- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Argument is offered, that Rom 9:5 is a prooftext for the doctrine that Jesus is God because it says – “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, “WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, FOREVER PRAISED!” Rom 9:5
There is no punctuation in the Greek texts like the English translators offer; it is an innovation of the English language, (and others) that sentences are punctuated differently than the ancient Semitic languages, and the Greek.
The comma was not even invented in the days of the writing of the new testament. Every occurance of a comma in the new testament is supplied by the translator, or editor, of the translation, who is simply offering you a perspective as to how to understand what is written there. The punctuation (comma) is not in the Greek.
The Greek text was written in one long sentence without spaces between words. For example –
TheGreeksentencewaswritteninonelongesentencewithoutspacebetweenwords.buttherewaspunctuatio
nofasort.periodsatthecompletionofathoughtandaslashbetweensentencestomarkanewparagraph.Only on occasion was a space left between sentences, to mark new paragraphs, but it's use was inconsistant.
Another form of punctuation utilized by the Greeks was making the first letter of a new sentence larger than the others around it.
To the ancients, the paragraph was the most important form of punctuation. It was not until 458 that Euthalius developed an edition (means he edited it) of the Greek New Testament with Chapters.
Wescott and Hort “edited” the Greek text by inserting a Capitol letter at the beginning of “Important sentences, all others retaining small letters. This is an entirely arbitrary method which helps the reader or student understand, not the Greek text, but the Editor's interpretation of the text.
Tell me my friend, do you REALLY want Wescott and Hort telling you which sentences in the Greek New Testament are “important?” It is an inovation done by the editor. That means it is the editor's OPINION, and it is expressed with punctuation.
The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few signs of punctuation between sentences, or between clauses in a sentence, though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient inscriptions. The Artemisia papyrus occasionaly ends the sentence with the double point.
Aristophanies of Byzantium (260 b.c.) invented punctuation that was improved upon by the Alexandrian grammarians. As a rule, all the sentences, like the words, ran together without spaces, in one unbroken line.
Finally, three point-stops were brought into play, for the sentence. The top-point (a point at the top of the line) was a full stop. the Line-point (a point on the line) was equivalent to our semicolon. A middle-point (you guessed it, a point in the middle between the top-point and the line-point) was developed equivalent to our comma.
Later, the top-point became equal to our colon; the bottom-point became our full stop; the middle-point vanished. In the ninth century, the comma appeared, along with the queston mark. These were different from the stop-points, because while the stop-points were useful in knowing where to pause, and where to stop, commas and question marks effect the SENSE of the meaning of the sentence. It was the beginning of efditorialism, and interpretation in translation, by punctuation.
And it was NOT in the Greek text, until inserted 800 years too late to be authentic. We still cannot tell how much if any, use the New Testament writers made of punctuation. We do know they had no comma, exclamation point, dash, quotation marks, parenthesis. The comma became the most common division of the sentence. But it was NOT IN THE GREEK.
Please do not think a volume printed in the twentieth century, with colons, parenthesis, question marks, and commas, is Proof.
The RSV is not only a translation, it is an editorialization of what was meant. The Greek only supplies what is SAID. It is TESTIMONY. How the reader handles the testimony is what the editors are after. They are in effect, tampering with the jury, attempting to influence your understanding, to conclude a doctrine you could not possibly find without their aid by punctuation.
Example; “Stop the train. let me off.” is not equivalent to “Stop. The train let me off.”
Example: “Woman. Without her, man would be impossible to comprehend;” is not equivalent to “Woman without her man, would be impossible to comprehend.”
There is NO translation more appropriate than the original. I use the KJV not because I think it superior, but because I then only have to learn one set of corrections. I know where many of the errors are, and would only defeat my purpose in life were I to take on a new translation.
All translations are editorials. there are NO exceptions. Even when I attempt to understand the Greek, I must supply those punctuations that make the most sense TO ME, of the meaning inherent in the Greek. That is not a fault. The fault comes when someone insists that one editor is somehow superior to another editor, and insists one editor is somehow advantaged by virtue of scholarship.
Even A.T.Robertson, Author of “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament” recognizes –
[page 419] In general the words that go together that make sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader's insight.”The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue.
Consider Rom 9:5 with the punctuation properly placed;
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed, for ever. Amen.This understanding is supported by several scriptures-
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; 8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” [Psa 8:4-8]1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet.
Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet…
Hebrews 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.
I think the placement of the comma drastically changes the understanding of the passage, and I am convinced the translators think so too.
Quote (Paladin @ June 28 2009,04:03) Argument is offered, that Rom 9:5 is a prooftext for the doctrine that Jesus is God because it says – “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, “WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, FOREVER PRAISED!” Rom 9:5 There is no punctuation in the Greek texts like the English translators offer; it is an innovation of the English language, (and others) that sentences are punctuated differently than the ancient Semitic languages, and the Greek.
The comma was not even invented in the days of the writing of the new testament. Every occurance of a comma in the new testament is supplied by the translator, or editor, of the translation, who is simply offering you a perspective as to how to understand what is written there. The punctuation (comma) is not in the Greek.
The Greek text was written in one long sentence without spaces between words. For example –
TheGreeksentencewaswritteninonelongesentencewithoutspacebetweenwords.buttherewaspunctuationofasort.periodsatthecompletionofathoughtandaslashbetweensentencestomarkanewparagraph.
Only on occasion was a space left between sentences, to mark new paragraphs, but it's use was inconsistant.
Another form of punctuation utilized by the Greeks was making the first letter of a new sentence larger than the others around it.
To the ancients, the paragraph was the most important form of punctuation. It was not until 458 that Euthalius developed an edition (means he edited it) of the Greek New Testament with Chapters.
Wescott and Hort “edited” the Greek text by inserting a Capitol letter at the beginning of “Important sentences, all others retaining small letters. This is an entirely arbitrary method which helps the reader or student understand, not the Greek text, but the Editor's interpretation of the text.
Tell me my friend, do you REALLY want Wescott and Hort telling you which sentences in the Greek New Testament are “important?” It is an inovation done by the editor. That means it is the editor's OPINION, and it is expressed with punctuation.
The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few signs of punctuation between sentences, or between clauses in a sentence, though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient inscriptions. The Artemisia papyrus occasionaly ends the sentence with the double point.
Aristophanies of Byzantium (260 b.c.) invented punctuation that was improved upon by the Alexandrian grammarians. As a rule, all the sentences, like the words, ran together without spaces, in one unbroken line.
Finally, three point-stops were brought into play, for the sentence. The top-point (a point at the top of the line) was a full stop. the Line-point (a point on the line) was equivalent to our semicolon. A middle-point (you guessed it, a point in the middle between the top-point and the line-point) was developed equivalent to our comma.
Later, the top-point became equal to our colon; the bottom-point became our full stop; the middle-point vanished. In the ninth century, the comma appeared, along with the queston mark. These were different from the stop-points, because while the stop-points were useful in knowing where to pause, and where to stop, commas and question marks effect the SENSE of the meaning of the sentence. It was the beginning of efditorialism, and interpretation in translation, by punctuation.
And it was NOT in the Greek text, until inserted 800 years too late to be authentic. We still cannot tell how much if any, use the New Testament writers made of punctuation. We do know they had no comma, exclamation point, dash, quotation marks, parenthesis. The comma became the most common division of the sentence. But it was NOT IN THE GREEK.
Please do not think a volume printed in the twentieth century, with colons, parenthesis, question marks, and commas, is Proof.
The RSV is not only a translation, it is an editorialization of what was meant. The Greek only supplies what is SAID. It is TESTIMONY. How the reader handles the testimony is what the editors are after. They are in effect, tampering with the jury, attempting to influence your understanding, to conclude a doctrine you could not possibly find without their aid by punctuation.
Example; “Stop the train. let me off.” is not equivalent to “Stop. The train let me off.”
Example: “Woman. Without her, man would be impossible to comprehend;” is not equivalent to “Woman without her man, would be impossible to comprehend.”
There is NO translation more appropriate than the original. I use the KJV not because I think it superior, but because I then only have to learn one set of corrections. I know where many of the errors are, and would only defeat my purpose in life were I to take on a new translation.
All translations are editorials. there are NO exceptions. Even when I attempt to understand the Greek, I must supply those punctuations that make the most sense TO ME, of the meaning inherent in the Greek. That is not a fault. The fault comes when someone insists that one editor is somehow superior to another editor, and insists one editor is somehow advantaged by virtue of scholarship.
Even A.T.Robertson, Author of “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament” recognizes –
[page 419] In general the words that go together that make sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader's insight.”The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue.
Consider Rom 9:5 with the punctuation properly placed;
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed, for ever. Amen.This understanding is supported by several scriptures-
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; 8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” [Psa 8:4-8]1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet.
Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet…
Hebrews 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.
I think the placement of the comma drastically changes the understanding of the passage, and I am convinced the translators think so too.
Romans 9 (Young's Literal Translation)5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.
According to this literal translation it simply means that God blessed Christ above all. It say he is God blessed to the ages or forever.
It is much easier for me(praise God) to interpret these unusual sayings in light of reading The Quran
HI PD
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,12:03) The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue. So in other words if we need heart surgery we should not be concerned if our surgeon is a heart specialist?
So we should trust the words of someone who is not a credentialed scholar and skilled in the translations of Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages, over those who have credentials and skills in the languages?
I don't think so!
We have enough resources at our disposal like the many translations on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org to compare and in most cases they agree and there are very little variations in the translations especially when having to do with major doctrinal issues, not to mention the 100s of commentaries, dictionaries and concordances available.
There has to be solid unambiguous evidence before I will change the intended meaning of a passage by the author and by the 100s of credentialed scholars who has given their lives to bring us the intended meaning, and most of all it has to be confirmed by the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth.
The problem is men who “claim” that they know better because they believe a doctrine that is in contrast to what is written or the intended meaning of what is written.
To me it is disingenuous to attack the translations and the scholars that have brought us the scriptures simply because I may think that they were influenced by biased Trinitarians.
That would be like attacking the Koran and the translators of their scriptures.
Instead of attacking them, write your own literary work.
At least the JWs made an attempt at translating their own work with their own bias.
If Non-trinitarians do not like the current translations then write your own.
After all “Unitarianism” and 'Aryanism” has been around for a long time, so why haven’t they presented their own work with their “Unitarian” or “Arian” slant?
I think it is simple, they cannot impose their doctrines upon the text for it would be obvious that is what was happening, and like the JWs would be found out to be a very unreliable translation.
They simply could not improve on what we have, for they would not be able to stay true to the text on scriptures like John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, Rev 1:8 Isa 9:6, etc.
Search the scriptures, and by all means seek to understand Hebrew and Greek and dig deep into the scriptures praying that the Holy Sprit will illuminate the words off the page, but you better have really good solid evidence before you impose a change to what is written and the intended meaning simply because it does not agree with your theology and especially if you teach others.
Shall we all remain “unlearned men” or would the Lord have us grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus? Or I could say grow in the grace and knowledge of God, couldn't I?
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, “which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures“, to their own destruction. “Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position“. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. 1 Peter 3:16-18
Here is Peter the fisherman saying it is the ignorant and unstable people that distort the scriptures!
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
HI PDQuote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,12:03) The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue. (WJ) So in other words if we need heart surgery we should not be concerned if our surgeon is a heart specialist?
When Jesus healed the blind, no one enquired whether he was an opthalmologist.
When he made the lame to walk, no one asked to see his Neurosurgeon's credentials.
When he made the deaf to hear, no one asked to see his audio-intense learning degrees from the nearest university.
When I had open heart surgery, I spoke to God about it long before I ever had audience with the surgeon. Did I do wrong?
What would YOU have done differently?Quote
So we should trust the words of someone who is not a credentialed scholar and skilled in the translations of Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages, over those who have credentials and skills in the languages? I don't think so!What makes you think those are the only two options?
I do not intend to get into a bragging contest with you and thinker, but I hold copyrights in my own name for my genius in Mathematics, for developing something in the math world which to date has not been accomplished by ANY OTHER PERSON. So, I am not untutored. I just do not think scholarship is the proper place to make claims, especially when I was not one of the autograph authors of scripture.
But I DO know how to read the scriptures and I DO know how to defend my position. Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture?
A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Interested?
Quote
Instead of attacking them, write your own literary work.Already did.
Quote
After all “Unitarianism” and 'Aryanism” has been around for a long time, so why haven’t they presented their own work with their “Unitarian” or “Arian” slant?I think it is simple, they cannot impose their doctrines upon the text for it would be obvious that is what was happening, and like the JWs would be found out to be a very unreliable translation.
Obviously you are limited in your knowledge of the grammars involved, because one simple check into the original language should have convinced you I speak truthfully. ONLY someone ignorant of the grammar involved would continue to bluff and puff over issues having no merit the way you do.
The grammar of the Hebrew plural nouns for one example; and the use of the first-person-singular in the Septuagint, for another. Instead of dealing with the issues raised in my posts, you obfuscate and switch issues, often changing what it was I actually said, to beat into submission, something I did not say.
The record is still there to read.
WJ,
A genius can be “ignorant”. I believe what Paladin was saying is:Quote Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. Quote Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. While knowledge is important, whether gained from higher learning, the school of hard knocks, or by special revelation, I believe it is not what we know, but how what we know has effected us.
My opinion Wm
HI PD
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,12:03) The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So in other words if we need heart surgery we should not be concerned if our surgeon is a heart specialist?Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
When Jesus healed the blind, no one enquired whether he was an opthalmologist.When he made the lame to walk, no one asked to see his Neurosurgeon's credentials.
When he made the deaf to hear, no one asked to see his audio-intense learning degrees from the nearest university.
True, but Jesus said…
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.You are not offering us any works by opening blind eyes and causing the lame to walk and the deaf to hear, so how can you make a comparison here? You are offering us apologetic opinions that oppose the works of skilled men in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
When I had open heart surgery, I spoke to God about it long before I ever had audience with the surgeon. Did I do wrong?
What would YOU have done differently?
I am sorry to hear you had to go through that! Thank God for modern technology and that you are still with us!But, did God tell you to have a dentist perform your open heart surgery?
I didn’t think so!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So we should trust the words of someone who is not a credentialed scholar and skilled in the translations of Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages, over those who have credentials and skills in the languages? I don't think so!Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
What makes you think those are the only two options?
I never said it was. You have a right to believe what you want. But as for me you have to have “solid proof” that what you say is true in contrast to the hundreds of scholars that disagree with you and your translation of the text that is in opposition of the many translations we have available to us.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I do not intend to get into a bragging contest with you and thinker, but I hold copyrights in my own name for my genius in Mathematics, for developing something in the math world which to date has not been accomplished by ANY OTHER PERSON.
Congratulations! You must also be rich then. Nobody is challenging your intellectual capacity or genius in Mathematics, but what does that have to do with Biblical theology or the ability to translate scriptures? I will be the first to admit that you are far more intelligent than I. So if being an ignorant and unlearned man is a qualification to understanding scriptural truths then I guess that would make me more qualified than you.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
So, I am not untutored. I just do not think scholarship is the proper place to make claims, especially when I was not one of the autograph authors of scripture.
This is circular, for that is exactly what you are doing is making claims. This is not about opposing the “Authors” of the scriptures as much as it is what the “Authors” actually said. For that it takes the Holy Spirit and skilled grammarians in Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I DO know how to read the scriptures and I DO know how to defend my position. Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture?A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Interested?
I am not the slightest bit interested, mainly because you will make claims that the scriptures are corrupted by biased men, and it is not because I cannot make a valid argument about Biblical Monotheism in scriptures as being a Plural unity. Trinitarianism is the only view that takes all Biblical data without special pleading and shows that God is Plural yet One.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
Instead of attacking them, write your own literary work.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
Already did.
Really! What is the name of your Bible? Where is your translation?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
After all “Unitarianism” and 'Aryanism” has been around for a long time, so why haven’t they presented their own work with their “Unitarian” or “Arian” slant?I think it is simple, they cannot impose their doctrines upon the text for it would be obvious that is what was happening, and like the JWs would be found out to be a very unreliable translation.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
Obviously you are limited in your knowledge of the grammars involved, because one simple check into the original language should have convinced you I speak truthfully. ONLY someone ignorant of the grammar involved would continue to bluff and puff over issues having no merit the way you do.
So what are you saying, is your knowledge of grammars unlimited, or will you be honest and admit that you also have limitations and that many grammarians disagree with you.And as far as “Bluff and Puff”, first of all I do not have time to respond to all of your points, secondly I have noticed there has been quite a few points that Thinker and myself has made that you have not responded to.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
The grammar of the Hebrew plural nouns for one example; and the use of the first-person-singular in the Septuagint, for another. Instead of dealing with the issues raised in my posts, you obfuscate and switch issues, often changing what it was I actually said, to beat into submission, something I did not say.The record is still there to read.
False! We have already showed you that plural unity is in scriptures and you try force all scriptural data to your view when scripturally the data we have does not reconcile with your view.You totally destroyed the meaning to the text in Psalm 110 with your own bias. Your theology is laying aside tons of scriptures that claim the Deity of Christ.
As a genius in mathematics you should know that there is nothing that is not plural.
For instance if I say the number three is plural that is a true statement because three is comprised of three ones. But if I say the number 3 is singular, that is also a true statement because the number 3 is one number.
You still haven’t answered my question and given me an example of anything that is not Plural in Unity. The creation reveals the Glory of God. Though you say God alone is singular and not plural, you have yet to prove it in scriptures. IMO
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,07:43) HI PD Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,12:03) The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So in other words if we need heart surgery we should not be concerned if our surgeon is a heart specialist?Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
When Jesus healed the blind, no one enquired whether he was an opthalmologist.When he made the lame to walk, no one asked to see his Neurosurgeon's credentials.
When he made the deaf to hear, no one asked to see his audio-intense learning degrees from the nearest university.
True, but Jesus said…
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.You are not offering us any works by opening blind eyes and causing the lame to walk and the deaf to hear, so how can you make a comparison here? You are offering us apologetic opinions that oppose the works of skilled men in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
When I had open heart surgery, I spoke to God about it long before I ever had audience with the surgeon. Did I do wrong?
What would YOU have done differently?
I am sorry to hear you had to go through that! Thank God for modern technology and that you are still with us!But, did God tell you to have a dentist perform your open heart surgery?
I didn’t think so!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So we should trust the words of someone who is not a credentialed scholar and skilled in the translations of Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages, over those who have credentials and skills in the languages? I don't think so!Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
What makes you think those are the only two options?
I never said it was. You have a right to believe what you want. But as for me you have to have “solid proof” that what you say is true in contrast to the hundreds of scholars that disagree with you and your translation of the text that is in opposition of the many translations we have available to us.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I do not intend to get into a bragging contest with you and thinker, but I hold copyrights in my own name for my genius in Mathematics, for developing something in the math world which to date has not been accomplished by ANY OTHER PERSON.
Congratulations! You must also be rich then. Nobody is challenging your intellectual capacity or genius in Mathematics, but what does that have to do with Biblical theology or the ability to translate scriptures? I will be the first to admit that you are far more intelligent than I. So if being an ignorant and unlearned man is a qualification to understanding scriptural truths then I guess that would make me more qualified than you.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
So, I am not untutored. I just do not think scholarship is the proper place to make claims, especially when I was not one of the autograph authors of scripture.
This is circular, for that is exactly what you are doing is making claims. This is not about opposing the “Authors” of the scriptures as much as it is what the “Authors” actually said. For that it takes the Holy Spirit and skilled grammarians in Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I DO know how to read the scriptures and I DO know how to defend my position. Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture?A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Interested?
I am not the slightest bit interested, not because I cannot make a valid argument about Biblical Monotheism in scriptures as being a Plural unity. Trinitarianism is the only view that takes all Biblical data without special pleading and show that God is Plural yet One.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
Instead of attacking them, write your own literary work.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
Already did.
Really! What is the name of your Bible? Where is your translation?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
After all “Unitarianism” and 'Aryanism” has been around for a long time, so why haven’t they presented their own work with their “Unitarian” or “Arian” slant?I think it is simple, they cannot impose their doctrines upon the t
ext for it would be obvious that is what was happening, and like the JWs would be found out to be a very unreliable translation.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
Obviously you are limited in your knowledge of the grammars involved, because one simple check into the original language should have convinced you I speak truthfully. ONLY someone ignorant of the grammar involved would continue to bluff and puff over issues having no merit the way you do.
So what are you saying, is your knowledge of grammars unlimited, or will you be honest and admit that you also have limitations ant that many grammarians disagree with you.And as far as “Bluff and Puff”, first of all I do not have time to respond to all of your points, secondly I have noticed there has been quite a few points that Thinker and myself has made that you have not responded to.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
The grammar of the Hebrew plural nouns for one example; and the use of the first-person-singular in the Septuagint, for another. Instead of dealing with the issues raised in my posts, you obfuscate and switch issues, often changing what it was I actually said, to beat into submission, something I did not say.The record is still there to read.
False! We have already showed you that plural unity is in scriptures and you try force all scriptural data to your view when scripturally the data we have does not reconcile with your view.You totally destroyed the meaning to the text in Psalm 110 with your own bias. Your theology is laying aside tons of scriptures that claim the Deity of Christ.
As a genius in mathematics you should know that there is nothing that is not plural.
For instance if I say the number three is plural that is a true statement because three is comprised of three ones. But if I say the number 3 is singular, that is also a true statement because the number 3 is one number.
You still haven’t answered my question and given me an example of anything that is not Plural in Unity. The creation reveals the Glory of God. Though you say God alone is singular and not plural, you have yet to prove it in scriptures. IMO
Blessings WJ
WJ,You are really humorous you keep approaching Paladin as if you are an expert on greek, Hebrew, grammar…etc.
But the fact is you are not. You try to belittle the person instead of the argument and I truly hope(God Willing) that Paladin stops lettin you and thinker throw him/her out of synch with the frivolity that is abundant in the both of your presentations.
Thinker at least seems to be more authentic and original but you actually pretend scholarship and it is all false.
I believe you want to be a scholar but you should instead want to be a sincere believer.
Quote (bodhitharta @ June 27 2009,15:51) WJ, You are really humorous you keep approaching Paladin as if you are an expert on greek, Hebrew, grammar…etc.
But the fact is you are not. You try to belittle the person instead of the argument and I truly hope(God Willing) that Paladin stops lettin you and thinker throw him/her out of synch with the frivolity that is abundant in the both of your presentations.
Thinker at least seems to be more authentic and original but you actually pretend scholarship and it is all false.
I believe you want to be a scholar but you should instead want to be a sincere believer.
Please! Where have I claimed that I am a Hebrew and Greek scholar? I am constantly pointing to the scholars and the translations as opposed to his critisisms of the scholars.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43) I will be the first to admit that you are far more intelligent than I. So if being an ignorant and unlearned man is a qualification to understanding scriptural truths then I guess that would make me more qualified than you. Read my post again, for your accusations are wrong. And please show me where I have belittled anybody.
I do not use words like stupid, no brains, etc like PD has done or infered.
Seems you are showing your bias here also!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,08:16) Quote (bodhitharta @ June 27 2009,15:51) WJ, You are really humorous you keep approaching Paladin as if you are an expert on greek, Hebrew, grammar…etc.
But the fact is you are not. You try to belittle the person instead of the argument and I truly hope(God Willing) that Paladin stops lettin you and thinker throw him/her out of synch with the frivolity that is abundant in the both of your presentations.
Thinker at least seems to be more authentic and original but you actually pretend scholarship and it is all false.
I believe you want to be a scholar but you should instead want to be a sincere believer.
Please! Where have I claimed that I am a Hebrew and Greek scholar? I am constantly pointing to the scholars and the translations as opposed to his critisisms of the scholars.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43) I will be the first to admit that you are far more intelligent than I. So if being an ignorant and unlearned man is a qualification to understanding scriptural truths then I guess that would make me more qualified than you. Read my post again, for your accusations are wrong. And please show me where I have belittled anybody.
I do not use words like stupid, no brains, etc like PD has done.
Seems you are showing your bias here also!
WJ
How can I be bias?As you say you are pointing to the scholars which is to no avail if you yourself or others are not scholars because pointing to a scholar is setting up a false authority to gain unearned advantages in an argument.
My point was you should be able to prove through the scriptures, without scholars, the simple truth.
I understand that the scriptures are not always clear, that's why I feel that the Quran is indispensible because it is the word of God made clear.
Hi BD
Quote (bodhitharta @ June 27 2009,17:25) How can I be bias? As you say you are pointing to the scholars which is to no avail if you yourself or others are not scholars because pointing to a scholar is setting up a false authority to gain unearned advantages in an argument.
My point was you should be able to prove through the scriptures, without scholars, the simple truth.
I understand that the scriptures are not always clear, that's why I feel that the Quran is indispensible because it is the word of God made clear.
You showed your bias by immediately jumping on my post accusing me of claiming to be a scholar, and that is because you are a nontrinitarian is it not?
I am not pointing to scholars for scriptural interpretation or doctrine, so again you are missing my point.
I am pointing to the translators, the Hebrew and Greek scholars by which we have the written word, and saying that PD has no right to change the translations or infer a meaning on them that was not meant by the translators who are the experts.
My whole point is that I can make the argument by scripture that Jesus is God without all the special pleading and reading into the text or twisting it to fit my theology.
Nontrinitarians have to throw out complete sentences from the Bible or explain them away to support their views.
And no, the Koran has nothing to do with the written scriptures found in the canon of the Bible.
WJ
bodhitharta said to WJ:
Quote You are really humorous you keep approaching Paladin as if you are an expert on greek, Hebrew, grammar…etc.
bd,
I marvel that you could accuse WJ of presenting himself as a scholar of the biblical languages when it is clearly Paladin that's the showman. WJ is just meeting Paladin on his own turf. Paladin lacks the ability to present a case without being very technical and lengthy about it.bd said:
Quote I truly hope(God Willing) that Paladin stops lettin you and thinker throw him/her out of synch with the frivolity that is abundant in the both of your presentations. Paladin throws himself out of sync. See how he handles Isaiah's vision of Christ's glory. It is altogether convoluded. Paladin tried to make you think that Isaiah 6 cannot be about Christ because chapter 53 speaks only of His humiliation. Paladin does not allow a passage to speak on its own.
bd said:
Quote Thinker at least seems to be more authentic and original but you actually pretend scholarship and it is all false. If you can't see that Paladin passes himself off as a scholar when he is not then you need glasses. Paladin is not a scholar. He is a DISSENTER!
bd said:
Quote I believe you want to be a scholar but you should instead want to be a sincere believer. And Paladin is a sincere believer? Paladin denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. That makes him an antichrist. And what about you? You cannot be a sincere believer if you confess salvation by any other name than Christ.
Other anti-trinitarians on this board are truly Christian because they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But you and Paladin have no place with God's people. You and Paladin just want to overthrow the faith of Christ's sheep.
thinker
Paladin said:
Quote Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture? A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Paladin,
I accepted your offer at the beginning and you never got back. But there will have to be rules. I would welcome one on one debate with you without the interruptions of others. I would gladly help to show people that your only purpose for being here is that you have absolutely nothing else to do with your life but overthrow the faith of Christ's people. I would gladly demonstrate that only trinitarians are consistent Monotheists.Quote These are spots in your love feasts…serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever (Jude 12-13). thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,07:43) HI PD Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,12:03) The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So in other words if we need heart surgery we should not be concerned if our surgeon is a heart specialist?Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
When Jesus healed the blind, no one enquired whether he was an opthalmologist.When he made the lame to walk, no one asked to see his Neurosurgeon's credentials.
When he made the deaf to hear, no one asked to see his audio-intense learning degrees from the nearest university.
True, but Jesus said…
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.You are not offering us any works by opening blind eyes and causing the lame to walk and the deaf to hear, so how can you make a comparison here? You are offering us apologetic opinions that oppose the works of skilled men in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
When I had open heart surgery, I spoke to God about it long before I ever had audience with the surgeon. Did I do wrong?
What would YOU have done differently?
I am sorry to hear you had to go through that! Thank God for modern technology and that you are still with us!But, did God tell you to have a dentist perform your open heart surgery?
I didn’t think so!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So we should trust the words of someone who is not a credentialed scholar and skilled in the translations of Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages, over those who have credentials and skills in the languages? I don't think so!Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
What makes you think those are the only two options?
I never said it was. You have a right to believe what you want. But as for me you have to have “solid proof” that what you say is true in contrast to the hundreds of scholars that disagree with you and your translation of the text that is in opposition of the many translations we have available to us.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I do not intend to get into a bragging contest with you and thinker, but I hold copyrights in my own name for my genius in Mathematics, for developing something in the math world which to date has not been accomplished by ANY OTHER PERSON.
Congratulations! You must also be rich then. Nobody is challenging your intellectual capacity or genius in Mathematics, but what does that have to do with Biblical theology or the ability to translate scriptures? I will be the first to admit that you are far more intelligent than I. So if being an ignorant and unlearned man is a qualification to understanding scriptural truths then I guess that would make me more qualified than you.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
So, I am not untutored. I just do not think scholarship is the proper place to make claims, especially when I was not one of the autograph authors of scripture.
This is circular, for that is exactly what you are doing is making claims. This is not about opposing the “Authors” of the scriptures as much as it is what the “Authors” actually said. For that it takes the Holy Spirit and skilled grammarians in Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I DO know how to read the scriptures and I DO know how to defend my position. Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture?A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Interested?
I am not the slightest bit interested, mainly because you will make claims that the scriptures are corrupted by biased men, and it is not because I cannot make a valid argument about Biblical Monotheism in scriptures as being a Plural unity. Trinitarianism is the only view that takes all Biblical data without special pleading and shows that God is Plural yet One.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
Instead of attacking them, write your own literary work.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
Already did.
Really! What is the name of your Bible? Where is your translation?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
After all “Unitarianism” and 'Aryanism” has been around for a long time, so why haven’t they presented their own work with their “Unitari
an” or “Arian” slant?I think it is simple, they cannot impose their doctrines upon the text for it would be obvious that is what was happening, and like the JWs would be found out to be a very unreliable translation.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
Obviously you are limited in your knowledge of the grammars involved, because one simple check into the original language should have convinced you I speak truthfully. ONLY someone ignorant of the grammar involved would continue to bluff and puff over issues having no merit the way you do.
So what are you saying, is your knowledge of grammars unlimited, or will you be honest and admit that you also have limitations and that many grammarians disagree with you.And as far as “Bluff and Puff”, first of all I do not have time to respond to all of your points, secondly I have noticed there has been quite a few points that Thinker and myself has made that you have not responded to.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
The grammar of the Hebrew plural nouns for one example; and the use of the first-person-singular in the Septuagint, for another. Instead of dealing with the issues raised in my posts, you obfuscate and switch issues, often changing what it was I actually said, to beat into submission, something I did not say.The record is still there to read.
False! We have already showed you that plural unity is in scriptures and you try force all scriptural data to your view when scripturally the data we have does not reconcile with your view.You totally destroyed the meaning to the text in Psalm 110 with your own bias. Your theology is laying aside tons of scriptures that claim the Deity of Christ.
As a genius in mathematics you should know that there is nothing that is not plural.
For instance if I say the number three is plural that is a true statement because three is comprised of three ones. But if I say the number 3 is singular, that is also a true statement because the number 3 is one number.
You still haven’t answered my question and given me an example of anything that is not Plural in Unity. The creation reveals the Glory of God. Though you say God alone is singular and not plural, you have yet to prove it in scriptures. IMO
Blessings WJ
(WJ)Quote
HI PDQuote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,12:03) The apostles were unlearned and ignorant, fishermen, tax-collectors, carpenters, whatever. Not scholars. they wrote for ingorant non-scholars to understand. I qualify. I understand. I do not offer scholarly credentials to back up my postiion, because it is of no value. It simply does not MATTER to me, how much education or pedigree my opponent displays, whether his own, or quoting his “authorities.” It is of no virtue. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So in other words if we need heart surgery we should not be concerned if our surgeon is a heart specialist?Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
When Jesus healed the blind, no one enquired whether he was an opthalmologist.When he made the lame to walk, no one asked to see his Neurosurgeon's credentials.
When he made the deaf to hear, no one asked to see his audio-intense learning degrees from the nearest university.
True, but Jesus said…
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.You are not offering us any works by opening blind eyes and causing the lame to walk and the deaf to hear, so how can you make a comparison here? You are offering us apologetic opinions that oppose the works of skilled men in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
Hey, it was YOU who introduced the medical field into a discussion of a theological matter. I agree, it doesn't mix, but then, it didn't stop YOU, did it?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
So we should trust the words of someone who is not a credentialed scholar and skilled in the translations of Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages, over those who have credentials and skills in the languages? I don't think so!(P) It behooves you to verify the claims against the scriptures, not against the commentaries, and synods, and popular doctrines, creeds and doctrines of men.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
What makes you think those are the only two options?(WJ) I never said it was. You have a right to believe what you want. But as for me you have to have “solid proof” that what you say is true in contrast to the hundreds of scholars that disagree with you and your translation of the text that is in opposition of the many translations we have available to us.
Why do you require “solid proof” from me, which by the way is undefined and unidentified, when you offer conentaries of men long dead. I will take the works of men longer dead who wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Which commentary do you identify as “solid proof?”
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I do not intend to get into a bragging contest with you and thinker, but I hold copyrights in my own name for my genius in Mathematics, for developing something in the math world which to date has not been accomplished by ANY OTHER PERSON.(WJ) Congratulations! You must also be rich then.
Why am I not surprised that you would conclude such with so little evidence. I have never received a penny for my work, because I did not publish it. That does not change the value of it at all. It just substantiates my opinion of your
“scholarship” evaluation.(WJ)
Quote Nobody is challenging your intellectual capacity or genius in Mathematics, but what does that have to do with Biblica
l theology or the ability to translate scriptures?(P) It has as much to do with it as your Medical experts you introduced to the discussion a while ago.
(WJ)
Quote I will be the first to admit that you are far more intelligent than I. So if being an ignorant and unlearned man is a qualification to understanding scriptural truths then I guess that would make me more qualified than you. (P) It is a prerequisite, not a qualification. Being humble, and having the Spirit of Christ helps.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
So, I am not untutored. I just do not think scholarship is the proper place to make claims, especially when I was not one of the autograph authors of scripture.(WJ) This is circular, for that is exactly what you are doing is making claims. This is not about opposing the “Authors” of the scriptures as much as it is what the “Authors” actually said. For that it takes the Holy Spirit and skilled grammarians in Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages.
It took the skills of unslkilled and ignorant men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, not a skilled grammarian in the bunch, not an expert in Hebrew and Greek among them. You obvioously do not understnad the power of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the authors to write.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I DO know how to read the scriptures and I DO know how to defend my position. Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture?A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Interested?
(WJ)I am not the slightest bit interested
(P) Why am I not surprised?
(WJ)
Quote
Trinitarianism is the only view that takes all Biblical data without special pleading and shows that God is Plural yet One.Agreed. But the issue I am willing to debate, is not which view takes biblical data and shows God to be plural yet one. My issue is simply “what does scripture teach?” I do not care a bit about which views can develope which doctrines.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
Instead of attacking them, write your own literary work.(P)
Already did.(WJ) Really! What is the name of your Bible? Where is your translation?
(P) See WJ, you can't even keep YOUR OWN words straight.
You challenge with “Literary work” then ask me which BIBLE I wrote. I said I already did, in response to your “literary work,” not BIBLE, which was absent in your challenge..Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
After all “Unitarianism” and 'Aryanism” has been around for a long time, so why haven’t they presented their own work with their “Unitarian” or “Arian” slant?I think it is simple, they cannot impose their doctrines upon the text for it would be obvious that is what was happening, and like the JWs would be found out to be a very unreliable translation.
(WJ)
Quote As a genius in mathematics you should know that there is nothing that is not plural. For instance if I say the number three is plural that is a true statement because three is comprised of three ones. But if I say the number 3 is singular, that is also a true statement because the number 3 is one number.
(P)The issue is not “how many ways can you bungle scripture's teachings?” The issue is “What do the scriptures actually teach?”
Why would I be asking about the number three, if God asserts he is best represented by the number one? And while it is true, the number three is comprised of three ones, God denies there are any other “ones” with beside, before, or after him. AND he denies there is any “one” equal to or with him. So why would I care how many “ones” you can crown into a numeral not found in scripture, regarding God and number of persons?
(WJ)
Quote You still haven’t answered my question and given me an example of anything that is not Plural in Unity. The creation reveals the Glory of God. (P) Right! Because you have not done anything toward proving there is anything that IS plural in unity, other than your simplistic assertion; with which I disagree.
I have told you “plural unity” is a contradiction in terms.
“Unity;” The state of being one.
There is no way you can get a “plural” unity without adding more states of being one, till what you have is a state of several parts united in one different category.
So, after changing the discription of the one to include other “ones” you combine them to force your meaning into a scripture that declares unambiguously that God is “ONE” WITHOUT adding any other parts with which to form a unity.
“ONE:” Being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire item or object rather than two or more.”
Guess that kinda eliminates three, doesn't it?
(WJ)
Quote
Though you say God alone is singular and not plural, you have yet to prove it in scriptures. IMONo I don't. The fact you don't know what constitutes proof has no bearing on the factuality of it.
Every time I prove ANYTHING to you, you ignore the proof and question my scholastic credentials, if I offer you more proof, you question my grammatical acumen, if I offer you more proof, you question my language skills in Hebrew and Greek, yet you never respond to the proof I have offered in those very areas.
Now, when I offer to debate you one on one, you try to present what you think I might argue, and refuse the opportunity to prove your own position.
So be it.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,10:54) Hi BD Quote (bodhitharta @ June 27 2009,17:25) How can I be bias? As you say you are pointing to the scholars which is to no avail if you yourself or others are not scholars because pointing to a scholar is setting up a false authority to gain unearned advantages in an argument.
My point was you should be able to prove through the scriptures, without scholars, the simple truth.
I understand that the scriptures are not always clear, that's why I feel that the Quran is indispensible because it is the word of God made clear.
You showed your bias by immediately jumping on my post accusing me of claiming to be a scholar, and that is because you are a nontrinitarian is it not?
I am not pointing to scholars for scriptural interpretation or doctrine, so again you are missing my point.
I am pointing to the translators, the Hebrew and Greek scholars by which we have the written word, and saying that PD has no right to change the translations or infer a meaning on them that was not meant by the translators who are the experts.
My whole point is that I can make the argument by scripture that Jesus is God without all the special pleading and reading into the text or twisting it to fit my theology.
Nontrinitarians have to throw out complete sentences from the Bible or explain them away to support their views.
And no, the Koran has nothing to do with the written scriptures found in the canon of the Bible.
WJ
The whole trinitarian argument is one of special pleading. Paul was called a god by some, so is Paul a God? He didn't prevent nor explain to them that he was not a god.The Quran has to have something to do with the canon of the Bible because it explains the Bible and it is the word of Your God and My God but you are unaware.
Quote (thethinker @ June 28 2009,11:57) bodhitharta said to WJ: Quote You are really humorous you keep approaching Paladin as if you are an expert on greek, Hebrew, grammar…etc.
bd,
I marvel that you could accuse WJ of presenting himself as a scholar of the biblical languages when it is clearly Paladin that's the showman. WJ is just meeting Paladin on his own turf. Paladin lacks the ability to present a case without being very technical and lengthy about it.bd said:
Quote I truly hope(God Willing) that Paladin stops lettin you and thinker throw him/her out of synch with the frivolity that is abundant in the both of your presentations. Paladin throws himself out of sync. See how he handles Isaiah's vision of Christ's glory. It is altogether convoluded. Paladin tried to make you think that Isaiah 6 cannot be about Christ because chapter 53 speaks only of His humiliation. Paladin does not allow a passage to speak on its own.
bd said:
Quote Thinker at least seems to be more authentic and original but you actually pretend scholarship and it is all false. If you can't see that Paladin passes himself off as a scholar when he is not then you need glasses. Paladin is not a scholar. He is a DISSENTER!
bd said:
Quote I believe you want to be a scholar but you should instead want to be a sincere believer. And Paladin is a sincere believer? Paladin denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. That makes him an antichrist. And what about you? You cannot be a sincere believer if you confess salvation by any other name than Christ.
Other anti-trinitarians on this board are truly Christian because they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But you and Paladin have no place with God's people. You and Paladin just want to overthrow the faith of Christ's sheep.
thinker
by no means am I trying to shake your faith in Christ, in-fact I want to increase your faith in Christ as Christ and decrease your desire of making the anointed the anointer.It is anti-Christ to call Christ “God” for God sent Jesus to be the Christ and you diminish that title when you try to add to it.
You seem to be ashamed of Jesus Christ as a flesh and blood human being who was obedient even if it meant death.
If Jesus was God there would be no point in being concerned about death or for that matter being obedient to yourself.
bodhitharta said:
Quote It is anti-Christ to call Christ “God” for God sent Jesus to be the Christ and you diminish that title when you try to add to it. bd,
You have just called the Father an Antichrist.You said,
Quote It is anti-Christ to call Christ “God” Speaking to the Son the Father said:
Quote Thy throne O God is forever and ever (Heb. 1:8) You claim to honor the Father but yet you call Him a liar. You have called the Father an antichrist and you have accused the Father for diminishing the title “Christ.” Not only that, but you introduce another “god” which you call “Allah.” You have a lot of nerve to claim to be a Monotheist.
I have accepted Paladin's offer to go one on one twice now. I think he knows that logic beats his warped philosophy of language any day.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 28 2009,14:55) bodhitharta said: Quote It is anti-Christ to call Christ “God” for God sent Jesus to be the Christ and you diminish that title when you try to add to it. bd,
You have just called the Father an Antichrist.You said,
Quote It is anti-Christ to call Christ “God” Speaking to the Son the Father said:
Quote Thy throne O God is forever and ever (Heb. 1:8) You claim to honor the Father but yet you call Him a liar. You have called the Father an antichrist and you have accused the Father for diminishing the title “Christ.” Not only that, but you introduce another “god” which you call “Allah.” You have a lot of nerve to claim to be a Monotheist.
I have accepted Paladin's offer to go one on one twice now. I think he knows that logic beats his warped philosophy of language any day.
thinker
First of all God can call anyone whatever he wants but we cannot, second that scripture is used out of context as the actual text is not even a quote from God to anyone.But thats Paul for you using Guile to great effect. When Jesus quotes the OT he tells you what prophet said it and how it applies Paul was not quoting a Prophet and he doesn't tell you where it came from giving the impression that “God said”
Arabic Christians call OUR GOD ALLAH in their Holy Bible so keep in mind that ALLAH is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Jesus, you and me. In-fact there is no other God.
you thought Allah was a different god because you believe in “gods” which is an idea foreign to me.
Hi PD
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
It took the skills of unslkilled and ignorant men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, not a skilled grammarian in the bunch, not an expert in Hebrew and Greek among them. You obvioously do not understnad the power of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the authors to write.
There you go, another diversion. This debate is not about the men of God that were moved by the Holy Spirit and penned the inspired scriptures. This has to do with the translations of the inspired scriptures by the Hebrew and Greek experts and unless you can read it or speak it and are a skilled grammarian in the Biblical languages then you have no right to oppose the 100s that have.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,13:37)
I DO know how to read the scriptures and I DO know how to defend my position. Do you or thinker care to enter into a one to one debate on the issue of whether monotheism is taught in scripture?A second thread can be utilized for comments from other interested parties. But NO ONE would be allowed to interfere on the debate.
Interested?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43) I am not the slightest bit interested
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
Why am I not surprised?
I didn’t expect you to be surprised, I have explained my reasons. I tell you what though, I will agree to such a debate if you agree that we just use the versions of the Bible found on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org and just accept the written scriptures as they are, and just compare scripture to scripture.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43) Trinitarianism is the only view that takes all Biblical data without special pleading and shows that God is Plural yet One. Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
Agreed. But the issue I am willing to debate, is not which view takes biblical data and shows God to be plural yet one. My issue is simply “what does scripture teach?” I do not care a bit about which views can develope which doctrines.
OK fine, we stick to just what scriptures teach without all the external evidence or apologetics.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
Instead of attacking them, write your own literary work.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
Already did.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43)
Really! What is the name of your Bible? Where is your translation?Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
See WJ, you can't even keep YOUR OWN words straight.
You challenge with “Literary work” then ask me which BIBLE I wrote. I said I already did, in response to your “literary work,” not BIBLE, which was absent in your challenge..
Your right, I used the wrong choice of words. What I am referring to was the translations that you claim is written by biased men. So where is you own Bible translation? Why don’t the Unitarians have their own Bibles, why seek to discredit the current translations?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 28 2009,05:16)
After all “Unitarianism” and 'Aryanism” has been around for a long time, so why haven’t they presented their own work with their “Unitarian” or “Arian” slant?I think it is simple, they cannot impose their doctrines upon the text for it would be obvious that is what was happening, and like the JW’s would be found out to be a very unreliable translation.
I guess you have no comment on this point!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43) As a genius in mathematics you should know that there is nothing that is not plural.
For instance if I say the number three is plural that is a true statement because three is comprised of three ones. But if I say the number 3 is singular, that is also a true statement because the number 3 is one number.
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
The issue is not “how many ways can you bungle scripture's teachings?” The issue is “What do the scriptures actually teach?”
Really, so you do not believe that scripture can interpret scriptures? For instance the Jesus seeing God issue, yet scriptures say no man can see or has seen God.Or the issue where Jesus said no man is Good and yet he claims to be the “Good Shepherd”. And scriptures clearly teach that Jesus was without sin.
So how would you explain those away without explaining away the obvious or whiting out scripture to support your theology?
Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
Why would I be asking about the number three, if God asserts he is best represented by the number one?
Because if you don’t then you have a contradiction where scriptures say there is “Only One True God”. Again white out the scriptures that claim Jesus is God or say that he is “a god” like
the JW’s when Paul clearly says there is no God but one, (1 Cor 8:4,5), yet Paul calls Jesus his Great God and Saviour (Titus 2:13).You cannot reconcile that with the Arian or Unitarian view can you?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43)
And while it is true, the number three is comprised of three ones, God denies there are any other “ones” with beside, before, or after him. AND he denies there is any “one” equal to or with him. So why would I care how many “ones” you can crown into a numeral not found in scripture, regarding God and number of persons?
I realize that you do not care about plurality in unity. But you make a good point about God, by himself, and no other beside him yet we read in Psalms 110:1, 5 and John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8, for example that God is beside God. So you deal with the contradictions or understand that the Trinitarian view over all others is true to the scriptures.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43)
You still haven’t answered my question and given me an example of anything that is not Plural in Unity. The creation reveals the Glory of God.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
Right! Because you have not done anything toward proving there is anything that IS plural in unity, other than your simplistic assertion; with which I disagree.I have told you “plural unity” is a contradiction in terms.
How so? Was Jesus lying when he said “I and my Father are One”?Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
“Unity;” The state of being one.There is no way you can get a “plural” unity without adding more states of being one, till what you have is a state of several parts united in one different category.
So, after changing the discription of the one to include other “ones” you combine them to force your meaning into a scripture that declares unambiguously that God is “ONE” WITHOUT adding any other parts with which to form a unity.
“ONE:” Being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire item or object rather than two or more.”
Guess that kinda eliminates three, doesn't it?
No not at all. The number three is “One number”, yet the number three includes “three number ones”, all numbers and not a different category. So there is your example.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,15:43)
Though you say God alone is singular and not plural, you have yet to prove it in scriptures. IMOQuote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
No I don't. The fact you don't know what constitutes proof has no bearing on the factuality of it.Every time I prove ANYTHING to you, you ignore the proof and question my scholastic credentials, if I offer you more proof, you question my grammatical acumen, if I offer you more proof, you question my language skills in Hebrew and Greek, yet you never respond to the proof I have offered in those very areas.
I figured that you would say it. It is a lie to say that I never respond to the proofs that you offer. I have, and because you do not agree you think that you have proven something and you have not.Quote (Paladin @ June 27 2009,20:55)
Now, when I offer to debate you one on one, you try to present what you think I might argue, and refuse the opportunity to prove your own position.So be it.
That is because I have dealt with people like you before and they always end up refuting the translations or claiming corruption or bias when presented with unambiguous truth that Jesus is God.So you want the debate fine, then we go by the rules that I mentioned and stick to the scriptures by letting them interpret themselves, but I will wait in line behind Thinker.
I noticed that you didn’t take Thinkers challenge, yet you claim to want to debate the two of us.
Blessings WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
