Jesus is God !

[NWL]

JudgeRighly: Part 1 of my response.

It is painfully hard and awkward to read and respond to your post JR due to misquotations and the sporadicness of your post. Over and over you make a series of pointless comments because you've either misread or misinterpreted my previous posts. For example, you say "I hope this isn't an argument from incredulity (it's a logical fallacy)" (also "This is an argument from incredulity")" in reply to me saying I never understood the plurality argument with the word "elohim" when applied to God. How and why you think I'm making such an argument when in the very same paragraph I explained what I meant and why the argument makes no sense; I don't believe any average person would've thought I was unwilling to accept the argument purely because I didn't like it, since, I made it very clear why I did not accept it.

You said, "Cite to some of this scholarly work? Bald-faced assertions have no value here unless they are backed up" in reply to my claim there was "a vast amount of scholarly work confirming the plurality relates to the majesty and not a plurality of persons". Again, how could you come to the conclusion I was making an assertion without evidence when in the paragraph before you quoted the scholarly source that was accompanied with my claim, thus it was not merely an assertion.

I said "The plurality argument with Elohim makes no sense as it infers 'Gods' in relation to the 'one God', with the Septuagint making no such distinction; it's never been a good argument and it will never be a good argument", you replied, "Because you say so?". Again, how could you act and pretend I'm simply asserting it's not a good argument despite me making it extremely clear why it was not a good argument. I understand you contest the arguments I presented, but to suggest I'm claiming I'm correct "just because I say so" is a misrepresentation of what I expressed.

I've used a variation of names in reference to the tetragrammaton, in response to this said "You just got done telling me it's "YHWH." Make up your mind please". JudgeRighly, do you really think I was making a claim that the correct and only way for God's name to be written or spoke was in the form of YHWH? Do I really need to explain that I often use variations of the name of God in the forms of YHWH, Yahweh or Jehovah.

As I said, it is painful to read your response and painful to reply as I should not need to defend the out of context quotes you have made and then further reply to your own response much of which are pedantic, unnecessary points, as shown above. I will reply to you once more, but please leave out the accusations and false claims, and pedantic points.

Let's press forward.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily. For example, even in English, "one" doesn't always mean a "singular" entity. For example:

"There is at least one crowd of people on this one street."

In the above sentence, there are two different ways (that are relevant to our discussion) of using the word "one."

The first instance is referring to the crowd, which is many people, as a single entity, without it being "singular" in nature, but rather "plural" in nature. One crowd, many people.

And of course, the second instance is referring to a single, solitary street.

When the Bible says, in Deuteronomy 6:4 (and this would probably go better below), that "Elohim is one God," it does NOT mean it as the second instance above, but as the first, and the word used for "one" in the Hebrew supports this.

"Echad" means a united "one", "one of plurality."

Your comments above were in reply to me saying "if the Elohim in reference to the one God should be understood in the plural sense then it implies not one God but GODS; "in the beginning, GODS created the heavens and the earth", You seem to give an example of the English usage of the word "one", ignore the issue I present with understanding "Elohim" as 'GODS' in Gen 1:1 and shift the argument to Deut 6:4. You nowhere explained how it's possible how the usage of "Elohim" as applied to YHWH doesn't infer 'more than one God' if understood in the pluraul sense, namely GODS.

The argument you make with the English word "one" falls flat on its face, why do I say this, firstly, we are not debating the English and its uses in relation to the plural and singular senses, rather, we're discussing the usage of the Hebrew word "Elohim" and how a plural understanding of the word, when applied to YHWH, should be understood.

Again, if the word "Elohim" is plural in relation to YHWH then it infers "Gods", you don't believe in Gods but rather one being, one God. So please deal with the inconsistency and explain how Gods does not infer more than one God, unless, you as a trinitarian believe there is more than one God in the Godhead.

When the Bible says, in Deuteronomy 6:4 (and this would probably go better below), that "Elohim is one God," it does NOT mean it as the second instance above, but as the first, and the word used for "one" in the Hebrew supports this.

Lol, but Deut doesn't say "ELOHIM is one God" as you suggest, rather, it states “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." So again, your argument falls flat on its face. Only the Father is ever called YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh.

This is also where your argument surrounding the word "echad" fails, you presuppose Jehovah is three persons in the verse and therefore understand the word "echad" to mean "united entity". If we simply read the verse for what it says, it just means the single entity and person, namely YHWH, is one being and person, YHWH. As I said in my previous post the Pagan gods surrounding the nation of Israel were polytheistic gods, consisting of multiple gods, the verse was simply reminding the nation of Israel that YHWH was not a God that consisted of many beings or persons, but rather a single deity. No translation of Deut 6:4 translates the verse to mean "unity entity" or a similar phrase, they all understand the term in that specific passage to simply mean "one", as in numerically one.

Let me remind you, you are meant to be providing a verse that teaches God is one being who is three persons and that these persons are co-equal and co-eternal; nothing you've provided so far has said anything close to that trinitarian statement.

Correct.

However, something that isn't apparent in the English (and I pointed this out, but you didn't seem to catch or read it) is that, even in Hebrew verbs must match grammatically the subject of the sentence, which in the case of "bara" (Hebrew for "created"), does not.

Which is the whole reason I pointed it out as being the most studied verse in the entire history of studying the Bible. You'd think that if it was an error, people would make a bigger deal out of it, especially those who study it.

The fact is that if, as you say, God is a single, singular entity (yes, that is what I intended to write), or instead that God is multiple entities (as some suggest, including the angels in verse 1), then the verse should either say (in Hebrew) "God (singular subject) created (singular verb)" OR "Gods (plural subject) created (plural verb)."

What it actually is:

"Gods (plural subject) created (singular verb)"

This is NOT a mistake.

If it were a mistake, it likely would have been corrected centuries ago.

You saying "correct" was in reply to my comment and quote of "in the beginning, GODS created the heavens and the earth". JR, does the trinitarian doctrine teach, and do you believe, there is one God, or does it teach and, you believe, there are Gods in the trinity?

If it was not a mistake then why does the LXX say singular "God" in Gen 1:1, why would an ancient scholar miss this clear remark. Before you say the LXX is not authoritative, we must remember Jesus himself read and taught from the LXX, so such a claim is not true, since why would Christ read from work that holds no authority.

As I have already said scholars agree "Elohim" in reference to God does not refer to a plurality of persons when referring YHWH:

Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ: “The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.” -​

Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1: “Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”.​

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, p208: “[Elohim] Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - ​

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224: "[Elohim] is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God." - ​

Unger and White, 1980, p. 159. Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” ​

​

And therefore "Gods" in the Hebrew must be incorrect?

You're putting the cart before the horse in terms of which has priority.

The Hebrew scriptures have priority over the Septuagint.

Question for you: Does the Greek New Testament make any distinction between "gods" (such as the Greek pantheon) and "God" (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)?

Correct, the term 'Elohim' does not necessitate that the one being spoken of refers to persons. We can see this when looking at Exo 7:1 when it applied the term to Moses who is a single person, to the singular Philistine god Dagon 1 Samuel 5:7 (5:7 -"[Jah's] hand has dealt harshly with us and our god/Elohim Daʹgon"), to the god Chemosh in Judges 11:24 (11:24 -"Do you not possess whatever your god Cheʹmosh gives you to possess") amoung other refernces to other persons/gods who are not multi-personal beings. If "Elohim" was to always be understood in relation to a plurality of persons or beings then such verses, as the the ones above, would make little sense. There is no reason why it would be wrong to accept "elohim" to simply me "God" as the word means in english, the vast majority of scholars would agree.

Because you say so?

This is an argument from incredulity.

In order for it to make sense (according to your beliefs) you would have to change what the text says. Doing so invalidates your position, unless you can prove indisputably that Genesis 1:1 has a grammatical error in it, where a plural subject is used with a singular verb.

Since the only ways to do that is to show the original manuscripts, which have since been lost to time, or to show earlier manuscripts than the ones we have that do not have this alleged error in it, you have a very high bar to overcome before you can say that such is an error.

The fact of the matter is that "Gods (pl. subj) created (s. verb)" is what the Hebrew says.

If your theology requires you to change it to make sense, then your theology is what needs to be corrected.

Lol, you are truley confused. I'm not going to argue a point with a trinitarian who suggesting "Gods created". Again, the trinity doctrine teaches that God is one being, by your comments here you're suggesting there is not one God but multiple Gods. I'll await the answer to my question above in green whereby I asked if the trinity doctrine teaches there is one God who is three persons, or if there are three Gods who are three persons. You're meant to be showing me where the bible teaches the trinity, not contradicting it by claiming the bible teaches Gods and not God in relationto the trinity.

Again, more specifically, the Son rained down fire from the Father in Heaven.

YHWH raining down fire from [H]imself in the heaven simply relates to the angels

Are you seriously going to argue that "YHWH" is referring to angels?

That's called blasphemy.
Notice that in "Angel of the LORD," "Angel" is capitalized.

The "Angel of the LORD" is a "theophany."

Gen 19:1 states, "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening", then, Gen 19:13 has the two angels stating "we will destroy this place...Yahweh has sent us to destroy it", v24 futher adds, "Yahweh rained...sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky". I've claimed these angels were not lying when they stated they we sent by Yahweh to destroy the city, I also have to make sense that v24 that states Yahweh rained fire and sulfar from Yahweh out of the sky. The only reasonable conclusion is that these angels were Yahweh representive and were ordained by Yahweh himself to destroy the city, thus their action of destroying the city was as if Yahweh was destroying it himself, hence "Yahweh rained...sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky".

If you insist these angels were YHWH then it contradicts other teachings of the bible, as these two angels were the same two of the three angels/men who appeared Abraham under the tree in Gen 18:1,2, "Yahweh appeared to him [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood opposite him...[Yahweh said]  I will go down to see whether they are acting according to the outcry...The men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before Yahweh." If these three men where Yahweh, namely the Father, Son and Holy spirit, then it contradicts 1 John 4:12 that states "No one has seen God at any time".

Let's clear this up with a question, were the Angels mentioned in Gen 19:1 angelic beings or were they God in the in manner of a theophany? If the angels in Gen 19:1 were God, being the two of the three who appeared to Abraham in Gen 18:1,2 then explain the contradiction with 1 John 4:12 that expresses "no one has seen God at any time", since Abraham and Sarah saw all three persons of the trinity.

Question for you: Does the Greek New Testament make any distinction between "gods" (such as the Greek pantheon) and "God" (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)?

Grammatically, yes, genreally "THE GOD" (ho theos or ton theon) would be a reference to the God of Israel; contexutally pertaining to theology, also yes; Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor 8:5,6, "there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father..". Paul clearly made a distinction and placed only the Father in the caterogory of the "one God" despite of his claim of other gods existing.

The "Angel of the LORD" is a "theophany."

This is nothing more than an assertion. The phrase "Angel of Yahweh" denotes the "angel" is simply Yahweh's Angel, the same way the phrase the "messenger of the King" denotes the messenger is the Kings messenger. There is no reason not to accept the Malek YHWH's (angels of Yahweh) as simply being Yahwehs angels, it's without doubt a clear possibilty of the verse and its primary meaning upon reading the text.

 

[Lon]

Ad hominem: To attack an opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument

So you know the definition now, when did I attack your character? Did I call you a bad guy? No. Did I make assessments regarding your ability to understand context? Yes. Did it hurt your feelings? Likely, but education is about correction. There is no intent to make you feel poorly. I've repeated many times, it can be fixed by education in most cases.

Comments you made in your third paragraph: "Did you do this well in school?", "if Unitarians simply knew how to read contextually", "many of you take ownership for your poorer school grades"; these are all character attacks. Nothing in your third paragraph in paragraph actually refuted anything I stated, you merely claimed I was not understanding the context of the verse, but nowhere demonstrated in your paragraph or ones after how exactly I was reading it out of context. You attacked "my character" and claimed what you believed to be my lack of reading and comprehension skill in an attempt to undermine my argument, this is called an 'Ad hominem'; please stop being so pedantic.

Sorry. Wrong. Report it if you believe it is. You'll quickly see you are wrong. It is indeed against the rules on TOL.

I asked JR to produce verses that explicitly teach the trinity, i.e, "There is one God who is three persons, namely, the Father/Son/HS, and that these three persons are co=-equal and co-eternal. He's yet to produce a single verse that teaches anything I just stated, he's within his right to deny this, but doing so does not necessarily make him correct.

Your accusation. You are incorrect. The above is a paraphrase (summation) of scripture. John 1:1ff is very close to that, however. We disagree that he hasn't produced verses. I do agree you don't look at the context of paragraphs in scripture and recognize them as triune expressions YET (and please hear this) of the millions of Christians on the planet, they DO see triune expressions. Only a VERY few don't and these are NOT those who did fantastic in school (NOT an ad hominem). I'm trying to get you to compare for a moment. If I happened to have D's in English, I could still rest a bit on the fact that men and women smarter than I (A's B's) agreed with the context of scriptures, that God is triune in expression. The problem? If I even have C+ or B+ grades in English and other languages, I'm not qualified to challenge my professors' teaching. It doesn't matter how right I 'think' I am, if my skills to discern aren't there. God's word is spiritually discerned, but the teaching of the words are grammar and a clear grasp of English and Greek grammar are of paramount importance to 'challenging' the majority view. Is it therefore ad hominem to bring this up? No. It is a standard that HAS to be met by ANY challenger of what most see as biblical doctrine.
It is the requirement.

What am I meant to "get" about Exo 7:1, you didn't express what specific translation you agreed with or what point I wasn't getting that you and JR agree with? In fact, in the paragraph you quoted from JR, he did not even make a point direct point but simply expressed how various translations render the Exo 7:1. I do not deny the existence of different variation of English translations of Exo 7:1 so what point am I meant to "get", for you to say, "Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people"?

The fact that you make 'the same' accusation/observation of a 'problem' with another's posts and supposed inability. Here is ONE instance of you missing 'context.' I wasn't addressing Exodus and will leave that to Judge Rightly (unless you have a specific need for me to enter that part of the conversation). I'm rather concerned you say the same thing to an entirely different person, blaming/accusing them of something YOU need to own yourself. It isn't that all of us are somehow all suddenly smitten with the same problem you seem to attribute to all of us. As far as I've read Judge Rightly in thread, I don't have the same problems you do with the context of his statements. He is capable, regardless of your suggestion he is not. YOUR assessments are incorrect.

Both the Hebrew and the Greek of Exo 7:1 express the same thing, both use the term God and apply it to Moses, this is a fact.

You mean the Septuagint? Exodus was written in Hebrew. Are you sure you know what a fact is?

English translations try to make sense of what the application means by translating the text as, "like God", "a G-god", "as God", "in Gods place", but this does not negate the fact a direct application of the word "theos" and "elohim" is applied to Moses. I agree with most if not all the variations of the text, as all of them express more or less the same thing.

Yet, they must not be translations with 'added' ideas not express in the first language. That is taking liberty with the text and writing a man-made doctrine bible.

You answer with the word "easy", but, nowhere did you address my actual question. You stated I'm not arguing against you but against the text, quoted John 1:3, highlighted that I asked you to stop repeating, and expressed you prefer to use God's word to be my teacher, BUT WHERE DID YOU DEAL WITH MY POINT. Let me remind you, you said it was "easy" but nowhere tackled it.

As I said, YOU brought up John 1:3. YOU gave me an option to pick. I picked. Whatever after YOU wanted, whether I jumped through your hoop or not, is not of consequence. You have a bit of a demanding nature. I don't like doing poodle tricks THEN complaining because I chose to walk around a couple of them. In this case YOU need to provide a clear path to the next hoop. I've entertained your whims to this point.

Again, I stated "it's your claim John's double emphasis in John 1:3 negates the context of "all things" being limited to the creation of the heaven and earth as per the context of John 1:1 and Gen 1:1. If this is the case then please tell me what the difference is when it comes to Hebrews 2:8!", how does quoting John 1:3 show the difference between it and Hebrews 2:8 when I already expressed the word "all things" and "made" in John 1:3 are contextually in reference to John 1:1 and Gen 1:1.

This is the fourth time. John simply says "all things." Done. Hebrews says "All things by the works of His hands."
One has a 'modifier' prepositional phrase "under His hands" which limits man from being 'God's boss. Its a silly attempt and academically, grammatically untenable.

John 1:3 rather has a conjunction: "And without Him, nothing was made that was made (period)." Do you grasp the difference?

"Does John do it", you ask, yes he does! How could you be so utterly bold to say the context of John 1:3 is not limited in the same way as Hebrews 2:7,8. Again, John opens up with "in the beginning", this is a direct parallel to Genesis 1:1, do you agree or disagree that John was referencing the "beginning" as mention in Gen 1:1 by his words found in John 1:1 Lon?

Jumping texts isn't exegesis. It is violent to the text. It reminds me of the guy that was looking for guidance from scripture in his lowest hour: He opened up to "Judas hung himself." Desperate, he cracked his bible again and his finger landed on "go and do likewise." Just because it is in scripture, doesn't mean we can violently rip one context and place it in another 'to fit our idealoogical/theological beliefs.' That is an abuse and misuse of scripture. In this case, John doesn't tell us. We should not assume. It 'could' be Genesis 1. Is it wise to then, go off and build a theology off of assumptions? :nono:

It is one thing telling someone they have not understood the context of a particular passage, and a completely another thing to claim they have not understood the context due to them being uneducated, having bad school grades, or them being an ignorant unitarian (as if all unitarians are ignorant).

I'm not sure it is. Often it is clear they do not have those tools, and yes, I do even question the academics of the PhD you quoted. There IS something wrong with reading comprehension to say such things and I do believe, from many conversations, that there is a profound ignorance.

You've repeated the same said comments in many of your post, it's hard to believe they are you innocently speaking your mind, over being backhanded, and belittling insults. Either they are ad hominem attacks or backhanded insults; either is bad and should have no place in these discussions.

No, they are a pattern. I HAVE to believe you have reading problems or you couldn't be a Christian. I've come to think that the remedial class can catch up. I know a few ex-Unitarians. They finally 'got it' and it was academic. God simply corrected them.

I do not understand how you cannot see where what you're saying contradicts itself. I understand you take the "over the works of your hand" as the limiting factor of the word "all" in Hebrews 2:8; "all things" can only be understood as far as the context that being "the works of [Gods] hands", namely creation. What you've yet to make sense of is the fact John 1:3 also has a limiting factor, namely, John 1:1 and its reference of the "beginning" of Gen 1:1. Hebrews 2:8 and Gen 1:1 have the same limiting factor as both are in reference to the "works of Gods" hand as per Gen 1:1 and Hebrews 2:7

Because it is an assumption NOT implicit in the text. YOU are that missing factor. That is THE problem of not reading for context AND going beyond the text to make an assumption. Again, I'm convinced education is the answer to Unitarianism. I DO realize that means I attribute most if not all Unitarian thought to ignorance, but better that than a spiritual problem (though they can be the same thing).

If the "all" in Hebrews 2:8 is directly tied to 'over the works of His hands' as per v7, then on what basis to do ignore what John was directly tieing the word "all" to in John 1:3 when he referenced God creating the heaven and the earth by paralleling Gen 1:1? (Question is dependant on your answer to John 1:1 in relation to Gen 1:1)

If your defense is that a double emphasis can negate the direct context, then what do you do with the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8?

The restatement always means to be emphatic.

This is coming from the person who wasn't pressed a single question multiple times in a row and then stated 'he wasn't even aware what question I was even asking him'; who, states something is 'easy' and then fails to actually address the issue he called "easy". I believe your reading and comprehension skills are poor, you'll no doubt disagree with this the same way I'll disagree with you. I would not be so belittling to ask you to attend my reading comprehension thread. Again, stop with the backhanded comments.

Ah, see? You don't just do this to JudgeRightly and others, you do it to me as well. It is from YOUR repetoire (means your hangup, not most of ours).

I believe it was John who was importing it as it was him making the parallel. According to what you said you'll be forced to deny scriptures such as John 8:58 teach Jesus is YHWH as any thought that someone is attempting to parallel prior scripture by their words is "importing thoughts" into the text; such an idea is ridiculous, it is literally what is required when exegeting. There are plenty of texts where the writer is referencing a prior text or events leaving it to the reader to understand and make such a deduction, the fact you claim this is incorrect creates more issues for a trinitarian than it solves.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers​

(1) In the beginning.—The reference to the opening words of the Old Testament is obvious, and is the more striking when we remember that a Jew would constantly speak of and quote from the book of Genesis as Berēshîth (“in the beginning”).​

Barnes' Notes on the Bible​

In the beginning - This expression is used also in Genesis 1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to "the Word" an expression which is there applied "to God."​

Vincent's Word Studies​

In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν): With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. ​

Benson Commentary​

John 1:1-2. In the beginning — Namely, of the creation, (for the evangelist evidently refers to the first word of the book of Genesis, בראשׁית, bereshith, rendered by the LXX. εν αρχη, the expression here used,)​

​

It doesn't matter what "Ellicott" says! It matters what scriptures say and it matters if one grasps contextual truth or not. One of the first rules of exegesis is "Do not import your ideas, export His."

My incapability? Did you read what I wrote, YOU were the one who refused to speak about it, not me.

YOU brought up John 1:3 and asked ME to comply jumping through YOUR hoops. You like arguing, don't you?

In regards to your 'reason', I've said to you many times before, no, the traditional translation does not make sense. Remember, if Jesus is "the God", and "the God" in John 1:1b was the Father or the trinity, then Jesus 'is' the Father or the trinity. Remember was YOU that expressed in your last post that I've "imported" the idea that John 1:3 is in relation to John 1:1 and Gen 1:1 and suggest I'm incorrect to have imported such an idea since God's word does not directly state it. Now let's apply your little principle to John 1:1.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE GOD, and the Word was THE GOD.

Without "importing" anything that isn't explicitly stated apart from what's expressed in the text itself, explain to me how the translation of the "Word was THE GOD", which infers Jesus was "THE GOD" (definite), doesn't imply Jesus 'was' the trinity or the Father? Good luck.

Without importing anything John 1:1 states "Was with God 'AND' was God."
Without 'importing' John continues "The Word 'became' flesh." Therefore, without convolution, from the text, the One who became Flesh is the Word, therefore 'with and was God' in the flesh.

NOW there are in fact other scriptures that say exactly this. At this point, I know of ONLY one being ever that 'became' flesh.

 

[Lon]

It is painfully hard and awkward to read and respond to your post JR due to misquotations and the sporadicness of your post.

A shortcoming on your part? Again, learn to ask where you are confused instead of blaming others for what you don't understand (even if it is sometimes their fault). Just a suggest, leave it or take it. You CAN become better at conversation and ask good leading questions. Part of it is learning to care about the subject matter and the one you are talking with. I know you don't think I've been kind, but I haven't been quite as mean as you assume. Stern perhaps, but not mean.

 

[NWL]

Part 2 of my response.

Except that it does. Why? Here's why: If Jesus is not God, then He is a blasphemer, because, as Hebrews 1 rightly states, God spoke through Him, and yet Jesus not only focused His message on Himself, but claimed the words as His own. The ONLY way that Jesus did not place himself above/before God is if He IS God.

NO CREATED BEING EVER has the right to claim ownership of the things of God, nor can a created being rightly focus his message upon himself, saying such things as "Follow me," pray and act "in My name," the Holy Spirit comes "in My name," "I will abide in you," "Do things for My sake," "I never knew you, depart from Me," "love Me," "I am the Way," "I am . . . the Truth," "I am . . . the life," and the list goes on and on.

For ANY created being to utter those things in the same contexts of the verses they are found in, it would be blasphemy.

You said above "For ANY created being to utter those things in the same contexts of the verses they are found in, it would be blasphemy", says who, you? If the one God, namely the Father, ordained that all things are to go through his Son Jesus, then it is hardly blasphemy as it was God himself who ordained it; for it to be blasphemy, Jesus would've had to have said all those things without recognizing the Father when doing so, we see the exact opposite of this. Jesus said things such as:

"The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." (John 14:12)
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38)
"I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." John 14:31

So when Jesus says all the things you made mention of, he says them as the Father told him to say such things and ordained such things to be done to him. Jesus himself said, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), so many of the actions done in Jesus name are not for his own namesake but rather to draw ourselves closer to the Father and bring him glory, we can see this in action in Phil 2:9-11 that states "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position...so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend...and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father". Notice, how the Father appoints Jesus above every single thing so that every knee has to bend to his Son, but to whose glory is it? It's to the glory of "God the Father"! Bending the knee is not for Jesus' glory but for the glory of the Father, who Paul categorizes as the "one God". Jesus is

I'm literally giving you the verses. Are you that blind?

I told you before, just because you can't see it there doesn't mean it's not there, and just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.

Step back. Try getting the big picture of what I'm trying to tell you for once.

God says "by two or three witnesses a matter is established."

I gave you at least 8 witnesses that God is triune in the post you are responding to.

1) the use of a plural subject with a singular verb in Genesis 1:1
2) The use of "echad" describing the plural "elohim" as "one of unity" in Deuteronomy 6:4
3) Jesus' use of "I say unto you" replacing "thus says the Lord"
4) Jesus' focus on Himself in His ministry, which if He is not God, would be blasphemous
5) John 1 calls the Word (Jesus) "God"
6) Hebrews 1 teaches that the Son is God
7) The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5)
8) The Father is, of course, God (1 Thessalonians 1)

You said "I'm literally giving you the verses. Are you that blind?", you're giving me verses yes, but which of those verses teach 'God is one being who is three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal'? None! Remember you claimed the scriptures "teaches", I do not deny the segments of the trinity doctrine can be conceived by piecing various scriptures together, but to claim the scriptures "teach it" is a claim it's explicitly taught and is clear, which it is not.

Regarding your points:
1) this imply Gods, not God, the trinity doctrine teaches there is one God, not Gods, so I don't understand how it proves the doctrine over contradicting it.
2) No translation translates it this way, it's an argument from technicality. There is no reason to understand the text over the general meaning of "one" in English. Also, such an argument assumes the Holy Spirit and Jesus are ever directly called YHWH, they never are.
3) I don't believe you made that argument, if you did I missed it.
4) It's your claim it's blasphemous. Nothing Jesus said could be considered blasphemy if he gives all glory to God (Phil 2:11).
5) It depends on how you understand the term "God" there; is John 1:1c definite, indefinite or qualitative?
6) You merely asserted Hebrews 1 teach Jesus the Son is God, nowhere did you show this. I do not deny Jesus can be called God, I deny he's the "one God".
7) This has yet to be fully shown other than your comments where you assume the term "God" is applied to him.
8) I agree.

Please point out, in Acts 5, 1-5, where Ananias lied to Peter, or said anything, for that matter, that is recorded in scripture.
And if you would also, please, explain why you disagree with Peter when he says that Ananias did NOT lie to men, but to God, and explain why you think Peter was lying when he accused Ananias of lying "to the Holy Spirit."

In addition: Please point out, in my post, where I said anything about Acts 5:9, and how it is relevant to the discussion.

(Acts 5:1-42) "However, a man named An·a·niʹas, together with his wife Sap·phiʹra, sold some property. 2 But he secretly held back some of the price, with his wife’s knowledge, and he brought just a part of it and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: “An·a·niʹas, why has Satan emboldened you to lie to the holy spirit and secretly hold back some of the price of the field? 4 As long as it remained with you, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control? Why have you thought up such a deed as this in your heart? You have lied, not to men, but to God.”

Notice where it states "deposited it at the feet of the apostles" that no doubt included Peter. Lies do not have to be verbal but can be done by actions, this is common sense; Ananias pretended to deposit the full price of his property but rather only deposited some of the price "at the feet of the apostles", this amounted to lying. Again, the lie could be said attributed to the Holy Spirit as it was the Holy Spirit that was empowering the apostles, whose feet the money was deposited at, the lie was ultimately towards God as the Holy Spirit belongs and comes from God; nothing I've said is inconsistent with what the bible teaches.

Sorry, but the passage is quite explicit.

Peter asked Ananias, "Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit?" He then said, "You have not lied to men, but to God.

By your rationale, Peter is God, because Ananias did not lie to men, as the scripture says, but to God, and you claim that Ananias lied to Peter. Ergo, Peter is God.

But Peter is not God. And Ananias did not, as Peter said, lie to men, but Ananias did, as Peter said, lie to the Holy Spirit.

You cannot lie to something that is not a person. Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Ergo, the Holy Spirit is a Person. Whether you accept Him as one has no bearing on that fact.

This is a poor deduction. Romans 9:17 states "For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth", 1 Cor 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death", Isaiah 24:23 "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed; for Yahweh of Armies will reign on Mount Zion.

How can scripture speak to Pharoah, only something that is human can speak, should we conclude the scriptures are a person, or death is a person as it is an enemy, or that the sun and moon are persons as they can become confounded and ashamed? Such deductions are poor. It seems you ignored the verses that clearly express an action toward someone actings on a person or God's behalf is an action to them themselves. Again, Ananias and his wife lied to God as it was God who empowered Peter by means of Jesus to read people's hearts and retains someone's sin, there is nothing inconsistent with this, and nothing you've stated demands that the HS is God according to Acts.

Cite?

You said the above in relation to my comment of "(2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God?) No, it refers to the Father as the 'one God'.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) "..there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father..."

As shown, the Father is the only person placed in the category of the "one God", Jesus and the HS are left out as they were not considered as being the "one God".

But you don't mean "God," God. You mean "a god," God.

No, I mean God. Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is called 'GOD', in John 20:28 Jesus is called 'GOD', Hebrews 1:8 Jesus is called 'GOD'. What you are mistaking is because JW's understand John 1:1c as calling Jesus "a god", that we do not understand him as ever being called 'God', this is not true. Whatsmore, the Bible in its original form made no such distinction when it came to capitalization, so it really does not matter if I say I believe Jesus to be 'God' over 'god', or 'a god' over 'a God'. All the original books would've been writing in upper case with no distinction between lower case as we have in english.

No, it does not call others "God(s)." It calls them gods, little 'g'.

See the above comments, there would have been no such distinction in the original writings, they would've been written in all capital letters. Again, Moses was called ELOHIM, as were angels, and men. Satan and men are called THEOS and HO THEOS, GOD and THE GOD in John 10:34 and 2 Cor 4:4, there was no such thing as a lower case g GOD in the minds of the OT or NT writers, so my point still stands.

Moses was NOT called God.
Here is your explanation:

From http://bib.irr.org/was-moses-god-exodus-416-and-71:

Spoiler

Exodus 7:1—Moses as God to Pharaoh

“Behold, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet” (Exod. 7:1).

The English versions differ as to the precise translation of the first clause of Exodus 7:1. A few contemporary versions agree with the KJV, which takes it to quote the Lord as saying to Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh” (so, with slight and irrelevant variations, the KJV, NAB, and NJB). Most contemporary versions take the verse to quote the Lord as telling Moses, “I have made you like/as God to Pharaoh” (so, again with minor variations, the ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV). Several versions offer paraphrases that amount to the same thing: “I have put you in the place of God to Pharaoh” (CJB); “I have set thee in God’s stead to Pharaoh” (JPS 1917); “I place you in the role of God to Pharaoh” (TNK); and “I will make you seem like God to Pharaoh” (NLT). The majority of versions is not always right, but in this instance exegesis of the text shows they are quite correct.

The Hebrew says, “I have made you elohim to Pharaoh.” Notice that the Lord (Yahweh) did not tell Moses that he “is” elohim but that the Lord has “made” Moses elohim “to Pharaoh.” These qualifications make it absolutely clear that this text is to be understood along the same lines as Exodus 4:16, which as we have seen in the Hebrew is a simile. In this text the lack of the particle meaning as simply changes the figure of speech from a simile to a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a comparison is made without the use of the words as or like. In other respects, though, a metaphor is equivalent to a simile in terms of the resulting meaning. Thus the sentences, “My daughter is like an angel” and “My daughter is an angel” mean exactly the same thing. Anyone reading the first sentence and then shortly thereafter reading the second sentence ought to have no trouble understanding that the second sentence is a metaphor.

The Septuagint translates the same clause, “I have given you [as] God to Pharaoh” [dedōka se theon Pharaō]. Here se theon is a double accusative, object-complement construction, in which se (“you”) is the direct object of the verb and theon (“God”) is the complement. The construction can be used to express a metaphor, as in Jesus’ statement that he had come “to give [dounai, the infinitival form of the same word didōmi used in Exodus 7:1 LXX] his life [as] a ransom [tēn psuchēn autou lutron] for many” (Mark 10:45). Here “ransom” is a metaphor that expresses the significance of Jesus giving his life (i.e., dying) for the many thereby benefited. Thus, the LXX rendering of Exodus 7:1 is also easily interpreted as referring to Moses as “God” metaphorically. In light of Exodus 4:16, that is exactly how we should take it.3 This means that we should translate elohim and theos in Exodus 7:1 “[as] God” rather than “a god.”

Even if one were to prefer the rendering “a god” in Exodus 7:1, in context the statement would still be metaphorical. That is, if that were the correct translation, then the text would mean that the Lord said that he would make Moses like a god to Pharaoh.

Lol, the writing you posted literally agree's with me "Thus, the LXX rendering of Exodus 7:1 is also easily interpreted as referring to Moses as “God” metaphorically. In light of Exodus 4:16, that is exactly how we should take it.3 This means that we should translate elohim and theos in Exodus 7:1 “[as] God” rather than “a god.”"

The fact of the matter is both the Greek and Hebrew literally call Moses Elohim (theos), and this was the only point I was making. It doesn't matter why Moses was called God, whether he was God literally (which we both would deny) or if the application was metaphorical as the article states and I agree, the fact is he was called ELOHIM. Other beings who are not the "one God" can be referred to as God without it demanding they are the one God. Again, look up Exo 7:1, 2 Cor 4:4, Ps 8:5, John 10:34, all those verses have beings who are not the "one God" labelled as GOD (remember, you claiming they are called gods over Gods in our 'English translations' changes nothing).

Well, no, it teaches there is one God and one Lord, and names two of the Persons who are that one God and one Lord.

Lol, and who is identified as being the "one God" in 1 Cor 8:6? It's the Father! Jesus is not spoken of being the one God if that's what you're suggesting, no translation reads that way. The verse is very clear, there is one God, who is the Father, and one Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

In other words, yes, the Bible teaches there is only one God. Period.

I'm using "G" for a reason, NWL. First, it's His name, and second, using it as a rule of thumb helps distinguish between God and gods.

In other words, yes, the Bible teaches there is only one God, big 'G,' which is what I asked.

In other words, yes, the Bible teaches there is only one God, big 'G,' which is what I asked.
"God" is not a name, it's a title, this is very basic; YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is God's name. Again, I'll let Paul define it for me as he does so perfectly, "there is no God but one. For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”  there is actually to us one God, the Father.

Notice again what Paul states above and what I believe, there are "many gods" (see Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5, John 10:34, 2 Cor 4:4) as Paul expresses, but for me and him ("to us") there is "one God the Father".

You cut the verse off early.

There's more to it than that.

Paul mentions two Persons here:

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. - 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians8:5-6&version=NKJV

Last I checked, God is through whom are all things, and through whom we live. That makes Jesus God.

I cut the verse of early as my point was in regards to who the "one God" is; the latter part of the verse does not identify Jesus as the "one God" but rather, the "one Lord", therefore it was not relevant to my point.

You said "Last I checked, God is through whom are all things, and through whom we live. That makes Jesus God", that is not necessarily correct, the scriptures clearly highlight that the Father, who is the only person identified as the "one God", created the world through Jesus. Hebrews 1:1 states in reference to the Father (Hebrews 1:5), "God...in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...through whom also he created the world." Notice what the verse expresses, the Father created the world through Jesus, 1 Cor 8:6 is simply reiterating what we know, that the Father, who is the source of all things, made the world through Jesus; 1 Cor 8:6 does not suggest Jesus is God since firstly, he isn't categorised as the "one God" in the verse, and secondly, it clearly expresses all things are "from" the Father but simply "through" him ("the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" - 1 Cor 8:6).

 

[Lon]

You said above "For ANY created being to utter those things in the same contexts of the verses they are found in, it would be blasphemy", says who, you? If the one God, namely the Father, ordained that all things are to go through his Son Jesus, then it is hardly blasphemy as it was God himself who ordained it; for it to be blasphemy, Jesus would've had to have said all those things without recognizing the Father when doing so, we see the exact opposite of this. Jesus said things such as:

"The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." (John 14:12)
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38)
"I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." John 14:31

What version are you using?

Spoiler

So when Jesus says all the things you made mention of, he says them as the Father told him to say such things and ordained such things to be done to him. Jesus himself said, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), so many of the actions done in Jesus name are not for his own namesake but rather to draw ourselves closer to the Father and bring him glory, we can see this in action in Phil 2:9-11 that states "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position...so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend...and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father". Notice, how the Father appoints Jesus above every single thing so that every knee has to bend to his Son, but to whose glory is it? It's to the glory of "God the Father"! Bending the knee is not for Jesus' glory but for the glory of the Father, who Paul categorizes as the "one God". Jesus is

You said "I'm literally giving you the verses. Are you that blind?", you're giving me verses yes, but which of those verses teach 'God is one being who is three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal'? None! Remember you claimed the scriptures "teaches", I do not deny the segments of the trinity doctrine can be conceived by piecing various scriptures together, but to claim the scriptures "teach it" is a claim it's explicitly taught and is clear, which it is not.

Regarding your points:
1) this imply Gods, not God, the trinity doctrine teaches there is one God, not Gods, so I don't understand how it proves the doctrine over contradicting it.
2) No translation translates it this way, it's an argument from technicality. There is no reason to understand the text over the general meaning of "one" in English. Also, such an argument assumes the Holy Spirit and Jesus are ever directly called YHWH, they never are.
3) I don't believe you made that argument, if you did I missed it.
4) It's your claim it's blasphemous. Nothing Jesus said could be considered blasphemy if he gives all glory to God (Phil 2:11).
5) It depends on how you understand the term "God" there; is John 1:1c definite, indefinite or qualitative?
6) You merely asserted Hebrews 1 teach Jesus the Son is God, nowhere did you show this. I do not deny Jesus can be called God, I deny he's the "one God".
7) This has yet to be fully shown other than your comments where you assume the term "God" is applied to him.
8) I agree.

(Acts 5:1-42) "However, a man named An·a·niʹas, together with his wife Sap·phiʹra, sold some property. 2 But he secretly held back some of the price, with his wife’s knowledge, and he brought just a part of it and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: “An·a·niʹas, why has Satan emboldened you to lie to the holy spirit and secretly hold back some of the price of the field? 4 As long as it remained with you, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control? Why have you thought up such a deed as this in your heart? You have lied, not to men, but to God.”

Notice where it states "deposited it at the feet of the apostles" that no doubt included Peter. Lies do not have to be verbal but can be done by actions, this is common sense; Ananias pretended to deposit the full price of his property but rather only deposited some of the price "at the feet of the apostles", this amounted to lying. Again, the lie could be said attributed to the Holy Spirit as it was the Holy Spirit that was empowering the apostles, whose feet the money was deposited at, the lie was ultimately towards God as the Holy Spirit belongs and comes from God; nothing I've said is inconsistent with what the bible teaches.


This is a poor deduction. Romans 9:17 states "For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth", 1 Cor 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death", Isaiah 24:23 "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed; for Yahweh of Armies will reign on Mount Zion.

How can scripture speak to Pharoah, only something that is human can speak, should we conclude the scriptures are a person, or death is a person as it is an enemy, or that the sun and moon are persons as they can become confounded and ashamed? Such deductions are poor. It seems you ignored the verses that clearly express an action toward someone actings on a person or God's behalf is an action to them themselves. Again, Ananias and his wife lied to God as it was God who empowered Peter by means of Jesus to read people's hearts and retains someone's sin, there is nothing inconsistent with this, and nothing you've stated demands that the HS is God according to Acts.

You said the above in relation to my comment of "(2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God?) No, it refers to the Father as the 'one God'.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) "..there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father..."

As shown, the Father is the only person placed in the category of the "one God", Jesus and the HS are left out as they were not considered as being the "one God".

No, I mean God. Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is called 'GOD', in John 20:28 Jesus is called 'GOD', Hebrews 1:8 Jesus is called 'GOD'. What you are mistaking is because JW's understand John 1:1c as calling Jesus "a god", that we do not understand him as ever being called 'God', this is not true. Whatsmore, the Bible in its original form made no such distinction when it came to capitalization, so it really does not matter if I say I believe Jesus to be 'God' over 'god', or 'a god' over 'a God'. All the original books would've been writing in upper case with no distinction between lower case as we have in english.

See the above comments, there would have been no such distinction in the original writings, they would've been written in all capital letters. Again, Moses was called ELOHIM, as were angels, and men. Satan and men are called THEOS and HO THEOS, GOD and THE GOD in John 10:34 and 2 Cor 4:4, there was no such thing as a lower case g GOD in the minds of the OT or NT writers, so my point still stands.

Lol, the writing you posted literally agree's with me "Thus, the LXX rendering of Exodus 7:1 is also easily interpreted as referring to Moses as “God” metaphorically. In light of Exodus 4:16, that is exactly how we should take it.3 This means that we should translate elohim and theos in Exodus 7:1 “[as] God” rather than “a god.”"

The fact of the matter is both the Greek and Hebrew literally call Moses Elohim (theos), and this was the only point I was making. It doesn't matter why Moses was called God, whether he was God literally (which we both would deny) or if the application was metaphorical as the article states and I agree, the fact is he was called ELOHIM. Other beings who are not the "one God" can be referred to as God without it demanding they are the one God. Again, look up Exo 7:1, 2 Cor 4:4, Ps 8:5, John 10:34, all those verses have beings who are not the "one God" labelled as GOD (remember, you claiming they are called gods over Gods in our 'English translations' changes nothing).

Lol, and who is identified as being the "one God" in 1 Cor 8:6? It's the Father! Jesus is not spoken of being the one God if that's what you're suggesting, no translation reads that way. The verse is very clear, there is one God, who is the Father, and one Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

In other words, yes, the Bible teaches there is only one God, big 'G,' which is what I asked.
"God" is not a name, it's a title, this is very basic; YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is God's name. Again, I'll let Paul define it for me as he does so perfectly, "there is no God but one. For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”  there is actually to us one God, the Father.

What English versions are you using? It makes sense you believe this way, these translations are a bit odd, in translating. If you can learn Greek, do so.
This one of your's:
"The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." (John 14:12)
Should be "Truly, truly I say to you believing,in me; the works that I do he will do as well and greater {works}(pronoun τούτων) he will do, because I am to the Father going.

Incidentally:

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38)
"I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." John 14:31

I agree with you. The Son is not the Father and is subject to Him 'as far as "I" grasp the scriptures.' It is open to inspection by all, but the scripture above does indicated it. It is a 'shared' truth by Unitarians and Trinitarians. It means that it isn't a great point of debated, but shared between us. We both believe the Son is not the Father so these scripture references are undisputed. I'd think that Judge Rightly's point does not negate this. He is simply saying that He "and the Father are one." Of course He believes the Son is subordinate as per Philippians 2:6,7.
He was just trying to show you that the Lord Jesus Christ also has the authority 'to take it up again.' John 10:18

 

[Lon]

"The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." (John 14:12)

Ah, "John 12:49" Ever use an interlinear?

 

[NWL]

Without importing anything John 1:1 states "Was with God 'AND' was God."

Without 'importing' John continues "The Word 'became' flesh." Therefore, without convolution, from the text, the One who became Flesh is the Word, therefore 'with and was God' in the flesh.

NOW there are in fact other scriptures that say exactly this. At this point, I know of ONLY one being ever that 'became' flesh.

Loool! Its keeps getting better and better. What you seemed to ignore is that according to your definite understanding of the text the "Word was THE GOD", thus if the Word was THE GOD and THE GOD is synonymous with the word TRINITY then the Word was the Trinity according to the text. We must remember there is one God.

If I were to ask you who is "THE GOD" mentioned in John 1:1b, according to your ridiculous principle of "not importing ideas and other text", you'll be forced to admit it's the Word according to what is said in John 1:1c. The text does not identify who "THE GOD" is in v1b and only expresses in v1c that "THE WORD WAS THE GOD". You cannot claim it's the Father in v1b, since that would be "importing ideas" into the text, so your left with Jesus being the trinity itself!

You say "The Word 'became' flesh", so the Trinity became flesh right? If the Word was "THE GOD" (i.e the trinity, since, there is only "one God" according to the trinity) and the Word, namely, THE GOD, became flesh then THE GOD/TRINITY became flesh!

I'm also assuming you deny Jesus was referencing himself to YHWH by his words found in John 8:58, I'd like to see how far I can get you to dig but the rules you keep inventing. A claim that John 8:58 proves Jesus was YHWH is importing scripture, would you not agree?

So you know the definition now, when did I attack your character? Did I call you a bad guy? No. Did I make assessments regarding your ability to understand context? Yes. Did it hurt your feelings? Likely, but education is about correction. There is no intent to make you feel poorly. I've repeated many times, it can be fixed by education in most cases.


Sorry. Wrong. Report it if you believe it is. You'll quickly see you are wrong. It is indeed against the rules on TOL.

I do not get insulted at silly comments. The fact of the matter is you should keep your personal opinions and backhanded comments to yourselves; if you cannot fathom how such comments would in most cases be seen as character attacks then you lack the common sense for me to be able to properly articulate why such comments would be seen as ad hominem given my position and the manner of some of your responses.

Your accusation. You are incorrect. The above is a paraphrase (summation) of scripture. John 1:1ff is very close to that, however. We disagree that he hasn't produced verses. I do agree you don't look at the context of paragraphs in scripture and recognize them as triune expressions YET (and please hear this) of the millions of Christians on the planet, they DO see triune expressions. Only a VERY few don't and these are NOT those who did fantastic in school (NOT an ad hominem). I'm trying to get you to compare for a moment. If I happened to have D's in English, I could still rest a bit on the fact that men and women smarter than I (A's B's) agreed with the context of scriptures, that God is triune in expression. The problem? If I even have C+ or B+ grades in English and other languages, I'm not qualified to challenge my professors' teaching. It doesn't matter how right I 'think' I am, if my skills to discern aren't there. God's word is spiritually discerned, but the teaching of the words are grammar and a clear grasp of English and Greek grammar are of paramount importance to 'challenging' the majority view. Is it therefore ad hominem to bring this up? No. It is a standard that HAS to be met by ANY challenger of what most see as biblical doctrine.
It is the requirement.

Your argument overlooks the fact there have been numerous scholars and highly intelligent laypersons who do not come to the conclusion of the existence of a trinity; there are also millions of people who don't see the teaching of the trinity in the bible. Part of the argument you make an ad populum argument, just because more people accept an understanding doesn't make it correct.

You state "if I even have C+ or B+ grades in English and other languages, I'm not qualified to challenge my professors' teaching", you may feel like you are not qualified, but that does not mean you can come up with a deduction contrary to your professors which is not true, nor is there anything that suggests you can't express why you are correct. To suggest that someone who does not have equivalent academic achievements as someone they disagree with 'means' they should submit to the other party's understanding of a particular subject infers a constant appeal to authority.

The fact that you make 'the same' accusation/observation of a 'problem' with another's posts and supposed inability. Here is ONE instance of you missing 'context.' I wasn't addressing Exodus and will leave that to Judge Rightly (unless you have a specific need for me to enter that part of the conversation). I'm rather concerned you say the same thing to an entirely different person, blaming/accusing them of something YOU need to own yourself. It isn't that all of us are somehow all suddenly smitten with the same problem you seem to attribute to all of us. As far as I've read Judge Rightly in thread, I don't have the same problems you do with the context of his statements. He is capable, regardless of your suggestion he is not. YOUR assessments are incorrect.

You give yourself too much merit Lon, many times you are extremely vague in what you say, your previous comment which I replied to was simply another example. You quoted JR's own quote of an article of Exo 7:1 and stated "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people ", however, JudgeRightly made not point or comments but simply quoted an article; for you to then say "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people" regarding a quotation of a third-party article left me with the belief your comment was in relation to that article, since, what else could your comment be about as JR made no direct point and you stated nothing that suggests anything else otherwise.

It was for this reason, I said "what point was I not getting", you've now since explained as per the above by saying "you say the same thing to an entirely different person, blaming/accusing them of something YOU need to own yourself", please explain to me how I was meant to gather that by your quotation of JudgeRightly quote of a third-part article? I did not miss the context, I missed the fact you poorly explain what you meant when you said "Déjà Vu" by quoting an article.

You mean the Septuagint? Exodus was written in Hebrew. Are you sure you know what a fact is?

Is your memory that bad Lon, it was only last month we were speaking about the LXX, now you're trying to 'shame' me by acting I have no clue about because I say "Greek" in relation to the OT. You full well know, or perhaps your memory is just that bad, that I know what the Septuagint is and that's obviously what I was talking about when I used the word "Greek", you're being very pedantic again. Please stop this "shaming" tactic thing you keep doing, again, it should have no place in these types of conversations; if you think that lowly of me simply stop responding.

Yet, they must not be translations with 'added' ideas not express in the first language. That is taking liberty with the text and writing a man-made doctrine bible.

I agree.

As I said, YOU brought up John 1:3. YOU gave me an option to pick. I picked. Whatever after YOU wanted, whether I jumped through your hoop or not, is not of consequence. You have a bit of a demanding nature. I don't like doing poodle tricks THEN complaining because I chose to walk around a couple of them. In this case YOU need to provide a clear path to the next hoop. I've entertained your whims to this point.

This is the fourth time. John simply says "all things." Done. Hebrews says "All things by the works of His hands."
One has a 'modifier' prepositional phrase "under His hands" which limits man from being 'God's boss. Its a silly attempt and academically, grammatically untenable.

Hebrew 2:7 does not say "All things by the works of His hands", depending on the manuscript, it states "set him [man] over the works of Your hands" verse 8 then reads "You have put all things in subjection under his feet. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him".

Hebrews 2:7 could easily be understood to mean God placed Man over all things he created, expressing God was giving man authority above others, however, v8 is talking about subjecting "all things" under man, there is a difference.

If a Sergeant in the army is promoted above all persons in the army then he is the highest rank, namely a General, the ranks of everyone else does not change; whereas, if 'all' persons in the army are demoted and placed under the Sergeant, the Sergeant rank has not changed at all but everyone else rank has. Or take this example, if you Lon were alive in Jesus day and were "placed above" above the apostles then you too would have the ability to cast out demons as they were given as you have more authority than they had, however, if the apostles were put in "subjection" to you they would lose the ability to expel demons as they now have less authority than you, you would not have authority to expel demons as your authority has not changed, all that's happened is people have been placed under you.

Hebrews 2:7 is talking about elevating man, and Hebrews 2:8 is talking about subjecting things underman, the two expressions are not synonymous. Whatsmore, the Angels are "the works of God's hand", are they subjected to man by the use of "all things"? You earlier alluded to Hebrews 2:7 that states man was made "a little lower than angels", but this no doubt refers to lower in nature, there is nothing that suggests a being that has been created with a superior nature to us cannot be made in subjection to a lesser being, take women for example, equal in nature but made subject to man; or even Jesus to a trinitarian, equal in nature to the Father but made subject to him. Furthermore, Jesus had authority over the angels (see Matt 26:53, Matthew 4:11) despite being made "a little lower than them".

So the question still stands in that particular aspect, according to the verse are the angels subject to man, being the works of his hand?

John 1:3 rather has a conjunction: "And without Him, nothing was made that was made (period)." Do you grasp the difference?

There is no reason to assume the conjunction eliminates the preceding context, for example, "In 2020 Bob built a Town. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made". No one would read my sentences and believe Bob created everything inside 'AND' outside of the town by the conjuncton, since, the latter part of the sentence is limited by the context in the first part of the sentence; the conjunction in the sentence does not negate the context, Bob merely made all things "in the town".

Likewise, the conjunction in John 1:3 does not negate the context John was trying to express by his usage of "the beginning" in John 1:1. In Genesis, the "beginning" is synonymous with "the creation of the heaven and the Earth", the heaven and the earth being created 'was' the beginning' mentioned. Therefore, If John intended use of "beginning" was to infer the Word was 'with God' in Genesis, then what follows in John 1:3 should be viewed in that context, especially when v2 repreats the fact the Word was with God "in the beginning and follows with creation talk:

"In the beginning (i.e Genesis) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was THEOS.  This one was in the beginning with God (i.e Genesis). 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence."

Do you think the average reader would assume built all things both inside and outside the town by the following sentence "in 2020 Bob built a town. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made", or do you think people would simply conclude Bob built "all things" in the town only?

Jumping texts isn't exegesis. It is violent to the text. It reminds me of the guy that was looking for guidance from scripture in his lowest hour: He opened up to "Judas hung himself." Desperate, he cracked his bible again and his finger landed on "go and do likewise." Just because it is in scripture, doesn't mean we can violently rip one context and place it in another 'to fit our idealoogical/theological beliefs.' That is an abuse and misuse of scripture. In this case, John doesn't tell us. We should not assume. It 'could' be Genesis 1. Is it wise to then, go off and build a theology off of assumptions? :nono:

Well, many and most scholars would disagree with you; who are you again? What is your name? Just simply asserting something make it true. On what merit does a trinitarian claim you cannot piece scriptures together when that is the very way the Trinitarian doctrine was formulated; for someone who claims to be so smart, you sound very unintelligent. The very best scholars of the past and in today's world all use scripture to interpret scripture, it is the only way to make sense of the scriptures.

Deducing "the beginning" as mentioned in John 1:1 is in relation to the same "beginning" mentioned in Genesis 1:1 is hardly 'violently ripping one context and placing it in another to fit our ideological/theological beliefs'; the vast majority of scholars deduce the same thing, you are simply a man behind a keyboard, complaining that such a deduction cannot be made is to spit upon the efforts and achievements of such scholars.

It is clear John used the term "beginning" to refer to Genesis not only by his usage in John 1:1, but also by passages such as 1 John 3:8, "the devil has been sinning from THE BEGINNING" (1 John 3:8). Hmmm, should we assume Satan was with God along with the Word "in the beginning", or is it more feasible to deduce the "beginning" is merely in reference to the Genesis account where Satan first lied in "the beginning"! It is clear as day John's uses of "the beginning" are references to Genesis; only Genesis has God speaking creation into existence by means of his word and only in Genesis do we find Satan lying "in the beginning" (see also 1 John 1:1).

Please Lon, based on 1 John 3:8 what is the reference of "the beginning" in relation to, is it in relation to Genesis?

No, they are a pattern. I HAVE to believe you have reading problems or you couldn't be a Christian. I've come to think that the remedial class can catch up. I know a few ex-Unitarians. They finally 'got it' and it was academic. God simply corrected them.

I believe you have more than a reading problem, since, you're a Trinitarian who claims you cannot piece (or "import") together scripture to understand scripture, yet, you believe in the trinity which is nowhere explicitly stated and the only way to understand it is by piecing scripture to scripture.

Because it is an assumption NOT implicit in the text. YOU are that missing factor. That is THE problem of not reading for context AND going beyond the text to make an assumption. Again, I'm convinced education is the answer to Unitarianism. I DO realize that means I attribute most if not all Unitarian thought to ignorance, but better that than a spiritual problem (though they can be the same thing).

And the trinity doctrine is implicit in the scripture? Lol. Arguments must not only be consistent but convincing Lon, as I've said, numerous scholars agree John 1:1 is in reference to Genesis, as well as other usages where a typical Jew deduce "the beginning" is a reference to Genesis such as 1 John 3:8, "Devil has been sinning from THE BEGINNING", and other scripture, "In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from THE BEGINNING made them male and female" (Matt 19:4), "And: “At THE BEGINNING, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands" (Hebrews 1:10).

Ah, see? You don't just do this to JudgeRightly and others, you do it to me as well. It is from YOUR repetoire (means your hangup, not most of ours).

There is a difference between answering a question and adequately answering a question, I've made this extremely clear in the past discussions with you. For example, I used Rev 3:14 and the use of arche to show that Jesus was a created being, you denied this stating arche should be understood to mean source/origin/beginner, I then asked you to show me where the word arche is ever used to mean "origin/source/beginner" in the NT or contemporary writing and all you could do is assert it could mean "beginner" and quote me one source who didn't explain why arche in Rev 3:14 should be understood in the sense of beginner but merely that it does. I also asked who creation was from and who creation was through, according to Hebrews 1:1 and 1 Cor 8:6 and you had such difficulty stating creation was clearly mentioned as being from the Father I've yet to get an answer back today, all you responded was that creation was through Jesus. Multiply this with the many points I made and the many points you've inadequately answered with me expressing, "you haven't answered the question" has led you to believe I make unwarranted accusations.

In response to all the above, I claimed you had 'not answered my question' as you had not given an adequate answer. You, knowing you had given an answer, but not understand it was not satisfactory, claimed I was accusing you of not answering the question despite you doing so. Again, when I state people "have not answered the question" that isn't me denying they're attempted or responded to a question, rather, I'm expressing they haven't adequately answered my question. JR has nowhere shown me from the scriptures where it "teaches" the trinity as he claimed, he's no doubt showing me many verses that seem to suggest Jesus is God, the HS is God, among other things, but I don't see him showing me scriptures that "teach" 'God is one being who is three persons that are co-equal and co-eternal'.

It doesn't matter what "Ellicott" says! It matters what scriptures say and it matters if one grasps contextual truth or not. One of the first rules of exegesis is "Do not import your ideas, export His."

Lool! You can't see your hypocrisy, with one breath you'll use the mass acceptance scholars accepting the trinity as proof the doctrine is correct, but every time I bring you scholarly works and exegesis you'll dismiss it. Which is it Lon, should we be listening to Trinitarian scholars or shouldn't we. What it appears to be is that you like to turn a blind eye at any scholar that goes against what you say, again, our arguments must not only be consistent but convincing.

What is also laughable is that you claim to be an expert and expect me to listen to you, but then claim I should not listen to other experts, but then why should I listen to you since you claim to be one yourself! The irony.

Again, its hardly importing ideas into the text when the part of one's exegesis of John 1:1 is concluding John was trying to import the idea of Jesus into John 1:1. If John mentioned nothing about the beginning and simply opened with "Through [Jesus] all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made." and then I claimed this was in relation to Genesis this would be assuming and importing ideas. But when John used the specific words the "beginning", which Jews back then would hear and think back to Genesis, and further uses the word in relation to other beings such as Satan and his lie "in the beginning" (1 John 3:8), then its hardly importing ones own idea's into the text over concluding John was referencing Genesis 1:1.

 

[NWL]

What version are you using?

Spoiler

What English versions are you using? It makes sense you believe this way, these translations are a bit odd, in translating. If you can learn Greek, do so.
This one of your's:
"The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." (John 14:12)
Should be "Truly, truly I say to you believing,in me; the works that I do he will do as well and greater {works}(pronoun τούτων) he will do, because I am to the Father going.

Incidentally:

I agree with you. The Son is not the Father and is subject to Him 'as far as "I" grasp the scriptures.' It is open to inspection by all, but the scripture above does indicated it. It is a 'shared' truth by Unitarians and Trinitarians. It means that it isn't a great point of debated, but shared between us. We both believe the Son is not the Father so these scripture references are undisputed. I'd think that Judge Rightly's point does not negate this. He is simply saying that He "and the Father are one." Of course He believes the Son is subordinate as per Philippians 2:6,7.
He was just trying to show you that the Lord Jesus Christ also has the authority 'to take it up again.' John 10:18

The fault was not with the translation but human error, I mis-referenced v10 with v12.

Ah, "John 12:49" Ever use an interlinear?

John 12:49 "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken."
John 14:10 "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works"

 

[JudgeRightly]

Loool! Its keeps getting better and better. What you seemed to ignore is that according to your definite understanding of the text the "Word was THE GOD",

Actually, the Greek says ".... kai [And] ho [the] logos [Word] en [was] pros [with] ton [the] theon [God], kai [and] theos [God] en [was] ho [the] logos [Word]."

thus if the Word was THE GOD and THE GOD is synonymous with the word TRINITY then the Word was the Trinity according to the text. We must remember there is one God.

I'm pretty sure I addressed this in my previous reply, and if not, let me address it here and now.

We don't believe that "God" is "synonymous" with the word "trinity."

God is triune, yes. But it would be a straw man to say that we believe that the two are synonymous, because man is also triune (because he is comprised of three parts, body, soul, and spirit).

 

[NWL]

Actually, the Greek says ".... kai [And] ho [the] logos [Word] en [was] pros [with] ton [the] theon [God], kai [and] theos [God] en [was] ho [the] logos [Word]."

Lon as stated he believes John 1:1c is definite, so whilst I agree with you that the Greek states what you suggested it stated, understanding it in the definite sense infers the Word was God in relation to identity, thus 'the word was THE GOD'.

I'm pretty sure I addressed this in my previous reply, and if not, let me address it here and now.

We don't believe that "God" is "synonymous" with the word "trinity."

God is triune, yes. But it would be a straw man to say that we believe that the two are synonymous, because man is also triune (because he is comprised of three parts, body, soul, and spirit).

I think I did miss that, perhaps you'll be so kind to refer to me where you explained such a thing; I do recall you stating YHWH was not synonymous with the word "Trinity". Regardless, I do not think you have an orthodox understanding of the trinity as you've made it clear in your writings to me you understand the bible teaches GODS, despite the trinity teaching there is only one God who is three persons.

The trinity is synonymous with the word God; again, the trinity is that God is one being who is three persons:

None of these persons are each other and all three persons equate the one God. How is the term "God" to a trinitarian any different when compared to the word trinity? If you placed the word "trinity" in the middle circle in the above image there would be no difference in understanding. So whilst you're within your right to claim the word "God" does not carry the same meaning behind it towards to the "trinity", it certainly does have the same meaning. One way to prove this is to define the word 'trinity' and define the word 'God', you will find that to a trinitarian they both mean the same thing minus the connations of numeracy the word 'trinity' infers.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Lon as stated he believes John 1:1c is definite, so whilst I agree with you that the Greek states what you suggested it stated,

I didn't just "suggest" it.

That's what it actually, really, says.

understanding it in the definite sense infers the Word was God in relation to identity, thus 'the word was THE GOD'.

Yes, the Word is the God.

I think I did miss that, perhaps you'll be so kind to refer to me where you explained such a thing; I do recall you stating YHWH was not synonymous with the word "Trinity". Regardless, I do not think you have an orthodox understanding of the trinity as you've made it clear in your writings to me you understand the bible teaches GODS, despite the trinity teaching there is only one God who is three persons.

The trinity is synonymous with the word God; again, the trinity is that God is one being who is three persons:

None of these persons are each other and all three persons equate the one God. How is the term "God" to a trinitarian any different when compared to the word trinity? If you placed the word "trinity" in the middle circle in the above image there would be no difference in understanding. So whilst you're within your right to claim the word "God" does not carry the same meaning behind it towards to the "trinity", it certainly does have the same meaning. One way to prove this is to define the word 'trinity' and define the word 'God', you will find that to a trinitarian they both mean the same thing minus the connations of numeracy the word 'trinity' infers.

My problem is not that God is triune, nor that the Trinity is a word that describes God.

My problem is with you using the term "synonymous."

It implies that you're saying that the word "Trinity" has the same definition that the word "God" does.

But they do not have the same meaning/definition.. Allow me to clarify:

The word "Trinity" means:

the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. - a group of three people or things. - the state of being three.

The word "God" means:

- (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. - (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

The two words are not synonymous, and neither are the concepts, for lack of a better term.

Again, yes, "Trinity" describes only one aspect of God. But "God" is more than just the Trinity, (not in number, but in qualities).

God is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.

To address your other point:

Yes, the Logos is The God.

So too the Father is The God.

So too the Holy Spirit is The God.

Three in One.

Three Persons, one Being.

Three WHOs, one WHAT.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@NWL To put it into logical terms:

You're saying that we say that God == Trinity.

But that's not what we're saying. We are saying God = Trinity.

There's a difference.

 

[NWL]

As I said to you in a previous post it is extremely tedious replying to some of your points along with the way your reply to my post, please be kinder in the way you layout your replies and try not to be so sporadic in the layout of your responses, it becomes burdensome.

I didn't just "suggest" it.

That's what it actually, really, says.

Please just accept the fact I agreed with you, you're being extremely pedantic in your reply here. Your initial quote of John 1:1 was a word for word translations, word for word transliteration doesn't always reflect the true meaning of a sentence when translated into a foreign language, hence why I used the word "suggest". Nonetheless, I was still agreeing with you and there was no need to argue over a trivial points.

Yes, the Word is the God.

Modern scholarship on the matter disagrees with you, even the top trinitarian apologists, who are trinitarian, concede and admit Jesus was not 'the God' according to John 1:1c.

“The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and imply some sort of modalistic view of God which of course Trinitarians oppose.” “the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father- would be modalistics.” “Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error…. As surprising as it may seem, arguing that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son. - Rob Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.

My problem is not that God is triune, nor that the Trinity is a word that describes God.

My problem is with you using the term "synonymous."

It implies that you're saying that the word "Trinity" has the same definition that the word "God" does.

But they do not have the same meaning/definition.. Allow me to clarify:

The word "Trinity" means:

the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. - a group of three people or things. - the state of being three.

The word "God" means:

- (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. - (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

The two words are not synonymous, and neither are the concepts, for lack of a better term.

Again, yes, "Trinity" describes only one aspect of God. But "God" is more than just the Trinity, (not in number, but in qualities).

God is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.


Three in One.

Three Persons, one Being.

Three WHOs, one WHAT.

Trinity consists of three persons who are one God
God to a trinitarian equates three persons who form that one God.
Both of the above express the same thing, that three persons make God/trinity.

To address your other point:

Yes, the Logos is The God.

So too the Father is The God.

So too the Holy Spirit is The God.

Most trinitarian scholars would disagree with you. Jesus is not "the God", nor the Father or HS, I'm not speaking as a unitarian but from what trinitarianism teaches. You deep down believe Jesus is of God, the HS is of God and the Father is of God. The mistake many Trinitarians make is assuming because scripture refers to Jesus and the Father as 'God' that they can individually be explained as being God, they can't.

For example, if I asked you 'who God is' your answer wouldn't be "Jesus", your answer (as a trinitarian) would be 'the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God', thus, to say 'Jesus is the God' would be to claim Jesus is the Father, Son, and HS, which is not true. If all three persons can individually be called God then there are three Gods and not one, which goes contrary to what the trinity doctrine teaches.

A typical trinitarian would answer that being called 'God' refers to nature and not identity, they would say, "no, there are not three Gods as all three persons form part of the one God", such a statement, infers Jesus is not God (i,e Father, Son HS) but rather of God and called God for that reason as he has God's nature, likewise with the Father and HS.

 

[NWL]

@NWL To put it into logical terms:

You're saying that we say that God == Trinity.

But that's not what we're saying. We are saying God = Trinity.

There's a difference.

To a trinitarian:

The trinity = three persons who are one being, namely, the Father/Son/HS.
God = three persons who are one being, namely, the Father/Son/HS.

There is no difference in the above defintion, the terms are synonymous to a trinitarian, denying it doesn't make it untrue.

 

[Lon]

Loool! Its keeps getting better and better. What you seemed to ignore is that according to your definite understanding of the text the "Word was THE GOD", thus if the Word was THE GOD and THE GOD is synonymous with the word TRINITY then the Word was the Trinity according to the text. We must remember there is one God.

A bit convoluted. You'll have to unpack this (regardless of how funny it seems to be to you). I can tell you, straight up, you haven't really listened. You attack ideas that nobody presented long before you ever listen. This IS the Unitarian problem more often than not. Again, it is a reading comprehension problem. You've made all kinds of them in thread (and I can point them out if you like). Comprehension is of supreme importance in reading God's word.

If I were to ask you who is "THE GOD" mentioned in John 1:1b, according to your ridiculous principle of "not importing ideas and other text", you'll be forced to admit it's the Word according to what is said in John 1:1c. The text does not identify who "THE GOD" is in v1b and only expresses in v1c that "THE WORD WAS THE GOD". You cannot claim it's the Father in v1b, since that would be "importing ideas" into the text, so your left with Jesus being the trinity itself!

Ridiculous principle? You are applying scripture willynilly if you do this any other way. ASK before you assume. I've not said the Word is Jesus (yet) but John does.

You say "The Word 'became' flesh", so the Trinity became flesh right? If the Word was "THE GOD" (i.e the trinity, since, there is only "one God" according to the trinity) and the Word, namely, THE GOD, became flesh then THE GOD/TRINITY became t flesh!

You don't understand trinit-arian. We HALF agree with you, which means you are making a strawman. We go 'part way' with you. To not grasp this, is not really grasping the triune view. It is not at all three gods, though I do acquiesce I've seen some trinitarians argue to the point of tritheism. I agree with a lot of Unitarian points. What I'd point out in YOUR reasoning here, is that the text goes beyond your mentioned grasp: Not only 'was God' "Was with God." Both. It is a tightrope walk and we believe both, not either or.

I'm also assuming you deny Jesus was referencing himself to YHWH by his words found in John 8:58, I'd like to see how far I can get you to dig but the rules you keep inventing. A claim that John 8:58 proves Jesus was YHWH is importing scripture, would you not agree?

It is not an invention. It has long been taught. Let me state it again: "Don't import you, export God's thoughts." Let me ask: How much of YOU do you want involved or getting in God's way? How much of Him would you prefer over your own fallibility (and mine)? Based upon what I assume needs to be your own answer, you should likely stop claiming 'absured' and start realizing where you need to agree, if you really do not. It is time to make that commitment to Him and that change if you haven't done so already.

I do not get insulted at silly comments.

Yes, you do. It doesn't matter if they are silly or not. It really doesn't matter. Anger or laughter or whatever are simply emotion. God moves us by passion, but He changes us by our minds.

The fact of the matter is you should keep your personal opinions and backhanded comments to yourselves;

Not a fact. Rather, it is your preference. Let's see if you can ask nicely instead of coming to a Trinitarian board, starting arguments, and then trying to blame it on everyone else in poor manners. Let's see you instead, look at yourself and see if there be any wicked way Psalm 139:23-24

if you cannot fathom how such comments would in most cases be seen as character attacks then you lack the common sense for me to be able to properly articulate why such comments would be seen as ad hominem given my position and the manner of some of your responses.

As I've repeated, if you are so sure, report it. See if anyone else but you believes so.

Your argument overlooks the fact there have been numerous scholars and highly intelligent laypersons who do not come to the conclusion of the existence of a trinity; there are also millions of people who don't see the teaching of the trinity in the bible. Part of the argument you make an ad populum argument, just because more people accept an understanding doesn't make it correct.

Less than .01% That means 'dismal.' You are trying to pad your numbers THEN telling me I'm arguing ad populum (you don't even know what that argument is either, it has to fit a certain criteria). Pop-statistics aren't your friend.

You state "if I even have C+ or B+ grades in English and other languages, I'm not qualified to challenge my professors' teaching", you may feel like you are not qualified, but that does not mean you can come up with a deduction contrary to your professors which is not true, nor is there anything that suggests you can't express why you are correct. To suggest that someone who does not have equivalent academic achievements as someone they disagree with 'means' they should submit to the other party's understanding of a particular subject infers a constant appeal to authority.

Yes, it does. Specifically? If you don't do well in math, You SHOULD get an auditor to do your taxes for you!

You give yourself too much merit Lon, many times you are extremely vague in what you say,

What credit?

your previous comment which I replied to was simply another example.

Er, no.

You quoted JR's own quote of an article of Exo 7:1 and stated "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people ", however, JudgeRightly made not point or comments but simply quoted an article; for you to then say "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people" regarding a quotation of a third-party article left me with the belief your comment was in relation to that article, since, what else could your comment be about as JR made no direct point and you stated nothing that suggests anything else otherwise.

Er, you just accused me of being 'extremely vague.' Your sentence above is random. Pot. Kettle. Black. Own it.

It was for this reason, I said "what point was I not getting", you've now since explained as per the above by saying "you say the same thing to an entirely different person, blaming/accusing them of something YOU need to own yourself", please explain to me how I was meant to gather that by your quotation of JudgeRightly quote of a third-part article? I did not miss the context, I missed the fact you poorly explain what you meant when you said "Déjà Vu" by quoting an article.

Doesn't matter, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Judge Rightly.

Is your memory that bad Lon,

No, your reading comprehension is this bad...

it was only last month we were speaking about the LXX, now you're trying to 'shame' me by acting I have no clue about because I say "Greek" in relation to the OT.

No, I'm questioning your 'facts' because you often say 'facts' but really OFTEN mean debatable opinions. "Hebrew" was simply to get you to realize you over-state your ideas. Learn to lift HIM up more than yourself, NWL.

You full well know, or perhaps your memory is just that bad,

No, just you making a weak attempt to defend yourself, caught once again with a 'fact' that isn't one.

that I know what the Septuagint is and that's obviously what I was talking about when I used the word "Greek", you're being very pedantic again. Please stop this "shaming" tactic thing you keep doing, again, it should have no place in these types of conversations; if you think that lowly of me simply stop responding.

Fine.

 

[NWL]

A bit convoluted. You'll have to unpack this (regardless of how funny it seems to be to you). I can tell you, straight up, you haven't really listened. You attack ideas that nobody presented long before you ever listen. This IS the Unitarian problem more often than not. Again, it is a reading comprehension problem. You've made all kinds of them in thread (and I can point them out if you like). Comprehension is of supreme importance in reading God's word.

What point have I not listened to? I've clearly understood your position, I simply brought in a point I believed you ignored, namely, that to a trinitarian, "the God", when understood in a definite sense, relates to 'identity'. The 'identity' of God isn't Jesus, it isn't the Father, and it isn't the HS, the identity of who God is (to a trinitarian), is the Father/Son/HS in one being, the Trinity; all three persons form the "one God". Therefore, if the Word (who we both agree refers to Jesus) is 'THE GOD', according to John 1:1c, then it infers he is either the God (Father) of John 1:1b or the trinity, there is no way around this. What I'm attacking is your principle that one cannot use 'scripture to interpret scripture', which leaves you utterly stuck in what John 1:1 infers by your definite understanding of the text.

Your claim that I have comprehension problems no more proves I have such an issue any more than me saying YOU have a comprehension proves you do. The fact of the matter is this, if Jesus is being identified as THE GOD in John 1:1c then he is 'the trinity', thus, according to what you say, along with this understanding in mind, "THE GOD", i.e the Trinity, became flesh. This is not too hard to grasp. If you believe I'm wrong, please do not simply assert there is a comprehension issue, rather, explain where the fault lies in my reasoning and enlighten me.

Ridiculous principle? You are applying scripture willynilly if you do this any other way. ASK before you assume. I've not said the Word is Jesus (yet) but John does.

Another example of you being pedantic; it's generally not necessary to comb over each other beliefs when we have a general understanding of each other's faith. Trinitarians generally accept the Word as being the pre-incarnate Jesus; it was not an assumption but a presumption.

Yes, the principle of "you cannot interpret scripture with scripture" is ridiculous, hence why you are silent in rejecting the common trinitarian claim Jesus was claiming to be YHWH according to John 8:58, the same way you wouldn't deny the trinity simply because Jesus said "the Father is greater than I", rather, you'd no doubt claim Jesus was either speaking in relation to his humanity here, possibly use Phil 2:7, or highlight that subservience in role does not equate to subservience in essence. But oh wait! You can't express any of that as you can only focus on what the scripture literally says and not "import" idea's or assume other texts can interpret what is being spoken of. Again, the principle you expressed is ridiculous and I know of no expert who follows it. If you believe I'm wrong, please do not simply assert I'm wrong, rather, explain where the fault lies in with what I said, simple assertions from you are a dime a dozen.

You don't understand trinit-arian. We HALF agree with you, which means you are making a strawman. We go 'part way' with you. To not grasp this, is not really grasping the triune view. It is not at all three gods, though I do acquiesce I've seen some trinitarians argue to the point of tritheism. I agree with a lot of Unitarian points. What I'd point out in YOUR reasoning here, is that the text goes beyond your mentioned grasp: Not only 'was God' "Was with God." Both. It is a tightrope walk and we believe both, not either or.

You say "the text goes beyond your mentioned grasp: Not only 'was God' "Was with God." Both." yes, but such a contradiction should also lead you to believe the translation is wrong, rather than believing in a text that makes no sense and play the infamous trinitarian mystery card. Again... if the Word was "THE GOD" that he was with, then Jesus was the TRINITY. Trinitarians do not believe Jesus was God in identity, they believe he was God in nature, since the identity of God isn't Jesus, rather it the Father/Son/HS. THIS IS WHY A DEFINITE TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1c MAKES NO SENSE, as the definite understanding of John 1:1c infers the identity of THE GOD was the word. You keep expressing "Not only 'was God' "Was with God", fine, but all you're doing is expressing Sabellianism by such a comment.

Summarisation
God is three persons, namely the Father/Son/HS
A definite understanding of John 1:1c infers the Word's identity was THE God (i.e the Father/Son/HS)
A qualitative understanding of John 1:1 infers the Word was THE God by nature

It doesn't matter if the text states the Word was with THE GOD, especially since we "cannot import idea's or other text" but must simply accept scripture for what it says, right? Thus, the Word was THE GOD (TRINITY). Again, modern trinitarian scholarships deny the definite sense of John 1:1c.

It is not an invention. It has long been taught. Let me state it again: "Don't import you, export God's thoughts." Let me ask: How much of YOU do you want involved or getting in God's way? How much of Him would you prefer over your own fallibility (and mine)? Based upon what I assume needs to be your own answer, you should likely stop claiming 'absured' and start realizing where you need to agree, if you really do not. It is time to make that commitment to Him and that change if you haven't done so already.

You said in regards John 8:58, "It is not an invention. It has long been taught", so hold on, I'm incorrect for importing scripture and applying it to another scripture, but when the masses do it for a long time it, therefore, becomes acceptable? As if time somehow equates truth. Is this seriously your excuse? Again you show your inconsistency. I'm not asking if the masses have been teaching that John 8:58 shows, Jesus, as YHWH, I'm asking YOU if you believe applying Exo 3:14 is a good deduction based on your "rule" of importing ideas into texts.

Regarding your quote above I would agree with you if you qualified what "import" means. At present me deducting and applying clear language parallels ("the beginning" Gen 1:1, John 1:1, 1 John 3:8) to scripture and applying the context is "importing" according to you. If you mean, however, that the qualified "importing" is assuming man-made doctrines, ideas, or concepts into scriptures that have at no time been expressed in scripture, then I would agree with you.

To me its seems you are really having a hard time denying the common trinitarian understanding of John 8:58, all I want to see is how consistent you are in your reasoning; why should I take the advice you have given if you can't even demonstrate you follow it yourself consistently.

NWL said: " you should keep your personal opinions and backhanded comments to yourselves; if you cannot fathom how such comments would in most cases be seen as character attacks then you lack the common sense for me to be able to properly articulate why such comments would be seen as ad hominem given my position and the manner of some of your responses."
LON said: Let's see if you can ask nicely instead of coming to a Trinitarian board, starting arguments, and then trying to blame it on everyone else in poor manners. Let's see you instead, look at yourself and see if there be any wicked way Psalm 139:23-24

I thought I was the one who was bad at reading context? My comments, including the ones from the prior conversation, were in relation to expressing 'personal opinions about one's character', I was not claiming people should not be giving their personal opinions in general no matter the subject.

Less than .01% That means 'dismal.' You are trying to pad your numbers THEN telling me I'm arguing ad populum (you don't even know what that argument is either, it has to fit a certain criteria). Pop-statistics aren't your friend.

JW's number twenty million, that number alone compared to the rest of Christians in the world (two billion) brings the number to above 1%, nowhere near the 0.01 you've calculated. This doesn't consider other unitarian denominations and doesn't account for the 'cultural Christians', that make up the vast majority of the Christians in the world today. I've been publically speaking to people about the bible for over twenty years, the vast amount of Christians I speak who identify as Christian, don't even know Jesus is God according to their faith, many get confused and believe in modalism unwittingly and only a small majority understand God is a trinity, as it is taught.

Also, should we include the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world too, who claim to be Torah and Injil accepting, but see no Trinity dcotrine expressed, I think not.

If the whole world believed you were God Lon, it wouldn't make it so, would it?

What credit?

That you think you are doing a perfect job articulating yourself.

Er, you just accused me of being 'extremely vague.' Your sentence above is random. Pot. Kettle. Black. Own it.

"Random" and "vague" are two different words.

You quoted Judgerightly's article and stated, "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people ", yet the article didn't express the point I wasn't "getting", as per your comment. I replied presuming your comment was in relation to the article you quoted, rather your comment was in relation to something completely different to what you quoted, you tried to mock me despite not realizing you yourself were vague by your comments; I cant dumb it down much more for you, even if I were to try.

Doesn't matter, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Judge Rightly.

Hmm, you were talking to Judgerightly, despite the post being directed to me, and despite the fact that you didn't correctly tag his name quote in the post. Very believable. What's more believable is that you quoted his comments in a post to me in an indirect way for me to notice your comments, which in effect is a form of communication.

No, your reading comprehension is this bad...

This comment is purely nonsensical. You tried to shame me by my usage of the word 'Greek' in regards to the LXX as if I do not know what it is, I then highlight I'm aware what the LXX is as per our previous conversation and in reply to me saying "Is your memory that bad Lon" you randomly saying "No, your reading comprehension is this bad"???? What is this meant to be in reply to? What part of my sentence? We weren't even talking about understanding context, but rather, if I knew what the LLX was as per my comment, "Both the Hebrew and the Greek of Exo 7:1 express the same thing". The irony in some of your responses. Please stop behaving like a child who does not know how to effectively communicate and instead stay on the topic of biblical exegesis.

No, I'm questioning your 'facts' because you often say 'facts' but really OFTEN mean debatable opinions. "Hebrew" was simply to get you to realize you over-state your ideas. Learn to lift HIM up more than yourself, NWL.

Erm, it is a fact Exodus was written in Greek... it's called the Septugint. Oh wait, did you assume when I said written I meant originally written? If so, that is where your error lies, don't try to pin your "bad reading comprehension" on me; 'written' does not mean 'originally written'. Again, "Both the Hebrew and the Greek of Exo 7:1 express the same thing, this is a fact", my statement still stands, don't assume.

No, just you making a weak attempt to defend yourself, caught once again with a 'fact' that isn't one.

Lol, but it is a fact unless you deny the existence of the LXX.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen no confirmation or denial that the statement, "In 2020 Bob built a Town. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made", implies all things both inside the and outside the town were made by Bob, or only the things in the town were made by him.

I haven't seen a good reason to disregard my understanding that the words, "the beginning" to be in reference to Genesis 1:1, in light of scriptures such as 1 John 1:1, 1 John 3:8 among others, or why it's not correct to apply the context to John 1:3. At present, all you've demonstrated is that you do not apply the same rule to yourself with passages such as John 8:58.

I don't recall seeing you stating whether or not the angels are subjected to man according to Hebrews 2:7,8, in light of my recent comments?

 

[Lon]

What point have I not listened to? I've clearly understood your position, I simply brought in a point I believed you ignored, namely, that to a trinitarian, "the God", when understood in a definite sense, relates to 'identity'. The 'identity' of God isn't Jesus, it isn't the Father, and it isn't the HS, the identity of who God is (to a trinitarian), is the Father/Son/HS in one being, the Trinity; all three persons form the "one God". Therefore, if the Word (who we both agree refers to Jesus) is 'THE GOD', according to John 1:1c, then it infers he is either the God (Father) of John 1:1b or the trinity, there is no way around this. What I'm attacking is your principle that one cannot use 'scripture to interpret scripture', which leaves you utterly stuck in what John 1:1 infers by your definite understanding of the text.

Your claim that I have comprehension problems no more proves I have such an issue any more than me saying YOU have a comprehension proves you do. The fact of the matter is this, if Jesus is being identified as THE GOD in John 1:1c then he is 'the trinity', thus, according to what you say, along with this understanding in mind, "THE GOD", i.e the Trinity, became flesh. This is not too hard to grasp. If you believe I'm wrong, please do not simply assert there is a comprehension issue, rather, explain where the fault lies in my reasoning and enlighten me.

Another example of you being pedantic; it's generally not necessary to comb over each other beliefs when we have a general understanding of each other's faith. Trinitarians generally accept the Word as being the pre-incarnate Jesus; it was not an assumption but a presumption.

Yes, the principle of "you cannot interpret scripture with scripture" is ridiculous,

To you. You are less than a percent. Who cares what you think? You don't have the where-with-all anyway, so it means fairly next to nothing coming from you. Ask a few more TOL members what they believe and if "Don't import you, export Him" is "ridiculous." You are the one who is ridiculous. You, alone, don't really matter (not a slam, it is just that one voice crying isn't a pip on the radar of discussion, especially without being vested.

hence why you are silent in rejecting the common trinitarian claim Jesus was claiming to be YHWH according to John 8:58, the same way you wouldn't deny the trinity simply because Jesus said "the Father is greater than I",

It doesn't mean what YOU think it does. He said Himself the Father and He are One. So again, just like John 1:1: BOTH. THAT is the Unitarian error. You read one and literally filter the other out. YOU do. YOU filter out scripture to 'rationalize' (musings of men) something you contrive, so that you can understand it, instead of just believing the unique clarity. YOU do. JW's so much, they rewrite scriptures. That is a sin. Then you call the other: to preserve God's word in its original meaning "ridiculous." You are simply wrong and advocating for every odd fellow to import his/her own ideas instead of exporting His! AND YOU call that ridiculous.

rather, you'd no doubt claim Jesus was either speaking in relation to his humanity here, possibly use Phil 2:7, or highlight that subservience in role does not equate to subservience in essence. But oh wait! You can't express any of that as you can only focus on what the scripture literally says and not "import" idea's or assume other texts can interpret what is being spoken of. Again, the principle you expressed is ridiculous and I know of no expert who follows it. If you believe I'm wrong, please do not simply assert I'm wrong, rather, explain where the fault lies in with what I said, simple assertions from you are a dime a dozen.

Yet I have the where-with-all.

You say "the text goes beyond your mentioned grasp: Not only 'was God' "Was with God." Both." yes, but such a contradiction should also lead you to believe the translation is wrong, rather than believing in a text that makes no sense and play the infamous trinitarian mystery card.

I don't need a translation. You could try and take a couple of language classes.

Again... if the Word was "THE GOD" that he was with, then Jesus was the TRINITY. Trinitarians do not believe Jesus was God in identity, they believe he was God in nature, since the identity of God isn't Jesus, rather it the Father/Son/HS. THIS IS WHY A DEFINITE TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1c MAKES NO SENSE, as the definite understanding of John 1:1c infers the identity of THE GOD was the word. You keep expressing "Not only 'was God' "Was with God", fine, but all you're doing is expressing Sabellianism by such a comment.

Summarisation
God is three persons, namely the Father/Son/HS
A definite understanding of John 1:1c infers the Word's identity was THE God (i.e the Father/Son/HS)
A qualitative understanding of John 1:1 infers the Word was THE God by nature

It doesn't matter if the text states the Word was with THE GOD, especially since we "cannot import idea's or other text" but must simply accept scripture for what it says, right? Thus, the Word was THE GOD (TRINITY). Again, modern trinitarian scholarships deny the definite sense of John 1:1c.


You said in regards John 8:58, "It is not an invention. It has long been taught", so hold on, I'm incorrect for importing scripture and applying it to another scripture, but when the masses do it for a long time it, therefore, becomes acceptable? As if time somehow equates truth. Is this seriously your excuse? Again you show your inconsistency. I'm not asking if the masses have been teaching that John 8:58 shows, Jesus, as YHWH, I'm asking YOU if you believe applying Exo 3:14 is a good deduction based on your "rule" of importing ideas into texts.

Regarding your quote above I would agree with you if you qualified what "import" means. At present me deducting and applying clear language parallels ("the beginning" Gen 1:1, John 1:1, 1 John 3:8) to scripture and applying the context is "importing" according to you. If you mean, however, that the qualified "importing" is assuming man-made doctrines, ideas, or concepts into scriptures that have at no time been expressed in scripture, then I would agree with you.t

No, you called it ridiculous. Don't try and be reasonable now. You import ideas all over the place, such is your dismal ability to lift meaning 'from' the text. There is no other way to do that, than to use that method that strictly says "not my will, but Thine" which YOU call "ridiculous."

To me its seems you are really having a hard time denying the common trinitarian understanding of John 8:58, all I want to see is how consistent you are in your reasoning; why should I take the advice you have given if you can't even demonstrate you follow it yourself consistently.

You are projecting as well as trying to force something. No. I'm consistent, regardless of whom you've come into contact prior.

I thought I was the one who was bad at reading context?

You are. Just above, YOU force the narrative. YOU do.

My comments, including the ones from the prior conversation, were in relation to expressing 'personal opinions about one's character', I was not claiming people should not be giving their personal opinions in general no matter the subject.

JW's number twenty million, that number alone compared to the rest of Christians in the world (two billion) brings the number to above 1%, nowhere near the 0.01 you've calculated. This doesn't consider other unitarian denominations and doesn't account for the 'cultural Christians', that make up the vast majority of the Christians in the world today. I've been publically speaking to people about the bible for over twenty years, the vast amount of Christians I speak who identify as Christian, don't even know Jesus is God according to their faith, many get confused and believe in modalism unwittingly and only a small majority understand God is a trinity, as it is taught.

Don't know who you got this from, but it is a lie. Demonstrably. It is why I question everything from you. You are found wanting and incapable.

Also, should we include the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world too, who claim to be Torah and Injil accepting, but see no Trinity dcotrine expressed, I think not.

Who cares? You import ideas out of context. You have a problem with your reasoning ability. You compare oranges to apples and call it gold and it is simply wrong. While you 'think' you presume, you rather assume a lot. Your thoughts are contrived associations often. In this case, "Muslims" are not Christians. I don't care what nonChristians think, even if you do. It is crazy. You want Muslims informing your theology???
The context of majority isn't that they are 'always right.' Notice that it doesn't say 'is most often wrong.' The context emphasizes they are actually right most of the time and recognizes that with a caveat "not always." After that, they are then 'right' again because they can take the correction as a group. Therefore, the majority of Christians are most always right.

If the whole world believed you were God Lon, it wouldn't make it so, would it?

Reductio ad absurdum. Think of something credible. As with your odd extreme of trying to get Muslims to tell you what to believe about God and the Lord Jesus Christ, this one also isn't rational. It is building a strawman only to knock it down. Later I'll ignore this in the future and skip it as beneath me (and you).

That you think you are doing a perfect job articulating yourself.

"Random" and "vague" are two different words.

It doesn't matter, this meaningless banter....

You quoted Judgerightly's article and stated, "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people ", yet the article didn't express the point I wasn't "getting", as per your comment. I replied presuming your comment was in relation to the article you quoted, rather your comment was in relation to something completely different to what you quoted, you tried to mock me despite notion realizing you yourself were vague by your comments; I cant dumb it down much more for you, even if I were to try.

Hmm, you were talking to Judgerightly, despite the post being directed to me, and despite the fact that you didn't correctly tag his name quote in the post. Very believable. What's more believable is that you quoted his comments in a post to me in an indirect way for me to notice your comments, which in effect is a form of communication.

This comment is purely nonsensical. You tried to shame me by my usage of the word 'Greek' in regards to the LXX as if I do not know what it is, I then highlight I'm aware what the LXX is as per our previous conversation and in reply to me saying "Is your memory that bad Lon" you randomly saying "No, your reading comprehension is this bad"???? What is this meant to be in reply to? What part of my sentence? We weren't even talking about understanding context, but rather, if I knew what the LLX was as per my comment, "Both the Hebrew and the Greek of Exo 7:1 express the same thing". The irony in some of your responses. Please stop behaving like a child who does not know how to effectively communicate and instead stay on the topic of biblical exegesis.

Quit posturing.

Erm, it is a fact Exodus was written in Greek... it's called the Septugint. Oh wait, did you assume when I said written I meant originally written? If so, that is where your error lies, don't try to pin your "bad reading comprehension" on me; 'written' does not mean 'originally written'. Again, "Both the Hebrew and the Greek of Exo 7:1 express the same thing, this is a fact", my statement still stands, don't assume.

Lol, but it is a fact unless you deny the existence of the LXX.

No. Because you are poor at context, you MISSED This one and went off on a tangent. You completely missed the point because your comprehension skills are subpar. Then should I take your summations of scripture? :nono: You are found incapable and wanting and calling 'contextual rules' "ridiculous." : Plain:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen no confirmation or denial that the statement, "In 2020 Bob built a Town. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made", implies all things both inside the and outside the town were made by Bob, or only the things in the town were made by him.

I haven't seen a good reason to disregard my understanding that the words, "the beginning" to be in reference to Genesis 1:1, in light of scriptures such as 1 John 1:1, 1 John 3:8 among others, or why it's not correct to apply the context to John 1:3. At present, all you've demonstrated is that you do not apply the same rule to yourself with passages such as John 8:58.

I don't recall seeing you stating whether or not the angels are subjected to man according to Hebrews 2:7,8, in light of my recent comments?

I know you don't. You don't do context and reading comprehension very well. You'll posture, rant, cry that you do (somehow) when it is demonstrable you do not. A character assassination? No! It is YOUR inability to cogently and correctly discuss scripture. It is THE reason you and I cannot. Defending and crying about your lack will never bring us on par. You need to be 'listening' not talking at this point. You don't have the actual needed skills for this discussion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

To a trinitarian:

The trinity = three persons who are one being, namely, the Father/Son/HS.
God = three persons who are one being, namely, the Father/Son/HS.

There is no difference in the above defintion, the terms are synonymous to a trinitarian, denying it doesn't make it untrue.

I, a trinitarian, am telling you that you're wrong, and I already provided you with the definitions I accept for "God" and "Trinity."

Repeatedly asserting the above claim will not magically make it come true, no matter how many times you claim it is "undeniable."

Now, that being said, perhaps I could help you out:

A more appropriate comparison would be between "Trinity" and "Godhead."

You seem to be forgetting something, as well. Trinitarians also assert that each Member of the Godhead are Themselves the entirety of God.

I don't know how that works, how God is three Persons, as one Being, and how each Person is also the full manifestation of God, and I doubt I ever will, or maybe God will be able to explain it to me after I get to heaven.

It's something where, at least for now, I'm simply going to have to appeal to the mystery of Who and What God is, because all other options, as @Lon puts it, do damage to the rest of scripture.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JudgeRightly,

I am interested every now and then to drop in and look at this long running thread. I usually find much the same material, and sometimes a few different participants. I was interested in looking at some of your interaction with NWL, as I do have some common ground with him but also some major differences. NWL believes that there is One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Where I differ with NWL is that as a JW he believes in the pre-existence of Christ, either as Michael the Archangel, or another Angel. I do not believe that Jesus existed before he was conceived and born.

Trinitarians also assert that each Member of the Godhead are Themselves the entirety of God. I don't know how that works, how God is three Persons, as one Being, and how each Person is also the full manifestation of God, and I doubt I ever will, or maybe God will be able to explain it to me after I get to heaven.

I take this as a concluding summary of your position, and if it were me I would have very serious doubts that this is a true assessment of what the Bible teaches. John 1:14 reveals that Jesus fully manifested the character of God, he was full of grace and truth, but this does not make Jesus God, but the Son of God. God is the Father, and principally the father of Jesus, the only begotten of the Father. This does not make Jesus fully God.

It's something where, at least for now, I'm simply going to have to appeal to the mystery of Who and What God is, because all other options, as Lon puts it, do damage to the rest of scripture.

I suggest that it is wrong to use the term “mystery”, when applying this to something that is absolutely impossible and contradictory. I gave another option in a thread “The Yahweh Name”, and this had only a few brief responses. The thread started on May 11, 2018 and the last post was May 15,2018.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[NWL]

Apart from bringing in John 10:30, almost nothing you said in your reply was a scriptural reply but rather personal opinions and comments about trivial matters. Let's bring things back down to basic, let's try and speak only about the scriptural and theological arguments (I have added this paragraph in after posting this post).

I know you don't. You don't do context and reading comprehension very well. You'll posture, rant, cry that you do (somehow) when it is demonstrable you do not. A character assassination? No! It is YOUR inability to cogently and correctly discuss scripture. It is THE reason you and I cannot. Defending and crying about your lack will never bring us on par. You need to be 'listening' not talking at this point. You don't have the actual needed skills for this discussion.

What a way for someone to say they refuse to answer a question! Again, if you believe you've given the answers to the question or responded to the points all you have to do is tell me the post number, quote the post, or link it in response. I'm not claiming you've nowhere spoken about the points, I'm suggesting you haven't made mention of them adequately in light of my most recent replies and counterpoints.

Please show me where you've confirmed or denied the statement, "In 2020 Bob built a Town. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made", implies all things both inside the and outside the town were made by Bob, or only the things in the town were made by him.

Please show me where you've demonstrated why it is good to disregard my understanding that the words "the beginning" to be in reference to Genesis 1:1, in light of scriptures such as 1 John 1:1, 1 John 3:8 among others, or why it's not correct to apply the context to John 1:3. Is you claiming "we shouldn't import scripture" all you have to express in this regard?

Please show me where you answered whether or not the angels are subjected to man according to Hebrews 2:7,8, in light of my recent comments?

To you. You are less than a percent. Who cares what you think? You don't have the where-with-all anyway, so it means fairly next to nothing coming from you. Ask a few more TOL members what they believe and if "Don't import you, export Him" is "ridiculous." You are the one who is ridiculous. You, alone, don't really matter (not a slam, it is just that one voice crying isn't a pip on the radar of discussion, especially without being vested.

Again you make an appeal to the masses, no matter how many times you suggest the masses will never define truth. It's utterly absurd that you keep suggesting such a thing.

No scholar does exegesis without the use of other scripture to interpret scripture; interpreting scripture with scripture is the standard. You've suggested the principle of not "Importing ideas" (interpreting scripture with scripture) into scripture is the correct way to understand the scripture, but, I would argue such an idea only relates to importing 'un-scriptural' ideologies or personal opinions that aren't suggested in the scripture themselves. As stated, we see the scholarly community, and the understanding of the trinity doctrine itself develop based on interpreting scripture with scripture, hence why it is so silly for you, a trinitarian, to suggest such an idea, as it causes more issues for you than it fixes.

It doesn't mean what YOU think it does. He said Himself the Father and He are One. So again, just like John 1:1: BOTH. THAT is the Unitarian error. You read one and literally filter the other out. YOU do. YOU filter out scripture to 'rationalize' (musings of men) something you contrive, so that you can understand it, instead of just believing the unique clarity. YOU do. JW's so much, they rewrite scriptures. That is a sin. Then you call the other: to preserve God's word in its original meaning "ridiculous." You are simply wrong and advocating for every odd fellow to import his/her own ideas instead of exporting His! AND YOU call that ridiculous.

Of course it doesn't matter what I think, all that matters is what the scriptures state. You allude to John 10:30, which states 'Jesus and the Father are One', but aren't we missing something? The Trinity doctrine expresses three persons are one, not two persons, as John 10:30 states. Such an expression "I and the Father are one" when viewed without "importing scripture" and ideas (lol) suggest that only Jesus and the Father are one being and not the Father/Son/HS, so how is this evidence to what you suggest, at best Jesus and the Father are a duality, not a trinity.

Whatsmore, a simple reading of the text, whilst also allowing other scripture to help us interpret and better understand John 10:30, allows us to understand the oneness spoken of in John 10:30 has nothing to do with oneness in 'being', but rather, oneness in purpose.

Let's do a quick review of the context. John 10:30 Jesus makes the claim "I and the Father are One", the Jews then try to seize him to kill him, Jesus says in his own defense, "do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and SENT INTO THE WORLD, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ 37 If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. 38 But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that THE FATHER IS IN ME, AND I IN THE FATHER", notice how Jesus used the fact the 'father sanctified him and sent him into the world' along with expressing the works he was doing in v38 as evidence the 'Father was in him and he in the Father'.

Now notice the following context in John 17:20-23, "that they [my followers] may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe THAT YOU SENT ME. 22 The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW THAT YOU SENT ME".

Firstly using the same raw reading techniques you use, does Jesus asking the Father for his followers to be 'one' and "in" them 'just' as he and the Father are 'one' and "in" each other, is it proof that God is multiple persons? If the answer is no, then Jesus being "one" with the Father must follow the same line of reasoning as to remain consistent, plainly, the "onesness" Jesus and the Father share has nothing to do with Godship or else it implies followers of christ are also God.

Before you make another 'importing' argument, you would first need to deny Jesus is YHWH according to John 8:58 and explain why the same language in John 10:30 expresses the trinity, yet identical language in John 17:20-23 does not. You will no doubt be silent on this matter.

Yet I have the where-with-all.

Your answer here is not an appeal to the scripture and in no way a scriptural argument. Again, Jesus states "the Father is greater than I", following your principle of not importing scripture or ideas to understand the scripture, 'the Father is greater than Jesus', period. We are not allowed to understand the text other than how it reads according to you, therefore, it's impossible for Jesus to be part of a trinity and be co-equal with the Father and HS as the Father is greater. Your reasoning here is worse than a layperson (not an insult, but an observation).

I don't need a translation. You could try and take a couple of language classes.

Again you being pedantic. It doesn't matter if I am talking about translation or understanding the text according to the original languages, determining what is being expressed according to what was written remains the same. Was John trying to be qualitative or definite according to his words in John 1:1c, you suggest he was being definite by his words (the Word was THE GOD in identity, not God by nature), so what I said still stands; it is a contradiction to believe John was being definite by his words, only a qualitative sense makes sense. You cannot explain the definite sense of John 1:1c without "importing" ideas, so you're stuck.

Language classes haven't helped you in showing a consistent view of God from the scriptures with me, so I'm not convinced they'd be of much use as most of the leg work has already been done by actual scholars in regards to the various ways texts individual texts can be translated and why.

No, you called it ridiculous. Don't try and be reasonable now. You import ideas all over the place, such is your dismal ability to lift meaning 'from' the text. There is no other way to do that, than to use that method that strictly says "not my will, but Thine" which YOU call "ridiculous."

Lol, I'm not trying to be reasonable as you suggest, I'm merely applying your own method to you! If you don't like to work with your own method then you shouldn't have mentioned it. You are incorrect I import ideas, I do admit I import scripture to aid in understanding another text but this is common practice, turn to any scholarly commentary and you'll see this with almost every scriptural exegesis.

Again, you will not show your consistency by denying John 8:58 expresses Jesus as YHWH as you know this rule you have dug up is a twisted principle that only applies to importing one's own personal ideas of the scripture and does not relate to using scripture to interpret scripture.

You are projecting as well as trying to force something. No. I'm consistent, regardless of whom you've come into contact prior.

Then why can't you confirm you are consistent by denying that Jesus was making a claim to be YHWH by his words in John 8:58 according to you your understanding? Please demonstrate your consistency in this matter!

Don't know who you got this from, but it is a lie. Demonstrably. It is why I question everything from you. You are found wanting and incapable.

Your response here was a little vague, what exactly was lying about and how exactly did you demonstrate it? You must realize, JW's only count the number of people who have an active part in preaching work as their total numbers, so the 8.6 million members alludes to people who preach on a monthly basis. The number does not include unbaptized persons who regularly attend out meetings, children, people who are studying to become JW's, among other regular attendees; altogether, the total number adds up to approximately 20 million. The 2 billion Christians in the world however include people who are Christian by name only, who know nothing about Jesus, who are the vast majority of the number. For example, out of the thirty people I work with who have been born and raised in Christian England, about 10 of them identify as Christian; only one of those people know anything about Christianity and the rest of them call themselves Christian because "their parents were Christian". These are the type of people who tick 'Christian' in statistic boxes despite knowing nothing about the faith and not believing in Christianity in the slightest.

In 2011 the Office for National Statistics in Britain placed the number of 'Christians' in the UK at 33 million, yet a study done carried out in an attempt to map churchgoing and religious practice a few years later determined only 6% of British adults were practicing Christians; practicing adults were defined as "people who read or listen to the Bible at least once a week, pray at least once a week and attend a church service at least once a month", this makes the number go from 33 million supposed Christians to 3.9 million actual Christians. If we were to assume the same value is correct worldwide then it makes the Christian population go from 2 billion to 120 million practicing Christians, however, this is much more speculative to suggest. If the speculation of 120 million is roughly correct then it would mean approximately 17% of 'practicing Christians' are unitarian. Let's hear and see your mocks, scoff, and astonishment at me saying all this.

Who cares? You import ideas out of context. You have a problem with your reasoning ability. You compare oranges to apples and call it gold and it is simply wrong. While you 'think' you presume, you rather assume a lot. Your thoughts are contrived associations often. In this case, "Muslims" are not Christians. I don't care what nonChristians think, even if you do. It is crazy. You want Muslims informing your theology???
The context of majority isn't that they are 'always right.' Notice that it doesn't say 'is most often wrong.' The context emphasizes they are actually right most of the time and recognizes that with a caveat "not always." After that, they are then 'right' again because they can take the correction as a group. Therefore, the majority of Christians are most always right.

When someone starts making arguments such as "who cares" in an argument it means they've lost. There are numerous examples in history where the 'majority rules' or there is a 'majority belief' and yet the belief and practice has been totally wrong. No amount of waffle is ever going to convince anyone, or prove to anyone that the 'majority' is correct when it comes to the trinity, in fact, Jesus speaks out against majority rule, so such an idea is not Christlike:

(Matthew 7:13-14, 22-23)  “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it...Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you!

Reductio ad absurdum. Think of something credible. As with your odd extreme of trying to get Muslims to tell you what to believe about God and the Lord Jesus Christ, this one also isn't rational. It is building a strawman only to knock it down. Later I'll ignore this in the future and skip it as beneath me (and you).

I'm glad you agree! It is absurd to claim something is true based on an extreme number, it's what I've been saying all along! Well done.

It doesn't matter, this meaningless banter....

You must have a bad sense of humor as this was not banter. You previously stated "Er, you just accused me of being 'extremely vague.' Your sentence above is random", you seemed to conflate the words 'vague' and 'random' in your comment here; I was merely highlighting the words "random" is not the same as "vague". Instead of finding something to say about everything, sometimes it's simply better not to reply instead of making yourself look more foolish.

Quit posturing.

Again, rather than making yourself look more foolish, sometimes it is better to simply not reply to a comment. I merely was explaining myself once again as you claimed "No, your reading comprehension is this bad" in relation to my defense that I knew what I was talking about when I said the word 'Greek OT' in relation to the LXX. I don't understand how you think this was 'posturing', perhaps you are easily impressed. Stop being pedantic and maybe I won't need to defend trivial matters so much.

No. Because you are poor at context, you MISSED This one and went off on a tangent. You completely missed the point because your comprehension skills are subpar. Then should I take your summations of scripture? :nono: You are found incapable and wanting and calling 'contextual rules' "ridiculous." : Plain:

What was the context I missed, you could end all this and simply show me what context I missed but you won't, why, because we both know you were vague and most probably quoted the wrong segment of JR text. All you do is accuse me of things you are unable to demonstrate, for example:

• You bring up John 1:1 claiming Jesus is God according to it yet won't explain how he is identified as THE GOD (definite understanding) despite THE GOD being the Father/Son/HS according to the trinity doctrine.
• Claim you're consistent with John 8:58 and not importing scriptures yet won't comment on whether or not Jesus is YHWH according to your understanding of it.
• Claim Hebrews 2:7,8 context doesn't include all things yet won't comment on whether or not Angels were subject to man according to the verse
• You suggest I'm importing ideas into John 1:1 yet you won't confirm or deny whether or not you believe 'the beginning' in John 1:1 is in relation to Gen 1:1 and also will not comment on other texts that suggest 'the beginning' is John alluding to Genesis (see 1 John 1:1, 1 John 3:8)
• Claim I am bad at reading context but will refuse to evidence what I missed when we have chain history of information.

As I have already said, stop being pedantic and accusing me of trivial things. Keep your personal opinions about me in your head and let's just talk about theology.