The Trinity

[7djengo7]

This is actually ridiculous, how can you not see the error your understanding.

On the contrary, your error is what is ridiculous. How can you not see the error of the misunderstanding that you parrot, as handed down to you from your programmer/handler gods, The Watchtower Tract Society?

You state "The referent of the word 'God' in v. 4 is YHWH",

Yes, because that is true (except, without the quotes around the word 'God').

but djengo, we're not discussing who the "God" is according to the verse we're discussing who the "one God" is according to the verse.

What you just wrote, there, is gibberish. You think that the word 'God' in the phrase 'one God' has a different referent than the phrase, itself, has??

You've further stated that this "God" is the Father, Son and HS.

That is true (except, without the quotes around the word 'God').

Try and stay one topic and deal with the matter in hand, where does it express the HS or Jesus as being the one God is the issue of 1 Cor 4-6.

Since, by the phrase, "one God", Paul is referring to YHWH, and since the Son is YHWH, and since the Holy Ghost is YHWH, just as is the Father, YHWH, it's impossible that Paul is NOT expressing the Holy Ghost and God the Son when he refers to the one God, YHWH. And, by the way, why do YOU deny that the Holy Ghost is YHWH?

Remember: Only an idiot could write what YOU just wrote. Hey, don't complain to me; I didn't say "YOU are an idiot", did I? Where did I ever express that YOU are an idiot?

Would you agree that the verse does not mention the HS or Jesus in relation to being the "one God" in 1 Cor 8:6, if you disagree with this then please say so and then show me where is states the HS and Jesus are the one God in v6 as it does with the Father?

No. I would NOT agree that the verse does not mention the Holy Ghost or Jesus when Paul refers, by the phrase "one God", to YHWH. To refer to YHWH is ALWAYS to mention God the Son and God the Spirit, just as it is to mention God the Father.

Do you disagree with me when I affirm that Paul, by the phrase "one God", is referring to YHWH? If so, then, again, you have just denied that the Holy Ghost is YHWH.

No djengo, what I simply say and believe according to the text is that there is one God the Father, why?

False. What you believe the passage means is:

But to us there is but one [PERSON WHO IS GOD], the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one [PERSON WHO IS LORD] Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

the verse literally says "there is actually to us one God, the Father" (1 Cor 8:6).

That's true! So, you have just now admitted that the passage DOES NOT LITERALLY SAY:

But to us there is but one [PERSON WHO IS GOD], the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one [PERSON WHO IS LORD] Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

You merely claim, in accordance with your assumption of the unitarian falsehood, that the verse MEANS:

But to us there is but one [PERSON WHO IS GOD], the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one [PERSON WHO IS LORD] Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

You write:

I understand the scripture for what it actually says,

False. You do not understand it at all; you misunderstand it. In your misunderstanding of it, you imagine it to mean:

But to us there is but one [PERSON WHO IS GOD], the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one [PERSON WHO IS LORD] Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Further, you say:

you do not, instead you imagine the HS and Jesus are also the one God despite the verse clearly stating the Father is the one God.

Yet again, you have just denied that the Holy Ghost is YHWH.

You mentioned the word embarrassment, the only one who should be embarrassed here is you as you use arguments that are so basic and easy to overcome that it would put most to shame. On one hand you mock me as you believe I'm am ignorant, yet on the other hand you show you ignorance by using poor arguments, as I will demonstrate.

You quote Isaiah 45:5 which states according to the translation you used "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me". Tell me Djengo, what word was the "LORD" a substitute for in the Hebrew scriptures? It was a substitute to Gods name, YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh! Thus the verse you quoted does not read "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" but rather "I am YHWH, and there is none else, there is no God beside me".

Here, you have just denied that YHWH is the Lord. Nay, you have just denied that YHWH is A lord. Paul just got done saying that there are "lords many", and YOU claim that YHWH is not even one of them, let alone the SUPREME one.

Therefore your question fails and does not make sense according to the actual Bible. You should try reading from a Bible that hasn't been corrupted with the removal of the most divine name in existence.

I stand corrected in regard to the assumption I made in the question I asked you:

Whom would you say is THE ONE LORD to YOU, NWL? Jesus or Jehovah?

See, I assumed that you believed Jehovah to be a lord, so, it followed from that assumption of mine, that, since you deny that Jesus is Jehovah, you would be embarrassed in being called upon to choose WHICH (Jesus OR Jehovah) you would say is your ONE LORD. But, now you've cleared it up for me; now, I understand that, in the first place, you altogether DENY that Jehovah is a lord, period! So, obviously you will not say that Jehovah is your ONE LORD.

 

[7djengo7]

Don't affirm it, prove it!

What (if anything) do you mean by "prove it"? Are you demanding that I CAUSE YOU TO BELIEVE IT? Obviously, only a fool could, in all seriousness, make such a demand. See, I could (with exactly as much reason as you have behind YOUR demand--which is ZERO) just turn right around and demand YOU to CAUSE ME TO BELIEVE your anti-Christ presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

What scriptures states Jesus is the "one God"? 1 Cor 8:4-6 certainly doesn't, it rather ascribes the identity of the one God to the Father alone.

Again, all you've done, here, is to commit eisegesis against the passage, cramming your assumption of unitarianism into it. Whereas the passage reads:

...But to us there is but one God, the Father...

Your assertion is that it MEANS:

...But to us there is but [ONE PERSON WHO IS GOD], the Father...

You write:

Instead of affirming stuff which you are in a habit of doing and showing no proof, actually show us what you teach. Where does scripture say Jesus is the "one God"?

Where does Scripture say that Solomon is "Obed's great grandson"?

Also, according to 1 Cor 8:4-6 who is the "one God", Jesus or the Father?

Since, by YOUR phrase "the "one God"", you mean "the Father", what you are asking me is:

Also, according to 1 Cor 8:4-6 who is [THE FATHER], Jesus or the Father?

And, obviously, that's a stupid question!

Here you go again arguing from silence. Since the scripture does not say Satan, Jonah, Mary and Judas were not almighty God

You keep imploding upon yourself more and more egregiously; it's very interesting to watch, I must say! You have just now claimed that Scripture does NOT deny that Satan (among others) is ALMIGHTY GOD! Do you even think, for even a half a second, about the things that you write? Of course Scripture denies that Satan (etc.) is NOT almighty God! Here's just ONE, of a vast number of various places in Scripture, in which it is DENIED that Satan is almighty God:

Isaiah 45:6

...there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Since YOU claim that "the scripture does not say Satan...is not almighty God", then, every time YOU claim that Satan (etc.) is NOT almighty God, you are accusing YOURSELF of "arguing from silence" (to use your own phrase) that Satan (etc.) is NOT almighty God. You are accusing YOURSELF of NOT basing your own assertion, that Satan is NOT almighty God, upon Scripture. Since you claim that Scripture does NOT deny that Satan is almighty God, then whence do YOU get the doctrine that Satan is NOT almighty God? Did your Watchtower programmers/handlers just hand it down to you, and you accepted it, because they are your god?

Such arguments from silence are foolish, it proves nothing.

And, see, you've just convicted yourself of the very thing you FALSELY accused me of! Your hypocrisy proves MUCH.

Likewise you saying "Scripture NOWHERE denies that Jesus is the one God" in some type of defense that Jesus is the one God is a stupid mans argument.

You saying that Scripture NOWHERE denies that Satan is almighty God, while you claim that Satan is NOT almighty God, is a stupid man's thing to do.

 

[7djengo7]

Satan is NOT Theos in 2 Cor 4.4.

Contextually, the epithets contained within 2 Cor 4, including Theos, relate to Jesus…not to Satan.

Satan is nowhere mentioned in 2 Cor 4; but Jesus is, numerous times.

You have a lot at stake wanting to believe that 2 Cor 4.4 refers to Satan, as this then makes your 'argument' for Jesus likewise being referred to as Theos, in other passages, a non sequitur, and you can then dismiss Jesus' deity without any guilt...

Hey, Apple7, I imagine you'll get a kick out of hearing this. Whereas I still cannot agree with you that Paul was referring to Jesus by the phrase "the god of this world", HOWEVER, I no longer disagree with you when you deny that he was referring to Satan by it! I no longer think that Satan is the referent of the phrase "the god of this world". I've an inkling of an idea brewing, concerning the passage, that seems, at least on the surface, to have some viability.....

 

[7djengo7]

No one is a false God unless scripture states so, despite this we can still determine ones who are "so called gods" (1 Cor 8:5) or in other words "false gods" depending if they are working in line with Gods will or not.

You didn't like the syllogism I laid out FOR DARTMAN using Dartman's propositions as the premises. Why? Because you did not agree with the proposition of Dartman that constituted its Major Premise. So, now, let's lay out a different syllogism, one using (at least) one of YOUR propositions as the premises:

Major Premise: Every god not "working in line with Gods [sic] will" is a false god,
Minor Premise: Satan is a god not "working in line with Gods [sic] will",
ERGO
Conclusion: Satan is a false god.

This syllogism is a valid argument: if the premises be true, the conclusion can't but be true. Now, from your above-quoted statement, the major premise of this syllogism has been derived. What do you say about the minor premise? Is it true, or is it false?

Bear in mind that you have written:

Why would I apply the term "false God" to Satan when scripture clearly shows him as a God?

Here, in your rhetorical question, you seem to have already denied the conclusion of the syllogism.

 

[7djengo7]

Satan is a rightly a God, these are not my words but that of the bible, 2 Cor 4:4 rightly calls Satan "The God (ho theos) of this world", Thus Satan is a God according to scripture.

You say, of YOUR words--"Satan is a [sic] rightly a God"--that "these are not my words but that [sic] of the bible". Astounding that you had no qualm with actually claiming that out loud! Well, obviously, they are NOT the words of the Hebrew Old Testament, and they are NOT the words of the Greek New Testament. Let's see, now. I mostly read the KJV, and I can tell you they are NOT the words of the KJV. I don't know about other English translations and pseudo-translations: are they to be found in one (or more) of those volumes? What about your New World Translation? Could you cite a passage, in the NWT, wherein I can read the words "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God"? I looked them up in your "Bible", at 2 Corinthians 4:4, and they ARE NOT THERE. Instead, this is what was written there:

among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers...

Is there any place in your "Bible" wherein you would say they are found? If so, where?

Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

Is the phrase, "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God", in the Bible? If not, do you believe "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God"? Have you ever used the phrase "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God" before? If you have, then why are you using a phrase not found in the Bible?

Notice that NO TRINITARIAN, EVER, has claimed "The word 'Trinity' is not MY word, it is a word right out of the Bible"!!!

 

[NWL]

You'll be pleased to hear that, after some more thinking about it over the last couple days, I no longer think that Paul was referring to Satan by the phrase, "the god of this world".

What you mean to say is that now that you've realized you can't defend yourself according to scripture so conveniently change your understanding of scripture in an attempt to thwart my claims. You'll be happy to know that rejecting satan as the god in 2 Cor 4:4 does nothing to help you since you're now in disagreement with 99% of Christianity on the matter and that scriptures identifies many others as Gods/gods, namely Moses (Exodus 7:1), Angels (Psalms 8:5) and divinely appointed Men (Psalms 82:1-5), even ones belly can be referred to a God/god (Philippians 3:19) in the right circumstance.

Does ὁ θεὸς mean "the God"?

No, it doesn't. It means "the god". On the other hand, ὁ Θεὸς means "the God".

Now, does ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου--"the god of this world"--mean "the God"? No. It does not. Rather, it means "the god of this world".

Djengo, I've already explained to you there was no such thing as capitalization as it is in English today. Thus, your answer that "ὁ θεὸς" in 2 Cor 4:4 means "the god" instead of "the God" makes no sense since there is nothing according to the Greek to suggest if a capital letter should be used or not since they were not used as they are today. That was exactly my original point, that Jesus is John 20:28 is referred to as "ὁ θεὸς", which is translated as "the God" with a capital G, and that 2 Cor 4:4 uses exactly the same words "ὁ θεὸς" with no difference what so ever. On what merit should "ὁ θεὸς" be translated with an uncapaitalised g in 2 Cor 4:4? I'm extremely interested in hearing your answer since you've now stated that "ὁ θεὸς" in 2 Cor 4:4 doesn't refer to Satan, I assume you now believe it refers to Jesus or other person of the trinity(correct me if I'm wrong), if this is the case you somehow need to explain why "ὁ θεὸς" means "the god" over "the God" in 2 Cor 4:4 despite it referring to a person(s) of the trinity according to your current understanding. You've done you own legs my friend!

Let me guess, this idea of yours that "ho theos" in 2 Cor 4:4 should be understood as "the god" will soon change, despite it meaning nothing since capitalization in Greek as it does in English did not exist back then.

 

[NWL]

Since, by the phrase, "one God", Paul is referring to YHWH, and since the Son is YHWH, and since the Holy Ghost is YHWH, just as is the Father, YHWH, it's impossible that Paul is NOT expressing the Holy Ghost and God the Son when he refers to the one God, YHWH. And, by the way, why do YOU deny that the Holy Ghost is YHWH?

Remember: Only an idiot could write what YOU just wrote. Hey, don't complain to me; I didn't say "YOU are an idiot", did I? Where did I ever express that YOU are an idiot?

No. I would NOT agree that the verse does not mention the Holy Ghost or Jesus when Paul refers, by the phrase "one God", to YHWH. To refer to YHWH is ALWAYS to mention God the Son and God the Spirit, just as it is to mention God the Father.

Djengo you're understanding 1 Cor 8:6 according to you pre-conceived beliefs about the trinity, you're seeing the term "one God" in v6 and assuming it refers to the trinity, what you missing is that Paul ONLY mentions one person in relation to the "one God" when he says "there is actually to us one God, the Father". Paul does NOT say "there is actually to us one God, the Father, Son and HS".

Your answers you gave to my questions reflects that you ignore the wording of Paul's writings and assume trinitarism in relation to him saying "one God". So that everyone can see, confirm for us that when the writer Paul states in 1 Cor 8:6 "there is actually to us one God, the Father" what it actually means is "there is actually to us one God, the Father, [Son and HS]" despite the verse not saying so, and your reason for believing this is because "Paul was referring to YHWH".

If Paul was referring to YHWH (Father/Son/HS) when stating "one God" in the statement "there is actually to us one God, the Father", then why does he only mention one person of the trinity if he was referring to all three. Surely him mentioning the Father alone shows he was NOT referring to all three persons of the trinity?

Do you disagree with me when I affirm that Paul, by the phrase "one God", is referring to YHWH? If so, then, again, you have just denied that the Holy Ghost is YHWH.

Yes, I readily deny the HS is the "one God", I also deny Jesus is called the "one God" or either are YHWH. Show me a verse that states they are either of those ones?

False. What you believe the passage means is

Stop telling me what I believe. Once again, I believe what scripture plainly states, it states "there is one God, the Father" and I believe there is one God, the Father, according to the context. You are the one who assumes the verses relates to other persons dispute them NOT being mentioned.

You quote Isaiah 45:5 which states according to the translation you used "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me". Tell me Djengo, what word was the "LORD" a substitute for in the Hebrew scriptures? It was a substitute to Gods name, YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh! Thus the verse you quoted does not read "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" but rather "I am YHWH, and there is none else, there is no God beside me".

Here, you have just denied that YHWH is the Lord. Nay, you have just denied that YHWH is A lord. Paul just got done saying that there are "lords many", and YOU claim that YHWH is not even one of them, let alone the SUPREME one.

Where have I, it is clear you do not fully comprehend clear writings and assume context all the time. Where did I state I do not believe YHWH to a Lord? My remarks were in relation to your question which you admitted to being out of ignorance. Nowhere have I stated or implied what you claim, if I have, show me.

See, I assumed that you believed Jehovah to be a lord, so, it followed from that assumption of mine, that, since you deny that Jesus is Jehovah, you would be embarrassed in being called upon to choose WHICH (Jesus OR Jehovah) you would say is your ONE LORD. But, now you've cleared it up for me; now, I understand that, in the first place, you altogether DENY that Jehovah is a lord, period! So, obviously you will not say that Jehovah is your ONE LORD.

You miss the point and context of the verse, this is not surprising coming from a man who tried to apply the widely known false insertion LORD of the OT into one of his arguments.

Paul states "Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that 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, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 8:5,6).

Paul wasn't trying to state there is one God and one lord, otherwise this would have contradicted his previous statement that there were "many gods" and "many lord", Paul was making the point that Christians "to them" should have One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus. So I do see the Father as sovereign Lord but to me "my Lord" is Jesus, since this is who we have been commanded to see as our Lord, the Father is my one God, "one God" implies complete authority over anyone, including any Lordship.

 

[NWL]

What (if anything) do you mean by "prove it"? Are you demanding that I CAUSE YOU TO BELIEVE IT? Obviously, only a fool could, in all seriousness, make such a demand. See, I could (with exactly as much reason as you have behind YOUR demand--which is ZERO) just turn right around and demand YOU to CAUSE ME TO BELIEVE your anti-Christ presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

"Only a fool would ask someone to prove something", you say? On the contrary, it is only a fool that would believe something without proof. How can you honestly mock me for asking you to provide evidence to a claim? Would you wildly accept anything and everything I say, or would you not want me to prove what I say by means of evidence? That's all I'm asking, prove the things you say by providing evidence. Only someone who is incapable of providing proof would get as disgruntled as you have by such a request.

What scriptures states Jesus is the "one God"? 1 Cor 8:4-6 certainly doesn't, it rather ascribes the identity of the one God to the Father alone.

Again, all you've done, here, is to commit eisegesis against the passage, cramming your assumption of unitarianism into it. Whereas the passage reads:...But to us there is but one God, the Father...

Your assertion is that it MEANS:

...But to us there is but [ONE PERSON WHO IS GOD], the Father...

I do not mean to be rude when I say this, but are you blind Djengo??? My insertion?? What insertion of what? Where have I inserted anything into 1 Cor 8:6 by the things I've said. Let me remind you of what 1 Cor 8:6 says:

"there is actually to us one God, the Father", and this is what I said "1 Cor 8:4-6..ascribes the identity of the one God to the Father alone".

So 1 Cor 8:6 clearly say that there is one God, the Father, I then state 1 Cor 8:6 states the identity of the one God in the verse is the Father, since that is literally what it says, and somehow I'm inserting something into scripture. I can't reason against such illogical foolishness.

Your assertion is that it MEANS: But to us there is but [ONE PERSON WHO IS GOD], the Father...

No, my insertion means no such thing as I make no insertion, the verses states "there is one God the Father" and that is exactly what I believe, namely, that there is one God the Father. You cannot claim I have inserted anything into the text when I believe exactly what it says, it is YOU who believes the verse is referring to the Father/Son/HS and thus is it YOU who are inserting your thoughts into the verse, I'm taking it for exactly what it says.

I have assumed nothing from the verse and its context, it is extremely clear, "for even thought there are many gods, but to us there is one God, the Father", I take the verse for how it reads and assume nothing, Paul doesn't ascribe the one God of being anyone else other than the Father so I don't assume the one God is anyone but the Father.

Also, according to 1 Cor 8:4-6 who is the "one God", Jesus or the Father?

Since, by YOUR phrase "the "one God"", you mean "the Father", what you are asking me is: Also, according to 1 Cor 8:4-6 who is [THE FATHER], Jesus or the Father?

Stop evading the question, I'm asking you the question according to what the verse says, I'm not asking you to answer according to my beliefs, that would be stupid of me. I do not expect you to answer according to pre-concieved idea's but from the context of the verse. Again, according to 1 Cor 8:4-6 who does Paul ascribe the "one God" as being, Jesus or the Father?

I affirm that Jesus is the one God

Instead of affirming stuff which you are in a habit of doing and showing no proof, actually show us what you teach. Where does scripture say Jesus is the "one God"? Where does Scripture say that Solomon is "Obed's great grandson"?

So you originally affirmed that "Jesus is the one God" and provided no proof, I ask you to provide proof and you instead ask me a question which you know the Bible doesn't supply an answer to. I take it that you reason that since I can't provide a scripture that explicitly states "Solomon is "Obed's great grandson" you can't provide a scripture that explicitly states "Jesus is the one God" that this doesn't mean that Solomon wasn't Obeds great Grandson, thus you not being able to provide a scripture that expresses "Jesus was the one God" doesn't mean he is not.

The argument above is not really an argument, since we do have scriptures that clearly express that Solomon great grandfather was Obed, whilst the explicitly statement is there it is undeniably expressed and is irrefutable that Obed was Solomon's great grandfather (Matthew 1:5-6). Thus for your argument to work you will need to be able to show me a scripture that expresses that Jesus is the "one God". If you can't then how does your question a response to my point. Where is the verse that hints/implies/states that Jesus is the "one God" for you to affirm it? What basis can you affirm it if you have nothing to affirm it to?

But, Scripture NOWHERE denies that Jesus is the one God.

Here you go again arguing from silence. Since the scripture does not say Satan, Jonah, Mary and Judas were not almighty God

You keep imploding upon yourself more and more egregiously; it's very interesting to watch, I must say! You have just now claimed that Scripture does NOT deny that Satan (among others) is ALMIGHTY GOD! Do you even think, for even a half a second, about the things that you write? Of course Scripture denies that Satan (etc.) is NOT almighty God! Here's just ONE, of a vast number of various places in Scripture, in which it is DENIED that Satan is almighty God

It was not my argument that Satan is almighty God, you purposely left out the rest of what I quoted in order to discredit me. This is my quote with context in full "Here you go again arguing from silence. Since the scripture does not say Satan, Jonah, Mary and Judas were not almighty God is that evidence that they are God? No!Such arguments from silence are foolish, it proves nothing". I clearly rejected the idea that Satan, among others were Almighty God, you lied my Christian friend.

Again your argument was one from silence and I demonstrated how it was stupid. Just because "Scripture NOWHERE denies that Jesus is the one God" as you say, does not prove that he is Almighty God anymore than it proves Satan, Mary, Judas or Moses are Almighty God. If you are arguing against this then you truly are lost.

Since YOU claim that "the scripture does not say Satan...is not almighty God", then, every time YOU claim that Satan (etc.) is NOT almighty God, you are accusing YOURSELF of "arguing from silence" (to use your own phrase) that Satan (etc.) is NOT almighty God. You are accusing YOURSELF of NOT basing your own assertion, that Satan is NOT almighty God, upon Scripture. Since you claim that Scripture does NOT deny that Satan is almighty God, then whence do YOU get the doctrine that Satan is NOT almighty God? Did your Watchtower programmers/handlers just hand it down to you, and you accepted it, because they are your god?

You either are lack the capacity to understand basic sentences or you keep lying in order to discredit me. Once again I have nowhere stated what you claimed I said above, if I have show me where with the quotation in full. Again I said "Since the scripture does not say Satan, Jonah, Mary and Judas were not almighty God is that evidence that they are God? No!Such arguments from silence are foolish, it proves nothing""[/COLOR]. Try harder next time.

And, see, you've just convicted yourself of the very thing you FALSELY accused me of! Your hypocrisy proves MUCH.

You're wrong, see above responses.

You saying that Scripture NOWHERE denies that Satan is almighty God, while you claim that Satan is NOT almighty God, is a stupid man's thing to do.

You're wrong, see above responses.

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

I intend to respond to your two other post tomorrow (19/02/2019).

 

[Apple7]

Hey, Apple7, I imagine you'll get a kick out of hearing this. Whereas I still cannot agree with you that Paul was referring to Jesus by the phrase "the god of this world", HOWEVER, I no longer disagree with you when you deny that he was referring to Satan by it! I no longer think that Satan is the referent of the phrase "the god of this world". I've an inkling of an idea brewing, concerning the passage, that seems, at least on the surface, to have some viability.....

Glad to hear!

It took me awhile to come to grips with what my exegesis was telling me - which was diametrically opposed to conventional interpretation, as this passage has the potential to alter some peeps theology if properly and thoughtfully taken to its logical conclusion.

Over the years, I have found that many previously held ideas are indeed counter to what scripture says, and thus I must verify myself what position holds the most merit.

Please keep me informed on what develops from your study....thanks

 

[7djengo7]

What you mean to say is that now that you've realized you can't defend yourself according to scripture

Indeed, I was mistaken, before, in thinking that Paul was referring to Satan by the phrase, "the god of this world".

so conveniently change your understanding of scripture in an attempt to thwart my claims.

That's one perk about not being a cult member: I'm free to, as my conscience dictates, change my mind. You should try it! See, you, on the other hand, as a Russellite cultist, have had you're conscience seared, and are at the beck and call of your programmers/handlers of The Watchtower Tract Society. Were they to calculate that it has become necessary to jettison the doctrine that Paul meant Satan by "the god of this world", you would slavishly follow suit with their oracle, and you would stop promulgating that doctrine.

You'll be happy to know that rejecting satan as the god in 2 Cor 4:4 does nothing to help you...

Does your acceptance of Satan do something to help you?

since you're now in disagreement with 99% of Christianity on the matter and that scriptures identifies many others as Gods/gods, namely Moses (Exodus 7:1), Angels (Psalms 8:5)

99% of Christianity, perhaps. In addition to that, I'm now also in disagreement (on yet one more point!) with who knows how many (?) non-Christian, anti-Christian heretics such as yourself!

Now, where (if anywhere) would you say Scripture identifies Satan as the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? (Hint: You automatically fail if, in response to that question, you cite 2 Corinithians 4:4, inasmuch as that's the very text in dispute, here. You'll just be begging (and oh, so penuriously, at that!) the question.)

And, please tell me: In Psalm 8:5, what is the Hebrew word rendered as "Angels" in your New World Translation? Psalm 8:5 NWT:

You made him a little lower than godlike ones...

and divinely appointed Men (Psalms 82:1-5), even ones belly can be referred to a God/god (Philippians 3:19) in the right circumstance.

Then why don't you say that "divinely appointed Men" are the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? Why don't you say that "ones [sic] belly" is the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? Why don't you say that Moses is the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? Why do you choose Satan, rather than any of these other things?

That was exactly my original point, that Jesus is John 20:28 is referred to as "ὁ θεὸς", which is translated as "the God" with a capital G, and that 2 Cor 4:4 uses exactly the same words "ὁ θεὸς" with no difference what so ever.

You can't tell that there is a difference between Thomas's phrase, ὁ θεός μου ("the god of me"), in John 20:28, and Paul's phrase, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ("the god of the world this"), in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and that the one phrase is not the other?

On what merit should "ὁ θεὸς" be translated with an uncapaitalised g in 2 Cor 4:4? I'm extremely interested in hearing your answer

I'm extremely interested in hearing you try to quote me from wherever it is you think I stated that the 'g' of 'god', in Paul's phrase, "tHe GoD oF tHiS wOrLd", MUST be not capitalized. Have fun.

since you've now stated that "ὁ θεὸς" in 2 Cor 4:4 doesn't refer to Satan, I assume you now believe it refers to Jesus or other person of the trinity(correct me if I'm wrong)

I can't correct you. I can only tell you that you're wrong in that assumption.

my friend!

When it comes right down to it, yes, indeed, it's probably accurate of you to call me your friend.

 

[glorydaz]

Glad to hear!

It took me awhile to come to grips with what my exegesis was telling me - which was diametrically opposed to conventional interpretation, as this passage has the potential to alter some peeps theology if properly and thoughtfully taken to its logical conclusion.

Over the years, I have found that many previously held ideas are indeed counter to what scripture says, and thus I must verify myself what position holds the most merit.

Please keep me informed on what develops from your study....thanks

It's interesting, I'll admit. You had me convinced at one time, and then I backed off again. And while reading ....this verse came to mind.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.​

 

[way 2 go]

Hey, Apple7, I imagine you'll get a kick out of hearing this. Whereas I still cannot agree with you that Paul was referring to Jesus by the phrase "the god of this world", HOWEVER, I no longer disagree with you when you deny that he was referring to Satan by it! I no longer think that Satan is the referent of the phrase "the god of this world". I've an inkling of an idea brewing, concerning the passage, that seems, at least on the surface, to have some viability.....

just a BTW apple7 thinks satan has been bound since the cross & therefore can't be "the god of this world"

 

[7djengo7]

Watch NWL deny that YHWH is HOLY

Watch NWL deny that YHWH is HOLY

Yes, I readily deny the HS is the "one God", I also deny Jesus is called the "one God" or either are YHWH. Show me a verse that states they are either of those ones?

Well, your programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society say:

The Bible says that “God is a Spirit,” a form of life that is invisible to the human eye.​—John 4:​24; 1 Timothy 1:​17.

So, now you have for yourself yet another insurmountable embarrassment.
You deny that THE Holy Spirit is God, but you affirm that "God is a Spirit". So, according to YOU, you are talking about two different spirits, one of which you call "the holy spirit", the other of which you call "God", yet refuse to call "the holy spirit".

Which of the following two mutually-contradictory propositions is the true one, and which is the false one?

1. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is a HOLY Spirit.
2. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is an UNHOLY Spirit.

Which do you say is the TRUE? 1 or 2?
Which do you say is the FALSE? 1 or 2?

 

[7djengo7]

NWL despises God the Father, refusing to call Him "MY LORD"

NWL despises God the Father, refusing to call Him "MY LORD"

I do see the Father as sovereign Lord but to me "my Lord" is Jesus, since this is who we have been commanded to see as our Lord, the Father is my one God, "one God" implies complete authority over anyone, including any Lordship.

Here, you say that God the Father is a lord, and then you deny that God the Father is YOUR lord. You are saying, "I'll admit that God the Father is A lord, but He's NOT MY LORD!"

Whose lord would you say God the Father is, then? Is God the Father lord, but lord over nobody? Is God the Father lord over Jesus? Is God the Father lord of the sabbath?

Try to find even ONE VERSE, in Scripture, in which it is stated that God the Father is LORD OVER the Son of God. Try to find ONE VERSE in which Jesus refers to, or addresses, God the Father as "MY LORD". Have fun with that.

Jesus says, in John 20:17:

I ascend unto MY Father, and YOUR Father; and to MY God, and YOUR God.

Notice that Jesus did NOT say "I ascend unto MY LORD". Jesus refers to God the Father as "MY Father", and as "MY God", and yet, NOWHERE does Jesus EVER refer to God the Father as "MY LORD". Nowhere.

So, again, WHOSE lord would you say God the Father is, N(ew)W(orld)L(iar)?

 

[7djengo7]

Stop telling me what I believe. Once again, I believe what scripture plainly states, it states "there is one God, the Father" and I believe there is one God, the Father, according to the context.

Here's the text:

"But to us there is but one God, the Father"

By these words, did Paul mean "But to us there is [ONLY ONE PERSON WHO IS THE ONE GOD, AND THAT ONE PERSON IS] the Father"? YES or NO?

Do you believe that, to Paul, God the FATHER is the ONLY PERSON Who is THE ONE GOD? YES or NO?

When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 8:6, was he PLAINLY STATING that "TO US, God the FATHER is the ONLY PERSON Who is THE ONE GOD"? YES or NO?

• If you say YES, then you have committed eisegesis upon the text by imposing your unitarianism upon it.
• If you say NO, then you'll have to look for a different verse from which to try to derive YOUR unitarian belief that to Paul, God the Father is the ONLY person who is The One God.

 

[7djengo7]

"Only a fool would ask someone to prove something", you say?

Well, of course, those aren't MY words you are quoting, N(ew)W(orld)L(iar). Again, here's what I ACTUALLY wrote:

What (if anything) do you mean by "prove it"? Are you demanding that I CAUSE YOU TO BELIEVE IT? Obviously, only a fool could, in all seriousness, make such a demand. See, I could (with exactly as much reason as you have behind YOUR demand--which is ZERO) just turn right around and demand YOU to CAUSE ME TO BELIEVE your anti-Christ presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

Notice that I asked you what (if anything) do you mean by "prove it", and you have no idea how to answer the question. Instead, you just continue on demanding that I "prove" something to you, without explaining what (if anything) you mean by "prove":

On the contrary, it is only a fool that would believe something without proof. How can you honestly mock me for asking you to provide evidence to a claim? Would you wildly accept anything and everything I say, or would you not want me to prove what I say by means of evidence? That's all I'm asking, prove the things you say by providing evidence. Only someone who is incapable of providing proof would get as disgruntled as you have by such a request.

Again, what (if anything) do you mean by "prove it"? I don't know. Do you mean "CAUSE ME TO BELIEVE IT"? And, would you say that YOU are "capable of providing proof" for something you say? What (if anything) would you say is the sine qua non of anything and everything that you would call "proof"? What would make YOU call something "proof"; what would make you say of one thing "That is proof", and what would make you say of another thing "That is not proof"? Believe me, you're not going to have a good time of it trying to answer these questions; I know whereof I speak. Besides, your programmers/handlers at the Watchtower Society have really done their work moulding you into an intellectual pygmy, and you can be sure that they're NOT going to approve of you putting any serious mental effort toward epistemological questions!

the verses states "there is one God the Father" and that is exactly what I believe, namely, that there is one God the Father.

Excellent! I agree with you, that Paul meant "there is one God the Father", and that he did NOT mean that God the Father is the ONLY person Who is YHWH. So, then, why do YOU believe that God the Father is the ONLY person Who is YHWH, since you now admit that Paul didn't mean that God the Father is the ONLY person Who is YHWH?

Stop evading the question, I'm asking you the question according to what the verse says, I'm not asking you to answer according to my beliefs, that would be stupid of me.

Saying what you just said, there, was stupid of you. You just admitted that you don't believe what the verse says, by telling me that what the verse says is NOT "according to my beliefs".

So you originally affirmed that "Jesus is the one God" and provided no proof, I ask you to provide proof and you instead ask me a question which you know the Bible doesn't supply an answer to. I take it that you reason that since I can't provide a scripture that explicitly states "Solomon is "Obed's great grandson" you can't provide a scripture that explicitly states "Jesus is the one God" that this doesn't mean that Solomon wasn't Obeds great Grandson, thus you not being able to provide a scripture that expresses "Jesus was the one God" doesn't mean he is not.

You are demanding that I cite some place, in Scripture, where the phrase "Jesus is the one God" can be (to use your word) "explicitly" read. And so, I am demanding that you:

• Cite some place, in Scripture, where the phrase "God the Father is the one God" can be "explicitly" read.
• Cite some place, in Scripture, where the statement, "Only God the Father is YHWH", can be "explicitly" read.
• Cite some place, in Scripture, where the statement, "Jesus is not YHWH", can be "explicitly" read.

Why can't YOU cite any such places, you hypocrite?

The argument above is not really an argument, since we do have scriptures that clearly express that Solomon great grandfather was Obed

You failed. I requested you to cite, from Scripture, a place in which the phrase, "Obed's great grandson, Solomon" can be (as you say) "explicitly" read. You can't do that.

you will need to be able to show me a scripture that expresses that Jesus is the "one God".

Here, you're just repeating your same shtick, once again. You are demanding that I find, in Scripture, your exact phrase, "Jesus is the "one God"". Take your own medicine, hypocrite. Find, in Scripture, the exact phrase, "God the Father is the "one God"". Find, in Scripture, the exact phrase, "Only God the Father is YHWH". Have fun, hypocrite.

It was not my argument that Satan is almighty God, you purposely left out the rest of what I quoted in order to discredit me.

You discredit(ed) yourself, with your own asinine foolishness.

Since the scripture does not say Satan, Jonah, Mary and Judas were not almighty God

Again, you have just claimed that:

• Scripture does NOT DENY that Satan is almighty God.
• Scripture does NOT DENY that Jonah is almighty God.
• Scripture does NOT DENY that Mary is almighty God.
• Scripture does NOT DENY that Judas is almighty God.

Contrary to these four, asinine, false claims of yours, I gave you a Scripture verse that does, indeed, DENY each one of them: Isaiah 45:6:

...there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

So, now, you are on record for claiming that Isaiah 45:6 DOES NOT DENY that Satan (etc.) is almighty God. And, once again, you have made it clear that, despite your belief that the Bible does NOT teach that Satan is NOT almighty God, you believe that Satan is NOT almighty God. So, again WHERE, outside of the Bible, did you learn that Satan is NOT almighty God, since you DENY that the Bible teaches that Satan is NOT almighty God?

I clearly rejected the idea that Satan, among others were Almighty God, you lied my Christian friend.

Your illiteracy is incredibly disgusting. I ACKNOWLEDGED that you claim to believe that Satan is NOT almighty God; that very acknowledgement is what prompted me to ask you: From WHERE did you learn that Satan is NOT almighty God? Since you deny that Scripture teaches that Satan is NOT almighty God, you must have learned it from somewhere OUTSIDE of Scripture. My question is: FROM WHERE did you learn that Satan is NOT almighty God? That's my question to you, my lying, non-Christian, anti-Christian correspondent. Why can you not answer it?

Just because "Scripture NOWHERE denies that Jesus is the one God" as you say, does not prove that he is Almighty God

If YOUR belief, that Jesus is NOT YHWH, were TRUE, then Scripture MUST, somewhere DENY that Jesus is YHWH. And, since Scripture NOWHERE denies that Jesus is YHWH, if necessarily follows that YOUR belief, that Jesus is NOT YHWH, MUST be FALSE.

You either are lack the capacity to understand basic sentences

Just for THAT bit of your text, right there, you deserve a decent dose of derisive ridicule. I "either are lack the capacity"?!? What is the matter with you? Post after post that you write; paragraph after paragraph; line after line (I don't say "sentence after sentence", inasmuch as you, far more often than not, fail to actually write sentences), I have patiently slogged through your semi-literate gibberish, and now, you have the audacity to claim I can't "understand basic sentences"? Hilarious. Well, how would you know? You lack the capacity even to FORM basic sentences!

you keep lying in order to discredit me.

The only one discrediting you is YOU.

I intend to respond to your two other post tomorrow (19/02/2019).

Just have your dog or cat walk on the keyboard. I mean, what's the difference?

 

[Mixed_Brown]

Here's the text:

"But to us there is but one God, the Father"

By these words, did Paul mean "But to us there is [ONLY ONE PERSON WHO IS THE ONE GOD, AND THAT ONE PERSON IS] the Father"? YES or NO?

Do you believe that, to Paul, God the FATHER is the ONLY PERSON Who is THE ONE GOD? YES or NO?

When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 8:6, was he PLAINLY STATING that "TO US, God the FATHER is the ONLY PERSON Who is THE ONE GOD"? YES or NO?

• If you say YES, then you have committed eisegesis upon the text by imposing your unitarianism upon it.
• If you say NO, then you'll have to look for a different verse from which to try to derive YOUR unitarian belief that to Paul, God the Father is the ONLY person who is The One God.

Sorry 7djengo7 I have to ask as I have been follow the thread and feel that on a number of times you have displayed dishonesty in your replies to NWL

Here is one example. How would answering the three questions as Yes show that NWL "have committed eisegesis upon the text by imposing your unitarianism upon it."

The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"
NWL's claim

"There is one, God the Father"

Based on this text there is no eisegesis here

The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"
Your claim is there is one God, the Father(Son & HS)

Defination of Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

As it is plan to see for this scripture you inserted you own biases and presuppositions into the text.

It is wrong for you to claim someone is doing something that you yourself are doing. That is hypocrisy to the highest degree. Stop claiming people are inserting into the text when it is you who is doing this.

When asked what the text actually states just be Honest or others will see and may call you out as I have done.

If it is your position that the one God is the Father , Son and HS, then state that the text says "the one God is, the Father", but you believe other texts show that the Son and HS are also persons of the one God. Then bring out those texts and discuss them. In other words provide the proof or evidence as NWL requests.

This will help move your discussion forward.

Also on a number of occasions after NWL states what he believes and why (Clear enough for me to understand, I must say)
You then misrepresent his beliefs in your reply and then spend your time arguing against that, rather than what he actually has said. This is again very dishonest.

This is what we call a Red Herring

Defination: A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used.

Can I encourage you to stop doing this. Rather deal with what NWL or others actually say to you.

You've also been called out already (On more than one occasion) for using arguments from silence

(Definition - To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.)

And also Ad hominem attacks

Ad hominem Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

These are some of the deceitful tactics you've used.

I thought I would mention all this so that you realize that your dishonesty isn't going unnoticed by those reading the thread.

If you believe that you are correct why not let your arguments stand for themselves by providing evidence to back them up, rather than using these shocking debate tactics to make it seem like your argument is stronger.

Why not see if you can continue the discussion (and others), with honesty. Otherwise some may call you out again

Thank you for considering this





That all being I am also interested in something else you have said.

You have rejected you belief that Satan is "the god of this world", but haven't stated who you believe it to be.
What was your reasoning that you went over the last couple of days that caused you to reject this verse as applying to Satan?
Who do you think it applies to now?

 

[Apple7]

just a BTW apple7 thinks satan has been bound since the cross & therefore can't be "the god of this world"

Correct.

This is what scripture repeatedly tells us, that Satan was bound at The Cross.

This is Jesus' crowning achievement, and yet, gets completely swept under the rug by 99% of Christendom.

Its time to give Jesus' deity BACK to Jesus - and NOT to Satan!

 

[Apple7]

It's interesting, I'll admit. You had me convinced at one time, and then I backed off again.

It took me a while to digest the scriptural facts that:

1) Satan was bound at The Cross.

2) The God of this world is NOT Satan.


Two vital items that no one EVER taught me; I had to learn each the HARD way, through persistent exegesis.

But, it paid off big time, and once #1 is understood, #2 is a given.

Too many peeps out there are using Rev 20 to dictate their eschatology, and thus pigeon-holing their worldview into thinking that Satan is still running around possessing people and that Jesus did nothing to stop this at The Cross.

People end up stealing Jesus' deity and giving it to Satan!

What a sorry state of affairs that is!

And while reading ....this verse came to mind.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.​

Why would your passage change your mind?

Two verses prior, 1 John 2.14, declares that Jesus allowed us to become victorious over the Evil One (i.e. Satan).

Satan is most assuredly bound - but his demons are not...

 

[way 2 go]

Correct.

This is what scripture repeatedly tells us, that Satan was bound at The Cross.

This is Jesus' crowning achievement, and yet, gets completely swept under the rug by 99% of Christendom.

Its time to give Jesus' deity BACK to Jesus - and NOT to Satan!