Some of us are saints, some sinners. Bridling my tongue frequently puts me like a monk.Purity said:
Silence is too a sin. Monks cannot speak the gospel. Hand motions will not normally suffice.
So I letter rip and hope I don't get kicked off.
Defending the Trinity
- Thread starter Wormwood
- Start date
-
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!
Silence is too a sin. Monks cannot speak the gospel. Hand motions will not normally suffice.
So I letter rip and hope I don't get kicked off.
The wisdom of 2 Tim 3:16 alone should lead you into all truth and not to Nicean creeds.
Yahweh hides wisdom within His Word so yes while you are correct there are textual and translations issues none of this detracts from Bible truth.
Let me show you an example of Bible truth.
True Christology as taught by the Apostle Paul was founded upon the teaching of first and second Adam theology which include a virgin birth. (To this we must agree)
Here is a list of references in Psalms of the Virgin Birth:
Psa 22:9-10 : The AV mg has: "kept me safe". This was fulfilled in Mat 2:13-16.
Psa 69:8 : "My brethren" = "my mother's children", but not "my father's children" implying that Jesus had no human father!
Psa 71:6 : "You brought me forth, or upheld me from the womb!"
Psa 86:16 & Psa 116:16 : Cp with Luk 1:38; Luk 1:48 : Mary is the "handmaiden" of the LORD, and in these words she gives her consent which is necessary for the conception of the unique child in her womb.
Psa 89:26-27 "I will appoint him my firstborn". Cp Col 1:15; Col 1:18.
The "first Adam" and "last Adam" referring to the one who is "firstborn" not just by his birth, but by his special selection by his Father, and especially by his overcoming of sin and death.
Psa 110:3 Why does David call him "Lord"? Because, though born after David, Jesus is greater than he - being the son of the Most High. Psa 110:3: "From the womb before the morning I begat thee" (LXX).
Psa 132:11 : "From your belly" (AV mg) - ie, not "loins" (as of paternal origin), but "womb" (maternal origin). This is the same word in 2 Sa 7:12. Cp with Luk 1:42.
All these passages a prophetic and speaking to a future birth out of a condemned line of Adam - his existence was promised on the basis of being born of a woman though by a virgin (a temple not made with hands that is no human involvement).
There is a plethora of verses above speaking forward to the NT and the NT reaching back to the Psalms regarding Jesus being of Man - his existence, person and shape; is dependant on him being born of a sinful woman (Gal 4:4).
A few questions come out of these prophecies.
1. Where is it prophesied that God must become man and how this was the only way HE could overcome the sins flesh? The emphasis is continually given to Jesus being the Son of Man in nature while in character the Son of God.
2. Why does the Scripture make more of Jesus's condemned nature and not once referring to hypostasis?
3. God cannot be called either the Son of Man or the second Adam as this makes God the created not the creator.
Jesus being the second Adam as per Isa 53:10; 1 Co 15:45) teaches you in Bible terms that Jesus the 2nd Adam (2 Cor 11:2) will be married to the 2nd eve (Rev 19:7) and they will be as One Flesh and Spirit in a paradise fit to worship the One true God - the Saints are likened to trees in this paradise one of which is Jesus Christ himself Psa 1:1-6; Rev 22:2.
But the trees root is in the promises from Yahweh from the beginning which provides sustenance to the Tree of Life and its branches, whereby this tree is able to give honour and glory to a single all powerful God.
So to summarise this little exercise in the Spirit we have a promised child who was non-existent, who would be born from a virgin and who will do the will of his Father and be subordinate to him till death.
The truth of Christ and his bride is in types and antitypes revealed. Adam and Eve both recognised a common Father; so also do Christ and his bride, for the latter comprise sons and daughters of God. As Adam could say of his Bride, 'She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man,' so the Bride of Christ has been formed out of him. As Adam could describe his wife as 'one flesh' with him, so the Lord prayed, 'That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in us' (Joh 17:21).
This glorious unity will be consummated at the marriage of the Lamb. See Psa 45:1-17 for a description of this coming marriage.
There is nothing in this short study which is not true and cannot be further supported by many Scripture's.
Purity
Floyd,
If you believe these references merely support ones own convictions and that they do not hold sound truth then you are lost before you even open the Book.
The Bible is clear that Jesus of Nazareth was & is the Son of God - nowhere in its pages does it make God the Son. In fact salvation is on the basis of his sonship not Godhead.
Jesus was begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, without the intervention of man, and afterwards anointed with the same Spirit, without measure, at his baptism. Yahweh (his Father) is the anointer and not Jesus himself.
Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 2:22-24, 36; Matt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-35; Gal. 4:4; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 3:16-17; Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; John 3:34; 7:16; 8:26-28; 14:10-24.
To say "God with us" = God is to destroy John 17:22 which is the hope of the saints of God - God also wants to be with us as he was with Christ but this does not make us God though the Godhead will one day be manifested through Christ and His Saints. Col 1:12; Eph 1:18 & Rev 20:4
NotheadNoddimus,
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
Wormwood is only interested in striving over dogmas, and jumping through linguistically challenging hoops which while he thinks he knows a thing it is clear when it comes to sound Bible study is but a child in the things of the Spirit. Go back over his posts and see what percentage of his content is the like of Colwell's Rule and see how much is 2 Tim 3:16?
The reason he finds the Scriptural responses convoluted is because his language is in the tradition's and philosophies of men.
Meet at the Word and watch him drown!
2Ti 2:23 But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. (Keep it on the Word!)
2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, (Maintain self-control)
2Ti 2:25 correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth (emphasis on "perhaps")
2Ti 2:26 and they will come to their senses and escape the devil's (fasle accusers) trap where they are held captive to do his will. (wormwood is caught in deception)
Clearly what is happening in this thread is the Word of God is sounding out truth and those who oppose themselves don't like the sound.
Keep blowing.
Thank you for your response!Purity said:
Question? What does the history of David in Ps.22:9-10 have to do with Matt.2:13-`16, ie, Hos.11:1, yes! (More with the Hebrew than the LXX) Bible truth?
Old Jack looking for the "Truth"?
Sorry, I didn't mean to be too hard on you as appreciate you and your view sir.
As I said, I do not believe myself to be WONG. For every Wallace, there are two or three other PhD's that would claim that the rule holds for John 1:1. Would you like me to list a few or do you just want to take my word for it? Pretty much every Greek textbook I have read has a blurb about Colwell's Rule in reference to John 1:1.nothead said:
The only reason I started discussing the language is because you began to reference languages with your claims about Elohim. It was you, my dear not, who began discounting the genuine reading of the English translations by saying the languages behind them would lead us all to a different understanding. I have simply labored to show that the Greek upholds what we see in the plain reading of the English translations we have today. I would be happy to discard the language studies and just look at the English text of the Scriptures themselves if you prefer. In fact, I would prefer that.
There is no Trinitarian that would discount the Shema. Just because you think it is contradictory, does not mean this to be the case. So I salute your pledge to uphold the Shema. At ease soldier. Now, can we deal with the revelation of the NT? Clearly the Shema is not your primary issue. You would be better off as a Modalist. Then at least you would accept the clear teaching of the divinity of Christ and you could keep arm's length from us Trinitarians. I think it would be a less heretical option for you.
Psalm 22:9 Yes, you are the one who brought me out from the womb and made me feel secure on my mother’s breasts. Psa 22:10 I have been dependent on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.shturt678 said:
tn Heb “from the womb of my mother you have been my God.”
sn Despite the enemies’ taunts, the psalmist is certain of his relationship with God, which began from the time of his birth (from the time I came out of my mother’s womb).
Also for Christ Jesus
Matt 2:13 After they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother (Psa 22) and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to look for the child to kill him.” 2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother during the night, and went to Egypt.
Hos.11:1 reveals that Israel, David and Jesus were all dependant on a loving nurturing Father to protect them from their birth. Without Gods intervention they all would have died.
Israel via Pharoahs army
David via the wild beasts and the Philistines
Jesus via Herod
All of them had a God (creator) who sustained them from birth - a small thing to some but to others Zech 4:10
Purity
Look, if they wanted to kick us off they would have done so by now. After all, this is wormwoods OP and he is the one trying to defend the un-defendable. It would not bode to well for the forum if they booted off those few with opposing (but Scripturally sound) views.nothead said:
I do however believe it would not be respectful to start preaching and teaching monotheism (which is contrary to their statement of faith) throughout other threads, that is why some Christians forums set up separate areas for those who wish to explore an alternative message than traditional Christianity. In hindsight it was wise of wormwood to swing us into this thread - well done! Only issue now is he has untold posts which have in the main gone unanswered...a lot of work on his part....Nice to see some other forum members come out of the woodwork - really enjoying 678's contribution.
Purity.
From Purity:
If you believe these references merely support ones own convictions and that they do not hold sound truth then you are lost before you even open the Book.
The Bible is clear that Jesus of Nazareth was & is the Son of God - nowhere in its pages does it make God the Son. In fact salvation is on the basis of his sonship not Godhead.
Jesus was begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, without the intervention of man, and afterwards anointed with the same Spirit, without measure, at his baptism. Yahweh (his Father) is the anointer and not Jesus himself.
Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 2:22-24, 36; Matt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-35; Gal. 4:4; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 3:16-17; Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; John 3:34; 7:16; 8:26-28; 14:10-24.
To say "God with us" = God is to destroy John 17:22 which is the hope of the saints of God - God also wants to be with us as he was with Christ but this does not make us God though the Godhead will one day be manifested through Christ and His Saints. Col 1:12; Eph 1:18 & Rev 20:4
From Floyd:
This won't do!
I need as requested cogent argument to stimulate study in all seriousness, your thesis.
To use an open threat of "lost before starting" as an impetus tool; is beneath your ability; and cannot be used, as it is a primitive tool of control !
I ask again (seriously) that you give cogent reasons, and justifications, using Scripture reverently; why Jesus is not Divine.
I am aware of your assertion that Jesus "attained" status as "Son", by His self denial and "worthiness"; see Rev.5 and 6.
I also think you acknowledge the "overshadowing" of the woman, by "Almighty God"; producing "that Holy Thing"; the baby Jesus; which is the fulfilment of Gen. 3:15.
However; with your assertions; you cannot escape the duty to produce a cogent; and academically acceptable thesis to support!
I think you may now rise to the challenge; as much is at stake for your reputation!
Floyd.
If you believe these references merely support ones own convictions and that they do not hold sound truth then you are lost before you even open the Book.
The Bible is clear that Jesus of Nazareth was & is the Son of God - nowhere in its pages does it make God the Son. In fact salvation is on the basis of his sonship not Godhead.
Jesus was begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, without the intervention of man, and afterwards anointed with the same Spirit, without measure, at his baptism. Yahweh (his Father) is the anointer and not Jesus himself.
Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 2:22-24, 36; Matt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-35; Gal. 4:4; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 3:16-17; Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; John 3:34; 7:16; 8:26-28; 14:10-24.
To say "God with us" = God is to destroy John 17:22 which is the hope of the saints of God - God also wants to be with us as he was with Christ but this does not make us God though the Godhead will one day be manifested through Christ and His Saints. Col 1:12; Eph 1:18 & Rev 20:4
From Floyd:
This won't do!
I need as requested cogent argument to stimulate study in all seriousness, your thesis.
To use an open threat of "lost before starting" as an impetus tool; is beneath your ability; and cannot be used, as it is a primitive tool of control !
I ask again (seriously) that you give cogent reasons, and justifications, using Scripture reverently; why Jesus is not Divine.
I am aware of your assertion that Jesus "attained" status as "Son", by His self denial and "worthiness"; see Rev.5 and 6.
I also think you acknowledge the "overshadowing" of the woman, by "Almighty God"; producing "that Holy Thing"; the baby Jesus; which is the fulfilment of Gen. 3:15.
However; with your assertions; you cannot escape the duty to produce a cogent; and academically acceptable thesis to support!
I think you may now rise to the challenge; as much is at stake for your reputation!
Floyd.
Check to see if you have an "itch" behind your ear
Your frustration is caused because you cannot accept the Bible text as its has been written in the first instance - when it states Jesus is the Son of God you need to go further and make him something he is not. You know the Apostle Paul never inferred God the Son, or was it written once. This clearly places the Trinity in a precarious position.
You say "However; with your assertions; you cannot escape the duty to produce a cogent; and academically acceptable thesis to support! " and yet, you should ask in the positive "Please provide Scriptural evidence which supports the Prophets and Apostles thesis"
Ok, where else is there a better place to start our discussion than in the beginning; the seedbed of the Bible.
Genesis 3:21 The LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
This Floyd, is a Christian's foundation teaching:
1. Sin deserves death (Romans 6:23)
2. Sacrifice offers a covering for sin (Heb 9:26)
3. Only God can provide a sin-covering sacrifice; a sacrifice which is “other than God” (Heb 10:12)
Figuratively speaking Heb 11:19 is speaking to God and His Son - For Abraham, God sacrificed His only Son, whom he has now received again from the dead through the resurrection (Rom 8:31-32; cp Joh 3:16).
The Old Testament repeats and reinforces (as above) these three principles constantly throughout the Law and the Prophets. In fact, if you were intellectually honest (which I hope you are) these three points underpin the entire Law of Moses, which you need to agree, underpins the entire New Testament atonement theology.
It is essential to understand these principles and recognise how they were fulfilled by Christ, as they inform our understanding of his identity and purpose.
The OT was a school teacher pointing forward to Jesus Christ (See Galatians 3:24); any interpretation contradicting the OT’s view of Christ must be rejected.
I will pre-empt your acceptance of points 1&2, however point 3 is where you will become hard of hearing. It is not for me to prove God offering a sacrifice which was NOT himself, as the Bible is clear in this regard - you need to prove firstly, from the OT, and then the NT, that God would offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin...something which is repulsive in my humble view.
Purity
What you are saying here does not need repeating Purity.Purity said:Check to see if you have an "itch" behind your ear
Your frustration is caused because you cannot accept the Bible text as its has been written in the first instance - when it states Jesus is the Son of God you need to go further and make him something he is not. You know the Apostle Paul never inferred God the Son, or was it written once. This clearly places the Trinity in a precarious position.
You say "However; with your assertions; you cannot escape the duty to produce a cogent; and academically acceptable thesis to support! " and yet, you should ask in the positive "Please provide Scriptural evidence which supports the Prophets and Apostles thesis"
Ok, where else is there a better place to start our discussion than in the beginning; the seedbed of the Bible.
Genesis 3:21 The LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
This Floyd, is a Christian's foundation teaching:
1. Sin deserves death (Romans 6:23)
2. Sacrifice offers a covering for sin (Heb 9:26)
3. Only God can provide a sin-covering sacrifice; a sacrifice which is “other than God” (Heb 10:12)
Figuratively speaking Heb 11:19 is speaking to God and His Son - For Abraham, God sacrificed His only Son, whom he has now received again from the dead through the resurrection (Rom 8:31-32; cp Joh 3:16).
The Old Testament repeats and reinforces (as above) these three principles constantly throughout the Law and the Prophets. In fact, if you were intellectually honest (which I hope you are) these three points underpin the entire Law of Moses, which you need to agree, underpins the entire New Testament atonement theology.
It is essential to understand these principles and recognise how they were fulfilled by Christ, as they inform our understanding of his identity and purpose.
The OT was a school teacher pointing forward to Jesus Christ (See Galatians 3:24); any interpretation contradicting the OT’s view of Christ must be rejected.
I will pre-empt your acceptance of points 1&2, however point 3 is where you will become hard of hearing. It is not for me to prove God offering a sacrifice which was NOT himself, as the Bible is clear in this regard - you need to prove firstly, from the OT, and then the NT, that God would offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin...something which is repulsive in my humble view.
Purity
The understanding of the need for redemption is not what I ask of you.
I want you to produce a cogent Paper, which explains why Jesus was not Divine, in the work of redemption He undertook?
Floyd.
You appear confused Floyd.
1. If you are saying Jesus required redemption (which I believe)then by this admission you are saying he is not God.
2. All Christians believe Jesus' origin was divine for his Father is God. Don't you mean "Jesus was not Deity?"
3. If by your avoidance of the previous post we are to take this as an admission that you cannot show from the OT God putting himself to death as a sacrifice then once again you must concede Jesus is not God.
Now is relation to a Paper precisely what are you seeking? A published work endorsed by a theologian with letters after their name? Is this what you are seeking? Be more specific.
I do suggest Buzzard and Hunting's book ('The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound') and Zarley's ('The Restitution of Jesus Christ'). Zarley's book is by far the best.
You should also get a copy of 'One God and One Lord' by Schoenheit, Graeser, and Lynn (find it on Amazon). I believe this is better than Buzzard's book.
If you require further works by all means email me and we can discuss other publications.
While I remember you might like to read http://www.lulu.com/au/en/shop/tom-gaston-ed/one-god-the-father/paperback/product-20732579.html
A very close friend wrote some of the chapters and while I am not comfortable with all the arguments I think its worthy of reading.
Purity
You appear confused Floyd.
1. If you are saying Jesus required redemption (which I believe)then by this admission you are saying he is not God.
You are too intelligent Purity to use obfuscations as a technique; I am not at all confused; I am taking you at your stated word and position re. Christ not being of the Trinity! I have taken you seriously in this instance; to once and for all get you to state clearly what you mean in your statements; and to explain them so that all here can understand your argument, from Scripture ! If you won’t; or can’t take this opportunity to clearly express your thesis; then I shall have to leave you behind.
2. All Christians believe Jesus' origin was divine for his Father is God. Don't you mean "Jesus was not Deity?"
See above; and please answer the question.
3. If by your avoidance of the previous post we are to take this as an admission that you cannot show from the OT God putting himself to death as a sacrifice then once again you must concede Jesus is not God.
Your sliding around again! You are the one who is avoiding. You are now given an opportunity to be clear re. your idea. Why not take it? Or; can’t you actually prove your points?
Now is relation to a Paper precisely what are you seeking? A published work endorsed by a theologian with letters after their name? Is this what you are seeking? Be more specific.
I despair with you Purity! My words are there for you to see. I want you to explain your idea in a short paper! Surely you understand what I am saying?
I do suggest Buzzard and Hunting's book ('The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound') and Zarley's ('The Restitution of Jesus Christ'). Zarley's book is by far the best.
I will read these, if I am satisfied that you have made a case for that effort.
You should also get a copy of 'One God and One Lord' by Schoenheit, Graeser, and Lynn (find it on Amazon). I believe this is better than Buzzard's book.
If you require further works by all means email me and we can discuss other publications.
While I remember you might like to read http://www.lulu.com/...t-20732579.html
A very close friend wrote some of the chapters and while I am not comfortable with all the arguments I think its worthy of reading.
Thanks; as I said Purity, I will read these if your thesis convinces me that the effort is worthwhile.
Floyd
1. If you are saying Jesus required redemption (which I believe)then by this admission you are saying he is not God.
You are too intelligent Purity to use obfuscations as a technique; I am not at all confused; I am taking you at your stated word and position re. Christ not being of the Trinity! I have taken you seriously in this instance; to once and for all get you to state clearly what you mean in your statements; and to explain them so that all here can understand your argument, from Scripture ! If you won’t; or can’t take this opportunity to clearly express your thesis; then I shall have to leave you behind.
2. All Christians believe Jesus' origin was divine for his Father is God. Don't you mean "Jesus was not Deity?"
See above; and please answer the question.
3. If by your avoidance of the previous post we are to take this as an admission that you cannot show from the OT God putting himself to death as a sacrifice then once again you must concede Jesus is not God.
Your sliding around again! You are the one who is avoiding. You are now given an opportunity to be clear re. your idea. Why not take it? Or; can’t you actually prove your points?
Now is relation to a Paper precisely what are you seeking? A published work endorsed by a theologian with letters after their name? Is this what you are seeking? Be more specific.
I despair with you Purity! My words are there for you to see. I want you to explain your idea in a short paper! Surely you understand what I am saying?
I do suggest Buzzard and Hunting's book ('The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound') and Zarley's ('The Restitution of Jesus Christ'). Zarley's book is by far the best.
I will read these, if I am satisfied that you have made a case for that effort.
You should also get a copy of 'One God and One Lord' by Schoenheit, Graeser, and Lynn (find it on Amazon). I believe this is better than Buzzard's book.
If you require further works by all means email me and we can discuss other publications.
While I remember you might like to read http://www.lulu.com/...t-20732579.html
A very close friend wrote some of the chapters and while I am not comfortable with all the arguments I think its worthy of reading.
Thanks; as I said Purity, I will read these if your thesis convinces me that the effort is worthwhile.
Floyd
By far most acolytes start from Wallace's primer? How far off am I? So then we have 2 or 3 pro Colwell and 1 anti. This one is a BIGGY among mainstreamers. Wall ass.
Every-one know 'im. Every-one grows 'im.
All I've done, my little mickshin is to make less certain your CERTAIN TERP. Probabilities are not technically the end-all among spiritual men. Since so many things are held by faith and not apparent probability. PERSONAL probability in the spiritual dimension is the 'seeing' or the aquisition of evidence for things not seen.
Buuut, then again you by your own consideration have a 33% chance of being wrong, touting 2 or 3 against the Great Wall Ass. Even on the outside, 25% does NOT make your position CERTAIN. And my point is that not many try to scale or jump over the Great Wall. Might get shot, or at least made to look silly.
Me, I jumped over him years ago. Shema trumps any diddling Rule or grammatical consideration he might have.
Nice diversion. The only Koine grammatical consideration regarding ELOHIM which is a Hebrew term and a language I already know you are LESS proficient in, is the obvious translation of "ye are gods" in Psalm 82 which relates directly to Jesus' own refute to the stoners. No man knows what 'gods' means since we ain't Roman or Greek. Or polytheist for that matter.
Elohim Theology necessitates the answer here. Once you know Elohim Theology my man, or dear however flexible you are....you will find that Jesus is claiming the OPPOSITE of ontology with the one True God. SON of God is correlated with the SONS OF GOD in Psalm 82.
Hence the Bridge of Understanding. He only claims to be 'elohim' not the One True God. Are the 'gods' of the heavenly court in heaven GOD? NO?
Then why bring them up? Jesus is claiming ultimate status with an intermediate heavenly example? These 'gods' CANNOT be God. So what else could he be saying? I listen to the benders, the whiners and the mikshins trying to get around this one. And the best answer they can come up with?
"Jesus was trying to convince them that if he was DEFINITELY intermediate divinity, then he MORE POSSIBLY might be God." Whoo hoo!
You just made Jesus into a quasi, less than scintillating debater. Nice going.
Oneness Pentecostal for 16 years maybe a few more. That's modalist. Several reasons why not.There is no Trinitarian that would discount the Shema. Just because you think it is contradictory, does not mean this to be the case. So I salute your pledge to uphold the Shema. At ease soldier. Now, can we deal with the revelation of the NT? Clearly the Shema is not your primary issue. You would be better off as a Modalist. Then at least you would accept the clear teaching of the divinity of Christ and you could keep arm's length from us Trinitarians. I think it would be a less heretical option for you.
1) Their definition or interpretation of Shema does not coincide with the Rabbinical one. This SAME ONE which makes every halfway half massed or even lackadaisical
orthodox Jew STILL an Abrahamic Monotheist.
2) Stephen's vision isn't God morphed back to himself on the throne, and neither is the verses regarding. Jesus sits or stands at the RIGHT HAND of the throne.
And we know that the one's on JESUS' left and right hands are not God. If Jesus IS God then the right hand of him is God. Just as HE is God at the right hand of God.
More simply, the right hand of God has ALWAYS BEEN seen as subservient position of honor.
Floyd,
I must apologise for first missing a previous post where you explained clearly what you were seeking. For the obfuscations you are correct we need not converse in such a manner which is not reflective of the high calling we have in Christ Jesus.
As you can appreciate I have sufficient resources to aptly demonstrate a complete and comprehensible view of the Gospel.
Feel free to contact me via this forum or email anytime to discuss.
God bless
Purity
Say you ain't Mattathias on another forum is you? There are strong resemblances here. He has too a great patience and equininity. Equanininy. Equanimity.
And a pure dee scintillating head for theology.
nothead,
Well, once again, neither Wallace nor those who hold to Colwell's Rule in the grammar of John 1:1 would disagree this is a text referring to Christ's divinity. Your arguments are totally out of left field and have no backing from any reliable source. Just because there are different approaches in understanding the grammar of John 1:1 does not mean any of them agree with you. In fact, they do not. You seem to want to argue that anything that does not agree with me, by default, agrees with you. Um...not hardly. You are on an theological island on John 1:1. Your volleyball is the only one who agrees with you. Sorry.
The point is, the language issue you brought upon yourself. You and Purity's delusions that I am somehow avoiding the Scriptures to debate languages is another misrepresentation. I quote a text, you argue that the original language teaches something quite different from the English and that how the English reads is corrupted. I prove the English is a sound representation of the Greek, and you backpedal into wild assertions and misrepresentations of the positions of theologians. Again, your arguments are starting to look like Purity. Wildly thrashing about throwing everything you run across on Google against the wall to see if anything will stick. But your content has grown thin again and I am losing interest.
Well, once again, neither Wallace nor those who hold to Colwell's Rule in the grammar of John 1:1 would disagree this is a text referring to Christ's divinity. Your arguments are totally out of left field and have no backing from any reliable source. Just because there are different approaches in understanding the grammar of John 1:1 does not mean any of them agree with you. In fact, they do not. You seem to want to argue that anything that does not agree with me, by default, agrees with you. Um...not hardly. You are on an theological island on John 1:1. Your volleyball is the only one who agrees with you. Sorry.
The point is, the language issue you brought upon yourself. You and Purity's delusions that I am somehow avoiding the Scriptures to debate languages is another misrepresentation. I quote a text, you argue that the original language teaches something quite different from the English and that how the English reads is corrupted. I prove the English is a sound representation of the Greek, and you backpedal into wild assertions and misrepresentations of the positions of theologians. Again, your arguments are starting to look like Purity. Wildly thrashing about throwing everything you run across on Google against the wall to see if anything will stick. But your content has grown thin again and I am losing interest.
The Great Daniel B Wallace is a volleyball? I don't like Colwell, because I agree with Jason BeDuhn that the order got reversed in the last clause of the first verse in John.
God[ly] was the Word.
So then it isn't over the divinity of Jesus per se. I know intermediate arguments which together indicate Jesus is elohim under YHWH Elohim and over angels elohim.
But it is just a mite glossing to relate everything to the conclusion you have, being as there are reasons WHY you believe Jesus is God. These I attack. The relation to the conclusion may not be evident immediately to you, sir. But then you accuse me of lying when I never said Wallace is anti-JisG. We can go over this one more time, and you can lose interest if you want.
But you STILL WONG, sir and you ain't gotta slant your eyeballs to see it.
Refute this one: Elohim are ghosts, kings, prophets, heavenly court, Judges of Torah who were men called Sons of God in Psalm 82, angels, cherubim and seraphim, creatures in heaven not known of, spirits, demons, false gods and leprochauns. And God Almighty, meant some 2000 times in Bible.
Scratch the last one, er the second to last one.
Now you can call this a Koine grammare issue, or a Hebrew grammar issue, or a language issue or whatever. But REFUTE it or go home. All you can do is make fun of my paradigm with a cartoon.
In your heart of hearts, and you only have one heart, sir, you KNOW what I say is true. Go on, refute it.
YOU brought up 'elohim' again and said this was the segue into language we both took. So tell me how I am wrong. Elohim Theology happens to be the basis of refute, of the two
closest trin proof texts for the divinity of Jesus.
1) His claim he is 'one with the Father' in Jn 10
2) Thomas' exclamation that he is "My Lord and my elohim!" in Jn 20.
nothead,
Thanks for your input!
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I am just a guy who believes in the God breathed bible and not men's traditions. [/SIZE]
Thanks for your input!
[SIZE=medium]Nope. I am a member of the body of Christ
[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I am just a guy who believes in the God breathed bible and not men's traditions. [/SIZE]
Thank you for your response and successful refute, ie, good job!Purity said:
No excuses, ie, I watered down this Ps.22:10, etc. and stand successfully refuted! Which likewise accords with the picture of Christ.
Thank you again,
Eating 'humble pie' at this moment,
Old Jack
Thank you for caring and being a member!JoJoRoss said:nothead,
Thanks for your input!
[SIZE=medium]Nope. I am a member of the body of Christ
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I am just a guy who believes in the God breathed bible and not men's traditions. [/SIZE]
The Bible is an excellent translation, however not "God breathed bible" for sure as only the original "God breathed Autographs" were "God breathed."
Old old Jack still trying to keep 'breathing'.
btw do appreciate you and your words being a member in the body of Christ sir.
Ah yes. Well, you wouldn't have a "Bible" were it not for the "traditions" you so loathe. With this mentality, we can just dissolve the church as a whole. I think these views are much more the product of the more recent "tradition" of postmodernism. This obsession with individualism and personal perspectives that feels distain for any tradition, leadership or authority is the spirit of this age. It has little to do with the actual teachings of the Bible and how they have been interpreted for thousands of years. Tis a real shame.JoJoRoss said:nothead,
Thanks for your input!
[SIZE=medium]Nope. I am a member of the body of Christ
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I am just a guy who believes in the God breathed bible and not men's traditions. [/SIZE]
When it directly opposed the two first gen Christians, whose blood now cries out from the ground PROTESTING the state of mainstream Christianity...Wormwood said:
...these traditions can go down the proverbial sewey hole. I nothead pledge allegiance. To the first generation Abrahamic faith, including Jesus Christ our Lord.
Once and for all, indivisible forever loving the One True God, amen
You're funny. Does this protesting blood include those who wrote monogenes Theos? Oops. Better not go there. Still might be a little sensitive.
Similar threads
