quote (kerwin @ June 19 2010,21:15) Quote (Oxy @ June 19 2010,13:59) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,12:35) Yes Oxy. God is one. There is one God the Father. Not one God the Father, Son, Spirit. The latter is an alien doctrine that the first century believers wouldn't recognise.
Alien t8? From little green men in spaceships? Perhaps it was them that gave me my Bible because that's what it teaches me… oh but wait, I have about 10 versions….. Did the little green men write all of them?
You should use a dictionary as alien has a meaning and little green men is not it. Though perhaps they fit that description depending on if you are from the same place they are or not. One attempt at humor deserves another.
God cannot be tempted by evil. If you choose to believe in a God that can be tempted by evil then you do not believe in the same God that Jesus teaches. That is your choice and you will reap the results of that choice just like everyone else reaps the result of their choices.
I dislike discussing an issue that people seem to be fixed in their ways about as it seems vain to do so and this is often such an issue. In fact I do not see much to discuss because the simple truth is God cannot be tempted by evil and Jesus was tempted in every way just as we are but without sin. That simple truth cannot be broken.
Your Fellow Student,
Kerwin
Was that aimed at me Kerwin? I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I do appreciate your sense of humour!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
