Defending the Trinity

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

nothead

New Member
Apr 2, 2014
447
11
0
Wormwood said:
Well, nodhead keeps trying to plow his heifer, but it is of no use. I dont play da foo. When I discuss Colwell's Rule and claim it to be "irrefutable" and your response is essentially that such a statement is an attempt to "refute" Wallace, it sure seems like you are claiming Wallace does not believe Colwell's Rule to be irrefutable (that's just my intuition on how language works, ya see). Now a person doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to connect those dots.

Anywho, you just keep on a-rollin' with your Greek rules called "nothead's intuitive rules." Im looking forward to your Greek textbook that expounds on the profundity of these concepts. Until then, I'll just go with the PhD's and language experts who have no access to your secret intuition that flies in the face of everything written in the Greek textbooks we have today.

Again, way to piggy-back off of Wallace in order to take him way out of his context and use his concept to teach something completely opposite of he actually means. As my quote from him above shows, he clearly sees John 1:1 as a description of Christ's divinity.

Find where I said Wallace is ant-trin or JisG and I will stand down. As it is you owe me an apology for saying my posts lie.

Repeteze for Worm 3x: Wallace says your COLWELL RULE does not apply to Jn 1:1c. No more no less. And I did not lie. LIAR is the most often used FLAME in the annals of theological debate. A childish ad hom. Nevertheless telling as to your character, sir.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
" you cannot have a promised Son to be waited and hoped for if he already exists. Illogical theology"!

Illogical, only for the human mind; logic is human; and we are warn not to rely on human use of it!

" you cannot have a promised Son to be waited and hoped for if he already exists. Illogical theology"!

Not for Almighty God!

Floyd.
Floyd

I don't think you understand.

Something promised afar off is not in existence now.

Hence the term "shall be" or "will be" - you know future tense = logical, not illogical.

Luke 1:32KJV cmp Isa 7:14KJV

How would this be written if Jesus was already in existence?

Purity
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
Excellent thread! Off the top, back down to my paygrade again. Let's not throw in the towel yet, ie, off the top what I recall regarding Jn.1:1 dealing more with the grammar, context, and aspect of the writer centers around the three ens "was." All three pointing to eternity, correct? No grammatical or syntactical 'limitations' or 'modifications,' correct? The Logos is is one of the three divine (divine = God) Pesons of the eternal Godhead, correct?

Let's back up a little to the second statement, "And the Word was with God," This statement declares the eternal reciprocal relation between the Word and God (not the definiteness, more with qualitative regarding Theos)- that is declared with simple directness God, with no modifier making a subtraction or limiting, correct?

Old Jack winging it, and will have to open the Word next time for sure.

Purity said:
Floyd

I don't think you understand.

Something promised afar off is not in existence now.

Hence the term "shall be" or "will be" - you know future tense = logical, not illogical.

Luke 1:32KJV cmp Isa 7:14KJV

How would this be written if Jesus was already in existence?

Purity
Thank you for caring again!

If all things were made through the Logos (Jesus - eternal Son) then his deity united to flesh at conception is logical to me, ie, He pre-existed, correct?

Old 'existing' Jack
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Thank you for caring again!

If all things were made through the Logos
Old 'existing' Jack
Correct including Jesus himself was made by and through the Logos of Yahweh...in fact Jesus became the manifestation of the Logos of God when he died and not before. Logos always is but Jesus has an alpha (birth) and omega (death).

Keep searching Old Jack the truth is there.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
Purity said:
Floyd

I don't think you understand.

Something promised afar off is not in existence now.

Hence the term "shall be" or "will be" - you know future tense = logical, not illogical.

Luke 1:32KJV cmp Isa 7:14KJV

How would this be written if Jesus was already in existence?

Purity
I understand your point Purity (in human logic, tenses etc.); but, that is my point, logic does not apply here!
When considering the immensity of Creation, and that God (El) took form in Jesus to create; nobody can understand or explain that! Then also, He maintains all He has Created by His Power; in Jesus!
You or I; or anybody would not be here unless Christ Jesus (His resurrection Title), maintained every thing "by His Power"!
As an aside; an eminent Hebrew scholar wrote years ago that Emmanuel is proof of Christ's Deity.
Floyd.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
I understand your point Purity (in human logic, tenses etc.); but, that is my point, logic does not apply here!
When considering the immensity of Creation, and that God (El) took form in Jesus to create; nobody can understand or explain that! Then also, He maintains all He has Created by His Power; in Jesus!
You or I; or anybody would not be here unless Christ Jesus (His resurrection Title), maintained every thing "by His Power"!
As an aside; an eminent Hebrew scholar wrote years ago that Emmanuel is proof of Christ's Deity.
Floyd.
Your point Floyd is you have been led to believe in mystical nonsense - in the unexplainable mysteriousness of manmade creeds - dogmas which find their appeal in philosophical deliberations between men of renown.

God's Word is logical and easily entreated by those of a simple disposition.

You know making wise the simple. Ps 19:7

Come to me with spiritual logic and reason and not mystical nonsense.

And don't stoop so low as wormwood to suggest one must understand COLWELL RULE to discover the Trinity - come on Floyd surely you must see through this maze of deception. A mad made rule in 1933 - whats next in this debate???

Hey when do we get to discuss the actual Bible text?
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
Leaving Colwell aside; and your suggestion to discuss "the Word"; why not !

Would you do me a favour prior to that; by putting up a short, succinct Paper; giving the bones (basic principles) of your argument (thesis)?

This would be of help to me, as in all the words that are scattered here on this subject; your idea is hard to grasp for me as it is nebulous in form.

Floyd.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
nothead said:
Find where I said Wallace is ant-trin or JisG and I will stand down. As it is you owe me an apology for saying my posts lie.

Repeteze for Worm 3x: Wallace says your COLWELL RULE does not apply to Jn 1:1c. No more no less. And I did not lie. LIAR is the most often used FLAME in the annals of theological debate. A childish ad hom. Nevertheless telling as to your character, sir.
No, no dear friend. I laid out the conversation as it unfolded. I declared Colwell's Rule to be irrefutable. You posted an objection to this based on Origen and then, quoting my statement that Colwell's Rule was irrefutable, you said,

You can refute this man, but I will remind you how staunch his rep, as we know on da street. Google it. His name, and his rep. I dare you. So then you whole post isn't exactly true, now is it?
Now, 1 +1 = 2. And my comment that Colwell's Rule is irrefutable and your quote that clearly implied such as statement by me was an attempt to "refute this man." How else is a person supposed to read this? The entire line of discussion was surrounding Colwell's Rule and whether or not it is a legitimate rule. Moreover, let us be quite frank here. You have a propensity for taking quotes from people off Google out of context. Thus, there have been multiple times in this discussion where you have used someone's ideas in a misrepresentative way. You use a statement of theirs to make a point that is quite the opposite of what they are proposing, without clearly explaining as much. In my book, that is deceptive. It would be no different than if I quoted you and used the quote in the exact opposite way you intended it (for instance, to claim Jesus is divine). If you saw me or someone else quoting you on a website and using your quote to push the exact opposite of what you believed, you would be none to happy I am sure.

Quotes have context. If you are going to use an idea from someone to push a point that is the opposite of what they believe, you need to state that clearly. Otherwise, it comes across as deceptive and a half-truth. You only tell part of the story and the part that aids you even though the entire story is the exact opposite of how you are portraying it. I stand behind my comment as made before.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
Purity said:
Your point Floyd is you have been led to believe in mystical nonsense - in the unexplainable mysteriousness of manmade creeds - dogmas which find their appeal in philosophical deliberations between men of renown.

God's Word is logical and easily entreated by those of a simple disposition.

You know making wise the simple. Ps 19:7

Come to me with spiritual logic and reason and not mystical nonsense.

And don't stoop so low as wormwood to suggest one must understand COLWELL RULE to discover the Trinity - come on Floyd surely you must see through this maze of deception. A mad made rule in 1933 - whats next in this debate???
Leaving Colwell aside; would you be so kind as to spell out in simple form your basic thesis re. the falsehood of the "Trinity " teaching. This should be possible to do on an A4 sheet, so that there is something to grasp when referring to Scripture.
I have found the arguments from you and nothead are difficult to follow as they have been presented; and your turn of phrase and description, the same.
In a written form, prior to discussing further, their would be a formation document common to us all.

By the way; my schooling is not deficient, I am a retired professional engineer; and can usually follow argument, even when not given the basics; but this subject is too important to not do justice to its principle points.

Thank, Floyd.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Back the Gods Word thank you Floyd!

Lets discuss God the Father and the only one who hath immortality and is the sole source of Light and life.

1. The only true God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, through Angels and visions. He also revealed Himself to Moses at the flaming bush and at Mt Sinai, and manifested Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in unapproachable light, yet everywhere present by His Spirit, which is a unity with His person in heaven. He has out of His own power made everything which is.

His name is Yahweh Elohim but later revealed Himself through Jesus as Abba Father.

Proof texts:

Isa. 40:13-25; 43:10-12; 44:6-8; 45:5; 46:9-10; Job 38-40; Deut. 6:1-4; Mark 12:29-32; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Neh. 9:6; Job 26:13; Psa. 124:8; 146:6; 148:5; Isa. 40:25-27; Jer. 10:12-13; 27:5; 32:17-25; 51:15; Acts 14:15; 17:24; 1 Chron. 29:11-14; Psa. 62:11; 145:3; Isa. 26:4; 40:26; Job 9:4; 36:5; Psa. 92:5; 104:24; 147:4-5; Isa. 28:29; Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Chron. 16:9; Job 28:24; 34:21; Psa. 33:13-14; 44:21; 94:9; 139:7-12; Prov. 15:3; Jer. 23:24; 32:19; Amos 9:2-3; Acts 17:27-28; Psa. 123:1; 1 Kings 8:30-39, 43, 49; Matt. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:15-16.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
Purity said:
Back the Gods Word thank you Floyd!

Lets discuss God the Father and the only one who hath immortality and is the sole source of Light and life.

1. The only true God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, through Angels and visions. He also revealed Himself to Moses at the flaming bush and at Mt Sinai, and manifested Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in unapproachable light, yet everywhere present by His Spirit, which is a unity with His person in heaven. He has out of His own power made everything which is.

His name is Yahweh Elohim but later revealed Himself through Jesus as Abba Father.

Proof texts:

Isa. 40:13-25; 43:10-12; 44:6-8; 45:5; 46:9-10; Job 38-40; Deut. 6:1-4; Mark 12:29-32; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Neh. 9:6; Job 26:13; Psa. 124:8; 146:6; 148:5; Isa. 40:25-27; Jer. 10:12-13; 27:5; 32:17-25; 51:15; Acts 14:15; 17:24; 1 Chron. 29:11-14; Psa. 62:11; 145:3; Isa. 26:4; 40:26; Job 9:4; 36:5; Psa. 92:5; 104:24; 147:4-5; Isa. 28:29; Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Chron. 16:9; Job 28:24; 34:21; Psa. 33:13-14; 44:21; 94:9; 139:7-12; Prov. 15:3; Jer. 23:24; 32:19; Amos 9:2-3; Acts 17:27-28; Psa. 123:1; 1 Kings 8:30-39, 43, 49; Matt. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:15-16.
Purity; don't forget to give me/us the summary in short form 1st please.
Floyd.
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
Purity said:
Correct including Jesus himself was made by and through the Logos of Yahweh...in fact Jesus became the manifestation of the Logos of God when he died and not before. Logos always is but Jesus has an alpha (birth) and omega (death).

Keep searching Old Jack the truth is there.
Thank you again for your reponse!

I give you credit on that one, ie, I set myself up again?

Old Jack getting too old, loosing his nimbleness.
Purity said:
Your point Floyd is you have been led to believe in mystical nonsense - in the unexplainable mysteriousness of manmade creeds - dogmas which find their appeal in philosophical deliberations between men of renown.

God's Word is logical and easily entreated by those of a simple disposition.

You know making wise the simple. Ps 19:7

Come to me with spiritual logic and reason and not mystical nonsense.

And don't stoop so low as wormwood to suggest one must understand COLWELL RULE to discover the Trinity - come on Floyd surely you must see through this maze of deception. A mad made rule in 1933 - whats next in this debate???

Hey when do we get to discuss the actual Bible text?
Thank you again for caring!

God's precious originial inspired, inerrant, and infallible has been long gone where we obviously have excellent, extremely interpretive, accurate Bible translations. My point: Bible translations due to their extreme interpretive nature are exponentially everything but logical and easily entreated, ie, each diverse interpretation appears as a valid interpretation thus we have a yardstick, ie, especially the first three Creeds, narrowing down all these diverse interpretations, correct? btw construed wtih Matt.13:11, etc. even veils the interpretation more where one must rely on the Person God the Holy Spirit to interpret, correct?

Old Jack that got carried away again.
Purity said:
Back the Gods Word thank you Floyd!

Lets discuss God the Father and the only one who hath immortality and is the sole source of Light and life.

1. The only true God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, through Angels and visions. He also revealed Himself to Moses at the flaming bush and at Mt Sinai, and manifested Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in unapproachable light, yet everywhere present by His Spirit, which is a unity with His person in heaven. He has out of His own power made everything which is.

His name is Yahweh Elohim but later revealed Himself through Jesus as Abba Father.

Proof texts:

Isa. 40:13-25; 43:10-12; 44:6-8; 45:5; 46:9-10; Job 38-40; Deut. 6:1-4; Mark 12:29-32; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Neh. 9:6; Job 26:13; Psa. 124:8; 146:6; 148:5; Isa. 40:25-27; Jer. 10:12-13; 27:5; 32:17-25; 51:15; Acts 14:15; 17:24; 1 Chron. 29:11-14; Psa. 62:11; 145:3; Isa. 26:4; 40:26; Job 9:4; 36:5; Psa. 92:5; 104:24; 147:4-5; Isa. 28:29; Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Chron. 16:9; Job 28:24; 34:21; Psa. 33:13-14; 44:21; 94:9; 139:7-12; Prov. 15:3; Jer. 23:24; 32:19; Amos 9:2-3; Acts 17:27-28; Psa. 123:1; 1 Kings 8:30-39, 43, 49; Matt. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:15-16.
Thank you for caring again!

Only a head's up, ie, God, "the Angel of the Lord," the Malach YHWH appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exod.3:2) where He appeared over 39 more times for sure in the O.T.,ie, loosely speaking, the pre-Incarnate God-man Jesus.

Old Jack's opinion
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
shturt678 said:
Thank you again for your reponse!

I give you credit on that one, ie, I set myself up again?

Old Jack getting too old, loosing his nimbleness.

Thank you again for caring!

God's precious originial inspired, inerrant, and infallible has been long gone where we obviously have excellent, extremely interpretive, accurate Bible translations. My point: Bible translations due to their extreme interpretive nature are exponentially everything but logical and easily entreated, ie, each diverse interpretation appears as a valid interpretation thus we have a yardstick, ie, especially the first three Creeds, narrowing down all these diverse interpretations, correct? btw construed wtih Matt.13:11, etc. even veils the interpretation more where one must rely on the Person God the Holy Spirit to interpret, correct?

Old Jack that got carried away again.

Thank you for caring again!

Only a head's up, ie, God, "the Angel of the Lord," the Malach YHWH appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exod.3:2) where He appeared over 39 more times for sure in the O.T.,ie, loosely speaking, the pre-Incarnate God-man Jesus.

Old Jack's opinion
Hey Old Jack,

I think a little clarity need be given here regarding the Logos.

Some believe that Jesus needed to "become" Logos as opposed to Jesus being Logos from eternity. This is an incorrect notion as this passage verifies. John 8:58

Also it should be noted that Jesus was not from the seed of man and the seed of woman but rather from God and the seed of woman, this again speaks to Jesus divine, eternal nature. In such there is no "becoming" or a need for manifestation because we have incarnation upon inception.

To speak a bit about the word "Logos" certain words from the Roman Greco culture in Jesus' time period have definite similarities; Providence, Word, Intelligence, Wisdom, all of these are pure and ideal (think Plato's world of the forms)...to relate Logos to divinity was not uncommon, and Logos was even worshipped, so when this word is used in the gospel of John, his audience would be familiar with this notion and would apply it to being eternal, perfect, and divine.

When one focuses only on the flesh and blood of the Christ, they lose sight of the divine aspect. It is true that the incarnation has a beginning and end in human form, yet Logos is not a concept that is limited in time rather eternal.
 

nothead

New Member
Apr 2, 2014
447
11
0
No, no dear friend. I laid out the conversation as it unfolded. I declared Colwell's Rule to be irrefutable. You posted an objection to this based on Origen and then, quoting my statement that Colwell's Rule was irrefutable, you said,


Now, 1 +1 = 2. And my comment that Colwell's Rule is irrefutable and your quote that clearly implied such as statement by me was an attempt to "refute this man." How else is a person supposed to read this? The entire line of discussion was surrounding Colwell's Rule and whether or not it is a legitimate rule.

You don't understand that I pulled a quote from Wallace SAYING Colwell's Rule DOES NOT APPLY to Jn 1:1c? From Wiki, John 1:1??

If you don't agree then research this and refute. I assume wiki is correct or others would get this quote nixed. You know how wiki works right?

Wiki works wiki works you know how wiki works? Refrain that one in your head sir. Make a song. A mnemonic made just for you.
Moreover, let us be quite frank here. You have a propensity for taking quotes from people off Google out of context. Thus, there have been multiple times in this discussion where you have used someone's ideas in a misrepresentative way. You use a statement of theirs to make a point that is quite the opposite of what they are proposing, without clearly explaining as much. In my book, that is deceptive. It would be no different than if I quoted you and used the quote in the exact opposite way you intended it (for instance, to claim Jesus is divine). If you saw me or someone else quoting you on a website and using your quote to push the exact opposite of what you believed, you would be none to happy I am sure.
I made this statement in order to free us to believe my intuitive concept, that the anarthrous God in 1:c is in fact qualitative "God" not specific "God" with the article.
HO THEOS was not the same as THEOS for John, here I am thinking. IF Colwell's Rule applies then my intuitive concept goes down the chimney. See the lay of the land?

The Land of Plenty awaits you brother. What really irks me about you is in fact your confident assertion that Colwell's Rule HAS to apply to Jn 1:c. This is your tendency to be so confident there is only one way to view scripture. Especially by using some RULE someone else made which others historically like Origen never even considered.

What, Origen didn't know Greek? Why he teach it then? I assure you, he knew the language of convention better than we do now, since he was there relatively close in time to the speakers and writers of.



Quotes have context. If you are going to use an idea from someone to push a point that is the opposite of what they believe, you need to state that clearly. Otherwise, it comes across as deceptive and a half-truth. You only tell part of the story and the part that aids you even though the entire story is the exact opposite of how you are portraying it. I stand behind my comment as made before.

See above. My logic is impeccably consistent, if not accurate.

And heed therefore the off-able penchant for calling someone a liar. I don't remember ever doing this in two years. Off-able is as off-able does. God judges us the same way we judge others. Funny thing that. Until we get to the Judgement Seat anyway.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Thank you again for your reponse!

I give you credit on that one, ie, I set myself up again?

Old Jack getting too old, loosing his nimbleness.

Thank you again for caring!

God's precious originial inspired, inerrant, and infallible has been long gone where we obviously have excellent, extremely interpretive, accurate Bible translations. My point: Bible translations due to their extreme interpretive nature are exponentially everything but logical and easily entreated, ie, each diverse interpretation appears as a valid interpretation thus we have a yardstick, ie, especially the first three Creeds, narrowing down all these diverse interpretations, correct? btw construed wtih Matt.13:11, etc. even veils the interpretation more where one must rely on the Person God the Holy Spirit to interpret, correct?

Old Jack that got carried away again.

Thank you for caring again!

Only a head's up, ie, God, "the Angel of the Lord," the Malach YHWH appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exod.3:2) where He appeared over 39 more times for sure in the O.T.,ie, loosely speaking, the pre-Incarnate God-man Jesus.

Old Jack's opinion
Scripture please :)
Maybe a NT reference showing the Yahweh angel is Jesus.
No inference thankyou.
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
justaname said:
Hey Old Jack,

I think a little clarity need be given here regarding the Logos.

Some believe that Jesus needed to "become" Logos as opposed to Jesus being Logos from eternity. This is an incorrect notion as this passage verifies. John 8:58

Also it should be noted that Jesus was not from the seed of man and the seed of woman but rather from God and the seed of woman, this again speaks to Jesus divine, eternal nature. In such there is no "becoming" or a need for manifestation because we have incarnation upon inception.

To speak a bit about the word "Logos" certain words from the Roman Greco culture in Jesus' time period have definite similarities; Providence, Word, Intelligence, Wisdom, all of these are pure and ideal (think Plato's world of the forms)...to relate Logos to divinity was not uncommon, and Logos was even worshipped, so when this word is used in the gospel of John, his audience would be familiar with this notion and would apply it to being eternal, perfect, and divine.

When one focuses only on the flesh and blood of the Christ, they lose sight of the divine aspect. It is true that the incarnation has a beginning and end in human form, yet Logos is not a concept that is limited in time rather eternal.
Thank you again for your response!

Logas was before the beginning, ie, Great! Ie, agaped that "divine, eternal nature" also.

I'm pretty much a Jn.1:1 disciple regarding "The Logos" being a title for Christ that is peculiar to John, and used by him alone, ie, the Only-begotten Son. The Logos title: the Logos is the final and absolute revelation of God enbodied in God's own Son, both God & man united in Jesus Christ. Christ is the Logos because in Him all the purposes, plans, and promises of God are brought to a final focus and an absolute realization.

First and foremost one must focus on being "born anew" God's way out of all the diverse ways thus afterwards why wouldn't one want to "proclaim the Lord Christ Jesus' sacrifical death" via the Lord's Supper in truth?

Old Jack, 'focusing' with you.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You don't understand that I pulled a quote from Wallace SAYING Colwell's Rule DOES NOT APPLY to Jn 1:1c? From Wiki, John 1:1??
If you don't agree then research this and refute. I assume wiki is correct or others would get this quote nixed. You know how wiki works right?
Noddimus,

I cannot be held liable if your arguments are convoluted, improperly intertwined or nonsensical. Clearly the argument about the reliablitity of Colwell's Rule is entirely distinct as to whether or not that rule applies to John 1:1. I was making clear statements about the reliability of Colwell's Rule that you were opposing at one point. This was clearly the purpose of your quote from Origen. If you were using Wallace to make an entirely different point (that Colwells Rule does not apply to John 1:1), then this is quite a different argument and you did it in a very convoluted way. Yet once again, Wallace and other scholars that might argue that Colwell's Rule does not apply to John 1:1 still do not see this verse as any less of a testament to Christ's divinity. Once again, you are using arguments from people to make points quite different than they would argue. Considering that you don't really know Greek, I find that this is quite a silly little method of argumentation. I don't understand how you can piggy-back off a PhD's argument and then use that argument to draw wildly different conclusions than their scholarly position on the matter.

And heed therefore the off-able penchant for calling someone a liar. I don't remember ever doing this in two years.
Is that so? You wrote just a few posts ago...

So then you whole post isn't exactly true, now is it?
I say "toe-may-toe" you say "toe-mah-toe." I say your posts are misleading or deceitful in the way you go about representing other people's views...and you say my posts aren't true. I don't know what else an untrue post is other than a lie. Thus, saying someone's post is untrue is = to saying they have lied. You are just more polite about it (which is a little humorous as I think about you being "polite" in your approach to debates :) ).

Anyway, can we get back to the discussion at hand? Id really rather discuss the issues rather than debating with you about what you said or how you said it. Talking with you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Flipsy-flopsy
 

nothead

New Member
Apr 2, 2014
447
11
0
Wormwood said:
Noddimus,

I cannot be held liable if your arguments are convoluted, improperly intertwined or nonsensical. Clearly the argument about the reliablitity of Colwell's Rule is entirely distinct as to whether or not that rule applies to John 1:1. I was making clear statements about the reliability of Colwell's Rule that you were opposing at one point. This was clearly the purpose of your quote from Origen. If you were using Wallace to make an entirely different point (that Colwells Rule does not apply to John 1:1), then this is quite a different argument and you did it in a very convoluted way. Yet once again, Wallace and other scholars that might argue that Colwell's Rule does not apply to John 1:1 still do not see this verse as any less of a testament to Christ's divinity. Once again, you are using arguments from people to make points quite different than they would argue. Considering that you don't really know Greek, I find that this is quite a silly little method of argumentation. I don't understand how you can piggy-back off a PhD's argument and then use that argument to draw wildly different conclusions than their scholarly position on the matter.


Is that so? You wrote just a few posts ago...


I say "toe-may-toe" you say "toe-mah-toe." I say your posts are misleading or deceitful in the way you go about representing other people's views...and you say my posts aren't true. I don't know what else an untrue post is other than a lie. Thus, saying someone's post is untrue is = to saying they have lied. You are just more polite about it (which is a little humorous as I think about you being "polite" in your approach to debates :) ).

Anyway, can we get back to the discussion at hand? Id really rather discuss the issues rather than debating with you about what you said or how you said it. Talking with you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Flipsy-flopsy

There really isn't much to argue over here, because Wallace clearly says Colwell has nothing to do with Jn 1:1c, and YOU said confidently Colwell's rule does indeed service this clause adequately...I merely found great pleasure in proving you WONG as to this tidbit of item.

You WONG homeboy and you don't have to be CHANEEZ to see it. Yet you blind as a bat. No I didn't call you a liar OR a bat. So please lettuce go on. Maybe you just had a bad hair day, I dunno.

So then you can claim your own Koine expertise, and you seem to know more than I, yet your penchant for being completely confident in a certain terp assures me we are evenly combatted. I don't really come to my proofs of Jesus not being divine by this method (the grammar of the Koine), yet I will allow your arguments to be had on the forum. You might possibly come up with something convincing who knows?

I know God is one and one only by Shema the First Principle of the Universe. I know true terp regarding Shema and I live to tout it. Tout your toot. Nothead knows better.

And all Jews dead or alive or halfway in-between or in the future or converted or not to Christianity knows God is One numerically.

When you use the NUMBER of One to describe the One True God, then you understand Trinity cannot be viable or true or even a consideration. I haven't been Trin for two decades plus. Three.

Whoa time sure flies.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
Purity; don't forget, that I have asked for a brief thesis of your concept re. Anti-Trinity; which I can use for the basis of study.
A list of scripture references will not do here, as they can be interpreted to suit one's own conviction.
I will, I assure you , take a serious look at solidly argued proposals, that can be scripturally and prayerfully examined.,
I realise what I am asking!
I am asking you to present more than Arius!
However; with your ability to present, which has been observed over the last few weeks; I feel with your conviction; you are up to the task.
Floyd.