Search results

We’ve met before. In fact, many times before.

I have no control over what another person believes. If you’re try to kill the conversation this is a great way to do it. That’s right.

“Old Thumper” didn’t phase you in the least. (That’s the problem with “Old Thumper”. It’s ineffective. In fact, all it does is cause both parties to dig in their heels.)

Agency.

I see it as being contradictory. The person I was speaking with doesn’t. Was my answer worth the wait?

There’s a third alternative.

I think you’re overlooking the beautiful simplicity of the biblical story. You’re making God more complex than he is. Jesus is a human person. He’s a Jew. He himself has a God, and he himself isn’t him. There’s only one true God, this Jewish man’s God, the Father. Everything else is idolatry...

I have a friend who calls that argument “Old Thumper”.

I read it.

No.

No. Yes. See above. I still would have disagreed with you when I was a trinitarian (of the HOT variety). We all use the same scriptures.

Thanks. I was raised KJVO. (A very kind and patient trinitarian (of the HOT variety) helped me to abandon that position.)

Is that the only difference between “biblical trinitarianism” and “historical orthodox trinitarianism”?

Thanks. I’m no longer a trinitarian, and I’m confident we can agree that trinitarian scholarship on this verse isn’t done to accommodate my Jewish unitary monotheism.

Thanks. (I’m not.) The Father is not the Son but the Son is the Father? You are, of course, aware that the Son is not the Father in historical orthodox trinitarianism. What is the difference between “biblical trinitarianism” and “historical orthodox trinitarianism”?

We’re in agreement on that point. The same Spirit is the Holy Spirit. The same Lord is Christ. The same God is the Father.

See the trinitarian scholarship I referenced in post #505.

I’m not sure why you’ve introduced KJV into the conversation. Are you KJVO? As for the reality of the matter, I agree with trinitarian scholarship that the title doesn’t identify the Son as the Father. It’s a fundamental tenet of trinitarianism that the Son is not the Father and the Father is...

Capitalization is the translators prerogative. As opposed to the many others who are also kurios. Yes. Clearly. And may theoi, too. Keeping firmly in mind what was made clear in Psalm 110:1, there is no contradiction. In function, not person. That’s your interpretation of the passage.