- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Oxy,
I did aim the humor at you and I hope it lightens the mood even though this and other discussion are serious discussions.
Your fellow student.
Kerwin
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,15:01) You bring an element of class to this forum Kerwin.
Thank you for the compliment though I give all credit to God who is always working on me and changes me every day.Your brother,
Kerwin
Quote (kerwin @ June 19 2010,20:03) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,15:01) You bring an element of class to this forum Kerwin.
Thank you for the compliment though I give all credit to God who is always working on me and changes me every day.Your brother,
Kerwin
I'm not going to disagree.
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.
Paul,THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT REST WITH ME. I CONSIDER VERY WRONG THINKING. Is my logic wrong:
If we have many many times where “Jehovah” is specifically and unquestionably called “Almighty” then it is up to you to prove that those few times where “Almighty” appears that they are not also referring to Jehovah.
How is that not sound reasoning?
The evidence DEFINITELY leans towards this.
If one thing is true and plain and obvious many times, then unless specifically stated otherwise, it should continue to be true.
Imagine this scenerio:
Example 1: Definitely “Jehovah”
Example 2: God
Example 3: Definitely “Jehovah”
Example 4: Not extremely clear
Example 5: “God”
Example 6: Definitely “Jehovah” based on preceeding verse.
Example 7: Definitely “Jehovah”
Example 8: “God”
Example 9: Preceeding verse makes it plain that it's “Jehovah”
Example 10: Definitely “Jehovah”
Example 11: Not extremely clear
Example 12: Definitely “Jehovah.”
Example 13: “God”
Example 14: “God”Now, further consider that “Jehovah” is unquestionably and specifically called “God” 1000 times in scripture, in the OT, (and thousands of other times, less clearly.)
Over and over again, we see that Jehovah who is a thousand times specifically called “God” is specifically referred to as “Almighty.”
So, logically, it is sound to reason that if there is a reference in the OT where it isn't made extraordinarily clear, then unless told otherwise, it makes sense to believe that it is referring to “Jehovah” like all the other times.
Where is the flaw in this thinking?
Where?
Quote If you have some new evidence, kindly bring it forward.
My evidence are each and every one of those scriptures that refer to the “Almighty,” many times specifically naming “Jehovah” as the “Almighty.”THE BURDEN OF PROOF rests on you to show us just one time where “Jesus” or “the son of God” is stated plainly as being the “Almighty.”
But you cannot do that, can you? So, you refuse to and further, you refuse to tell me why my thinking is wrong.
Quote (david @ June 20 2010,07:02) 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.
Paul,THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT REST WITH ME. I CONSIDER VERY WRONG THINKING. Is my logic wrong:
If we have many many times where “Jehovah” is specifically and unquestionably called “Almighty” then it is up to you to prove that those few times where “Almighty” appears that they are not also referring to Jehovah.
Your argument rests on the premise that “Jehovah” is exclusively the name of the Father in the OT. This is an unproven assumption and that's where your logic breaks down. Substantiate your premise (i.e. prove that every reference to YHWH in the OT speaks solely of the Father of Yeshua) and you are moving towards developing a valid argument.Quote (david @ June 19 2010,15:02) 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.
Paul,THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT REST WITH ME. I CONSIDER VERY WRONG THINKING. Is my logic wrong:
If we have many many times where “Jehovah” is specifically and unquestionably called “Almighty” then it is up to you to prove that those few times where “Almighty” appears that they are not also referring to Jehovah.
DavidWhy don't you use this same logic in the NT?
The word Lord (kyrios) is found 748 times in the NT and the vast majority of the time it is speaking of Jesus, except for a few times it is referring to the Father.
Should we assume that those passages are not the Father but rather Jesus?
I thought you didn't like to play the numbers game David?
WJ
Hey all you guys who think this “game” of Paul's is worthwhile!
We've been working on one of my games for a week now, and Jack, WJ and Paul have also been unable to substantiate that Jesus is the Son of Man.
Maybe Oxy and Rokkaman can join in, since you think Paul's game is so fun?
mike
Found any inferential proof to substantiate your assertion that the El Shaddai references in Genesis speaks exclusively of the Father yet? Anything at all? It's such a easy exegetical standard to meet. We can do it easily for the Son of man passages. You should have no trouble at all….
Quote David Why don't you use this same logic in the NT?
The word Lord (kyrios) is found 748 times in the NT and the vast majority of the time it is speaking of Jesus, except for a few times it is referring to the Father.
Should we assume that those passages are not the Father but rather Jesus?
I thought you didn't like to play the numbers game David?
Hi WJ
For some Reason Is 1:18 kept mentioning the OT, as if he wanted to limit it to that, and even more specifically, just genesis. It's definitely true, we should look at the whole Bible. And guess what, you are right, the word “Lord” which is used with reference to both Jehovah and Jesus is used way more often in the NT with reference to Jesus. And guess what? If I were to point to a random “Lord” in the NT, I would place a bet that it would be referring to Jesus.So you see, my reasoning is consistent. Here is it once again:
If one individual is specifically called the same title (such as “Almighty”) and no one else by name is ever called that specifically, then when we see that word, unless there is evidence to the contrary, we have no reason to believe that it is referring to someone else.
So again, guess what, WJ?
I DO USE THE SAME LOGIC. However, here is where your comparison differs:
BOTH “JEHOVAH” AND “JESUS” ARE UNQUESTIONABLY CALLED “LORD.”
If I just randomly point to one of the words “Lord” in the OT, chances are excellent it will be referring to Jehovah (even though it could be referring to many others called “lord.”)
And as you say, when I see that word in the NT, chances are pretty good it's referring to Jesus.Quote Should we assume that those passages are not the Father but rather Jesus?
If you show us the passages, we can look at them, and study them. And yes, there are instances, where it's hard to tell. However, BECAUSE JEHOVAH IS ALSO CALLED LORD SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES, WE CAN'T SAY THAT IN EVERY INSTANCE IN THE BIBLE WHERE WE SEE LORD, IT IS JESUS.The same is not true of “Almighty.” “Jesus” is never specifically or clearly said to be the almighty. Yes, there is Revelation, and we can discuss that and have. But that is not what Is 1:18 is arguing.
Is 1:18 said to me:
Quote Your argument rests on the premise that “Jehovah” is exclusively the name of the Father in the OT. This is an unproven assumption and that's where your logic breaks down. Substantiate your premise (i.e. prove that every reference to YHWH in the OT speaks solely of the Father of Yeshua) and you are moving towards developing a valid argument. Here's the thing: YOUR ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR.
You are saying that we can't know that all those instances where “Jehovah” is called “Almighty” that it is exclusively Jehovah that it is referring to, (ie: a trinity)
The truth is, you could say that for anything. You have just made all arguments against the trinity invalid. You win. No. We must separate different proofs.
Either “Jesus” is called Almighty or he is not, and if he is, then that is proof of the trinity.
But to say that where it says “Jehovah” is a trinity and hence when it says Jehovah is “Almighty” it is also referring to Jesus, and hence Jesus is called “Almighty”….well, that is circular…..that is what we are trying to determine….we are seeing if the use of the word “almighty” determines anything.I now see why he said he didn't get anywhere with you. It's hard to get anywhere when you travel a circle. You do see that this is a circle, don't you?
Again, what you state:
Quote Your argument rests on the premise that “Jehovah” is exclusively the name of the Father in the OT. This is an unproven assumption and that's where your logic breaks down. Substantiate your premise (i.e. prove that every reference to YHWH in the OT speaks solely of the Father of Yeshua) and you are moving towards developing a valid argument.
It's as though you are asking me to first disprove the trinity, and then, in that case, my argument would be valid. That's the reverse of how things work.This argument of who is called “Almighty” is one of many things used to establish whether the trinity is true, not the other way around. So we must establish who is called by that word.
We know “Jehovah” is many times. We do not know this of “Jesus.” You can say: But the trinity is true, so when it says “Jehovah” it is really the trinity. What is that called, putting the horse before the cart? Circular reasoning?Is 1:18, either I am just not thinking clearly today, or you are not. Despite our disagreements, I still hold you as one of the clearest most logical thinkers on this forum, maybe the most. Can you tell me why it's not circular?
Quote (Oxy @ June 19 2010,18:59) 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?
If you are able, broaden the usage of that word, and then read it in context. If not, then I don't mind if you think green aliens. That is up to you. You have free will. But maybe you also misinterpret other things in the same fashion for whatever reason. Something to think about aye!Quote We've been working on one of my games for a week now, and Jack, WJ and Paul have also been unable to substantiate that Jesus is the Son of Man. MATTHEW 9:6
“However, in order for YOU to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he [[[“HE” BEING JESUS]] said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home.””MATTHEW 12:40
“For just as Jo′nah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 20 2010,08:25) Your argument rests on the premise that “Jehovah” is exclusively the name of the Father in the OT. This is an unproven assumption and that's where your logic breaks down. Substantiate your premise (i.e. prove that every reference to YHWH in the OT speaks solely of the Father of Yeshua) and you are moving towards developing a valid argument.
Doesn't your argument rest on the premise that YHWH is a substance and not a person. A divine substance with 3 persons melded in and therefore any one of these 3 persons are YHWH?But, where does it say that YHWH is a substance made up of 3 persons? Nowhere. That is a huge omission if it is a central doctrine.
The Father is the one true God, it is written. If he is not exclusively YHWH, then there must be others who are also the one true God. In that case, God is not a HE or a HIM, but THEY, THEM. So my plea to you is to at least use the English language correctly and use THEM and THEY when referring to the 3 person God and we will use English correctly and refer to God (who is the Father) as HIM and HE.
I think it is better when posts are written properly. It makes it easier for others to follow. There is no point in saying God is 3 persons and then calling God a HIM. That is deceptive when you think about it, and if not intentionally deceptive, then just bad grammar. Is this too much to ask?
Quote 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….
–Paul
Do I have any “lexical” proof? Unlike YHWH, there is lexical proof that the word “Yeshua” is never specifically connected to the word “Almighty.” That proof is it's complete non-existence.
Now, you can jump to the next step, your conclusion, and say the trinity is true, therefore, the name YHWH also encompasses “Yeshua” hence, “Almighty” is applied to “Yeshua.”
But that IS circular.
Quote How do you know that El Shaddai is never applied to the Yeshua in the OT?…Do you have any lexical proof…
Yes, I checked the words, and the words do not appear together.Of course, logically, this does not prove the trinity either way in itself. But, the fact that “Jehovah” is many times called “Almighty” and “Jesus” is not, does make one lean strongly towards the non-trinitarian view, with respects to this argument. (That is, unless you already believe in the trinity, then the circular reasoning cancels any other proofs out, including this one.)
In my mind, it is clear that the BURDEN OF PROOF rests on Paul.
We don't go around assuming everything is a trinity. It's the other way around. We assume things are not trinities until they are shown to be.
One way to show that the trinity is true, is if Jehovah, his son, and the holy spirit, are all equal and all almighty. But scripture only specifically and clearly says “Jehovah” is “Almighty” and it does so several times.
The BURDEN OF PROOF rests on anyone who wants to prove otherwise.You are trying to prove T. But T is a subset/example/condition of A. You can't say A is true, therefore T doesn't matter, because A is what we are trying to ultimately prove or disprove.
Quote Your argument rests on the premise that “Jehovah” is exclusively the name of the Father in the OT. This is an unproven assumption and that's where your logic breaks down. Substantiate your premise (i.e. prove that every reference to YHWH in the OT speaks solely of the Father of Yeshua) and you are moving towards developing a valid argument. –Paul
After reading this a few more times, I would like to add STRAWMAN to CIRCULAR REASONING. I find the above words so circular that I can only conclude it is some sort of diversion. I mean, it's really backwards thinking.
You want me to “prove that every reference to YHWH in the OT speaks solely of the Father of Yeshua”
There are thousands mentioned in the Bible. The normal thing to do is to believe that when Isaiah is mentioned, that it is referring solely to Isaiah, or when Moses is mentioned, that it is referring solely to Moses. etc, etc, etc, etc. No one normally thinks the other way around. This is why the BURDEN OF PROOF MUST rest with you. If these are special, different, unusual circumstances, and not normal thinking, then it is up to YOU to show us that such is the case, that this case is different from normal reality.Quote Can you tell me why it's not circular?
Yes. I haven't made a circular agrument because I haven't made an assertion.For the sake of clarity I think we should define our terms. A circular argument (A.K.A; Begging the question fallacy) is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
You proposition “Jehovah is specifically and unquestionably called Almighty” carries the assumed premise “Jehovah” is exclusively the name of the Father of Yeshua. Or another way of putting it:
- The Father is the Almighty (the proposition)
because
- Only Jehovah is called the Almighty and Jehovah is the Father of Yeshua (unproven premise)
Can you see how this is circular reasoning David? I'm not making an argument (no assertion has been made by me), I'm simply asking you to substantiate the assumed premise thereby making the argument linear.
Quote Is 1:18, either I am just not thinking clearly today, or you are not. Despite our disagreements, I still hold you as one of the clearest most logical thinkers on this forum, maybe the most.
Thanks. The respect is mutual.Quote (david @ June 20 2010,10:28) Quote We've been working on one of my games for a week now, and Jack, WJ and Paul have also been unable to substantiate that Jesus is the Son of Man. MATTHEW 9:6
“However, in order for YOU to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he [[[“HE” BEING JESUS]] said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home.””MATTHEW 12:40
“For just as Jo′nah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”
Hi David,Neither scripture specifically says the Son of Man who Jesus refers to in the third person is actually Jesus.
Doesn't matter though. It was only to prove the “only Jehovah is the Almighty” point.
mike
Quote (t8 @ June 20 2010,12:28) Quote (Oxy @ June 19 2010,18:59) 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?
If you are able, broaden the usage of that word, and then read it in context. If not, then I don't mind if you think green aliens. That is up to you. You have free will. But maybe you also misinterpret other things in the same fashion for whatever reason. Something to think about aye!
Hi t8, thanks for your reply. My sense of humour gets in the way sometimes, thanks for tolerating that I'm pretty happy with that which I believe having tested it over the years. There's still a lot I don't know and I'm happy to admit that, but that which God has taught me I will stick to umm.. religiously?
Ok, Is 1:18, this is where I decided to enter this conversation:
Prove to us that in every occasion the title “El Shadday” is used in OT scripture it's always applied to the Father and never to the Logos. I've asked David to do this once and he declined.
You also stated:
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….
and:
Your argument rests on the premise that “Jehovah” is exclusively the name of the Father in the OT. This is an unproven assumption and that's where your logic breaks down. Substantiate your premise (i.e. prove that every reference to YHWH in the OT speaks solely of the Father of Yeshua) and you are moving towards developing a valid argument.
So, Is 1:18, you want us to prove that where it says “Jehovah” it means “Jehovah” and not “Jehovah, as part of a trinity”?
It is not up to us to have to do that. If you believe it means something OTHER than what it says, it is up to YOU to prove this.
Again, since you are using point A to help you prove point B, you cannot say point B is true, therefore point A is true. That's what it feels like you're doing. Especially when under normal thinking/logic/conditions, B would not be obvious at all.
If all you're saying is that we can't use the same argument to prove that Jesus is equal with Jehovah, then you are right. All it does it lean strongly towards that argument. The evidence around the word almighty is slanted strongly towards non-trinitarianism. “Jehovah” is called “Almighty.” “Jesus” is not.
To skip to the conclusion (point B) and say that Jehovah is a trinity, therefore when it says “Jehovah” it really doesn't only mean “Jehovah” IS circular. It's true, that you haven't directly said these things, but that is what you believe, isn't it?
- The Father is the Almighty (the proposition)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
