REPORT: The Deity of Christ

[webmaster]

The Deity of Christ by Bob Hill

The Bible clearly shows us repeatedly that there is only one God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” This verse is showing God as He is worshipped and as He redeems. But it also seems to show that there is only one God and another person, Jesus Christ.

Who, then, is Jesus Christ, the Word, the Son? Is He God? There are a number of reasons why we must say, yes, He is God. The first is found in John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” However, the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses says, “and the Word was a god.” Charles T. Russell, their founder wrote “the Logos was a God.” He continued, “This is the literal translation of the Greek, as can be readily confirmed by anyone, whether a Greek scholar or not. The Greek article ho precedes the first word ‘God,’ in this verse, and does not precede the second word ‘God.’ . . . The entire verse therefore reads – ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [ho theos] the God, and the Word was [theos] a God. The same was in the beginning with [ho theos] the God.’”1

Now, is this an accurate statement? Does the absence of the article make it a god rather than God2 as he and they say? The answer is no! In 2 Corinthians 4:4, “whose minds the god o qeo" [ho theos] of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them,” it says the god o qeo" [ho theos], but that god is not almighty God, it is satan.

Let’s look at the rest of John 1 and see how qeo" [theos], God, is handled.3 Verse 2, “He was in a beginning with the God (ton qeon ton theon).” Verse 13, “not of a will of a man but of a god (qeou, theou), they were born.” Verse 18, No one has seen a god (qeon theon), ever.”

As you can see, John does not use the definite article in its different forms, o, tou, tw, or ton every time he speaks about almighty God. That great Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson wrote this about John 1:1: “As already explained, the article is not essential to speech. It is, however, invaluable as a means of gaining precision, e.g. qeo" hn o logo" [the word was God]. As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when the subject uses it. Cf. Mk. 9:50; Lu. 7:8. This is in strict accord with the ancient idiom. . . . the rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. . . . The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, qeo" hn o logo" the subject is perfectly clear.”4 In the same idiom, we do not say the Word became a flesh (o logo" sarx egeneto) in John 1:14.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses say, “If the Word is God, and the Spirit is God, and since we cannot scientifically calculate that 1 God (the Father) + 1 God (the Son) + 1 God (the Holy Ghost) = 1 God; then we must say 1/3 God + 1/3 God + 1/3 God = 3/3 God or 1 God.” But this is not even close to what we say. Just as a man can manifest himself as a father to his children, a husband to his wife, and a son to his parents in a consistent way, God manifests Himself even more consistently and supernaturally as God the Father, Son, and Spirit. In fact, He says in Matthew 28:19, “baptizing them in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Furthermore, if John 1:1 said that the Word was a god rather than God, there would be two Gods even if one were inferior to the other. The Bible clearly states that this is not the case. Isaiah 44 & 45 repeatedly say there is only one God! For example Isaiah 44:24 says, “Thus says the LORD [Jehovah], your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.’” If the Word were not God, then John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16 would contradict this statement because they show that “by Him all things were created . . . through Him and for Him.” Because He is God, these Scriptures do not contradict Isaiah.

When He, the Son, came and talked to Abraham in Genesis 18:1, He appeared to Abraham as a man. The two angels went down to Sodom (18:16-19:1). What did Jehovah the Son do? The LORD [Jehovah] went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham” (18:33). “Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens” (19:24). Here, we have two manifestations of Jehovah at the same time. The first, Jehovah the Son, refers to the one who was seen by Abraham. He rained down brimstone and fire from Jehovah, the Father, out of heaven. The first Jehovah was actually seen by men! Jehovah the Son was seen.

But do we have the right to say this? Let’s look at this more carefully. In Philippians 2:6-8, it gives us information about the Son. “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation,5 taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Notice, He was in the form of God. He was God. The form belonged to God. He then left that form and took another form. Yet, He was still God according to John 20:28, “And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (o kurio" mou kai o qeo" mou) It is interesting that both Lord and God have the article here. Also, why didn’t Christ correct Thomas if he was wrong in calling Him God?

Considering the word “form” as found here, and in Genesis 1:26, He made man in the likeness of that form which belonged to God. He made “man in Our [plural] image, according to Our [plural] likeness.” This was the likeness or image that God (the Son) first created according to Colossians 1:15, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” This image was also called, “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3:14). He, God (as the Son), then indwelled this image that belonged to Him and created everything else (Col 1:16). Then, He made man in its likeness. When God was in this image, apparently man could see Him without fear of being destroyed. When it says that no one has ever seen God, we see from Scripture (John 6:46) that it means the Father can’t be seen. The Son shows and explains the Father (John 14:9; 1:18). All they could see of the invisible God (the Father) was shown in Jesus Christ the Son.

We find that the Word who is God, was not only seen by Abraham and the apostles, but He was also seen by Moses. In Exodus 24:9-11, we see that they saw God and lived to tell about it. Exodus 33:20 says, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” Therefore, the God whom they saw in Exodus 24 must have been God the Son. No one has seen the Father except God the Son, “He who is from God; He has seen the Father” (John 6:46).

Christ said, “Abraham rejoiced to see My day” (John 8:56). The Jews said He wasn’t even “fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham” (8:57)? Christ answered in 8:58, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then, they wanted to stone Him. Why? Because He was referring to Himself as God. The words “I AM” were the same words which the Septuagint6 used to translate the first “I AM” from the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14. God continued in verse 15, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’” Christ said it more pointedly than the translation shows. Literally John 8:58 is “Before Abraham came into existence (genesqai), I Am.” The Jews knew He said He was God.

Later, John quoted Christ: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” This is used of God the Father as well as God the Son. Notice the following:
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw Him [Christ], I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not beafraid; I am the First and the Last.”

Revelation 2:8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, “These things says the First and the Last [Christ], who was dead, and came to life.”

Isaiah 44:6-8,24 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God. 8 Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.” 24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.” Who spread the heavens? Christ (John 1:3; Col 1:16,17)! Who is the Savior? Christ (Isa 45:5,6,18,21,22)!

When we look at another aspect of God, His knowledge, we know that He knows things infinitely. God alone knows everything. When the Son says, “As the Father knows Me,” how does the Father know the Son? In an infinite, complete way. Then He says, “even so I know the Father” (John 10:15). Christ knows the Father in the same way, infinitely, because He is God. The New World Translation mistranslates this passage. In fact, it doesn’t even make any sense. They translate it this way: 14 “I am the fine shepherd, and I know my sheep and my sheep know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I surrender my soul in behalf of the sheep.” From Greek syntax we can see that this should be two sentences. Verse 15 is a new sentence.

There is only one God. But He manifests Himself in three ways – Father, Son, and Spirit. To show how true this is, let’s look at John 14. Christ is speaking. In verse 7 He says, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” How can man see God and still live? We say that it was only as He manifested Himself as the Son (John 1:18; Heb 1:2-8). Then He said something almost incomprehensible. He said, verse 10, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.” He not only has the Father in Him, but He is in the Father! As we look further in this chapter, we see either a great confusion on John’s part or a blurring of the persons of the Godhead in the unity of God. Since this is inspired by the Holy Spirit, I don't think John is confused. Notice verses 17-26: “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” According to this, the Holy Spirit will come to them. 18 “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” But, according to this, the Son will come. 23 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him,’ According to this verse, the Father is coming. ‘and We will come to him and make Our home with him.’ At least two of the trinity will come. 26 ‘But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.’”

Who dwelled with them (17)? Christ, but He says the Spirit. Who will come? The Spirit, but Christ says He will come (18). Now wait a minute! Who is coming? The Father, and the Son (23), and the Spirit (26). God is coming (came)! The trinity came! Wow!! Are you as confused as I am? Who really was to come according to John 14? All we can say is God was coming in every way – Father, Son, and Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes when both the Father and the Son come. This is why Christ said in John 10:30, “I and My Father are one.” So from this, we must say again, the Son is God. That’s why the Father says in Hebrews 1:8, “But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.”

When God manifests Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit, all three manifestations have different functions. The Father is highest and is the one who is mainly worshipped. John 14:28 reports this: “You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.” But the Son is worshipped also, for the Father tells all the angels to worship Him. Hebrews 1:6, “But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’” Every knee shall bow to Him. Philippians 2:9-10, “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth.” This was prophesied in Isaiah 45:23: “I have sworn by Myself. The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath.” Here we see again that Jehovah is equated to Christ.

The Son is always subject to the Father in function (John 14:28; 1 Co 15:28), but as deity He is equally God. In His humanity, He is human (1 Ti 2:5) so He can redeem man (Heb 2:14-18). Remember who the only Savior was back in Isaiah. It was Jehovah. Therefore, we can see again, Christ, the Savior, is Jehovah.

Further, we find that God the Father raised Christ from the dead.7 But we find Christ saying that He would raise Himself,8 “I will raise it up . . . But He was speaking of the temple of His body” (John 2:19,21). But it also says He was made alive by the Spirit. Therefore, we see the trinity in action in His resurrection.

The Holy Spirit is God. Acts 5:3 records that “Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Then the 4th verse said, “Acts 5:4 “Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” If he lied to the Holy Spirit, and this is described as lying to God, then, the Holy Spirit is God.

Therefore, we must admit that God is beyond our finite comprehension, but shows us all that can be known about Him in His word and Jesus Christ. God became a man not only to redeem us but to show us who God is. We can look at Christ and see God’s attributes of love, passion, mercy, and readiness to change when man repents.
*
Can you answer these questions or statements?
1. Give a definition of the word trinity.
2. Since the Greek word qeo" [theos - God] in the clause, “The Word was God,” doesn’t have the definite article, is the correct translation God, a god, or the God?
3. What is all this stuff about subject and predicate?
4. Since Isaiah 44 and 45 say that God is by Himself, doesn’t it follow that Christ would just be a tool God used to make the world?
5. Where do we see two manifestations of God in the Old Testament?
6. How could God be seen in Exodus 24 when the Bible says elsewhere that no one has ever seen God?
7. Wouldn’t you agree that a created being could not be God?
8. Why did the Jews try to kill Jesus?
9. If the Father knows the Son infinitely and the Son knows the Father the same way, what does that mean?
10. What does John 14 tell you about God?
11. Is the Son inferior to the Father in any way?
12. Why did the Son become a man?
13.*Show why you believe the Holy Spirit is God.

This article was reproduced with the permission of Bob Hill www.biblicalanswers.com :up:
*


FOOTNOTES:
1 Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Series V, p. 86, originally printed, 1899.

2 There are no capitals or lower case letters in the earliest Greek manuscripts to help us. Further, if Greek is translated extremely literally, it is not very readable in English. Keep this information in mind when I translate these sentences later.

3 I will translate each passage literally. If it has the article in any of its forms with any noun, I will translate it the. If it does not have the article, I will translate it a. The articles, in the masculine singular forms are, o, tou, tw, or ton. So for o [ho], I will translate it the God. If it does not have the o [ho], I will translate it a god.

4 Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 767.

5 ekenwse, literally, He emptied Himself. He emptied Himself of His non-moral attributes of deity such as omniscience, omnipotenceand omnipresence. We also see that He left the form of God and took upon Himself the form and attributes of a servant, and came in the likeness of man. But He still retained His moral attributes such as love, compassion, mercy, and repentance.

6 The Septuagint, represented by LXX, was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used at the time of Christ.

7 Acts 2:24,32; 3:15,26; Rom 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; Col 2;12

8 John 10:17,18

[Aimiel]

Can you answer these questions or statements?
1. Give a definition of the word trinity.1. OK, "Three in One, and One in Three; The One in the middle, He died for me."2. Since the Greek word qeo" [theos - God] in the clause, “The Word was God,” doesn’t have the definite article, is the correct translation God, a god, or the God?
3. What is all this stuff about subject and predicate?2. Hunh???
3. Hunh???4. Since Isaiah 44 and 45 say that God is by Himself, doesn’t it follow that Christ would just be a tool God used to make the world?Not when it also says that He made all things. He is the Eternal Son, He and the Father are One and the Same.5. Where do we see two manifestations of God in the Old Testament?Nowhere I have ever seen.6. How could God be seen in Exodus 24 when the Bible says elsewhere that no one has ever seen God?A more detailed explanation to your 'supposed contradictory' scripture is contained in the very same chapter, where the Glory of G_d is described. I believe that if anyone were to see the L_rd, in all His Glory, they would never wish to draw another breath in this present darkness, which is separated from His visible Presence. Moses was placed in the cleft of a rock, and the L_rd placed His Hand over Moses' eyes untill after He had passed by; so all that Moses got to see was the after-effects of G_d's very Presence upon this realm (physical); and he had to wear a veil for 40 days, since his face was so bright that no one could even stand to be around himm, without it being covered. It was not physically bright, the residue and effect of having seen the Glory of G_d was causing conviction and they just didn't like feeling dirty and not being able to do anything about it; so they had Moses cover his face.7. Wouldn’t you agree that a created being could not be God?Yes.8. Why did the Jews try to kill Jesus?He claimed to be the Son of G_d, and He also claimed to have the power and authority to forgive sin. He also backed up what He said with works greater than this world has seen, before or since.[QUOTE]9. If the Father knows the Son infinitely and the Son knows the Father the same way, what does that mean?They are good friends, and enjoy an open relationship. Did you mean to infer that you came to the conclusion that they have an intimate relationship because of some particular scripture, passage, chapter, book or combination of study which you have encountered?10. What does John 14 tell you about God?A lot. Mostly it reminds me of how I came to the conclusion that the church I attended (Baptist, when I was a very young teenager) was nearly dead; and I read in here things about G_d that I began to believe, way back then, before I ever heard of any such thing as a spirit-filled person or met or knew anyone who walked by faith, walked in love, or had the definite Mark of G_d upon their heart.[QUOTE]11. Is the Son inferior to the Father in any way?I believe that there are things that G_d knows and things that G_d will do that are His authority and His place to do, that the Son is not going to have a part in. The time of the rapture is one thing that Jesus said that He did not even know, only the Father knows. I don't believe that makes either inferior or superior, I believe that they are just different facets of the same Being: G_d Almighty.[QUOTE]12. Why did the Son become a man?Since the wages of sin is death, and man committed sin (angels did too, but G_d did not design salvation for Angels, they sinned when they knew what they were doing, but that is another story), all men must be put to death. All of us deserve death (the second death, the lake of fire), so we shall all be cast alive into this death. The ONLY salvation from this sentence is for us to be washed from our sins in Jesus' blood.[QUOTE]13. Show why you believe the Holy Spirit is God.His presence is eternal. There are five things mentioned as being eternal: the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, life, G_d's Purpose. I believe that the Eternal Purpose of G_d is something which all three (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) share. They are One. We are One, with Him. By that, I mean that we are His Flesh. One day, when we are caught up, in the Rapture, we will see this Body, which will look exactly like an image of Jesus, huge I am sure, being formed in the sky above the earth (He's the head) and as we come up from the earth and take our place in His Body, we will realize our potential and completeness, for the first time. I am not saying that we have always been (only G_d is Eternal) but I do believe that we have always existed, in His Mind. In the sense that He always interceds for us at the Right Hand of the Father, and that His Mind is always stayed on us and that He has always known us, in His Thoughts, our spirits; which I believe are just a tiny little portion of Him, because we came out from Him; we are 'sort of' eternal. I don't believe that we could live, eternally, unless we had our basis way back at the beginning of eternity, which really had no beginning, since it has always been.

Does this make any sense? I'm sorry, I don't think that there are very many things about eternity, omniscience or omnipotence that temporal, limited (size of intellect) or weak little human beings can comprehend. We have only a limited number of brain cells, yet we expect to be able to 'figure out' the all-knowing G_d. We are constrained to about 70 years, and think that we can imagine the Eternal G_d and Father of spirits. We believe that our almighty will might somehow come up with some argument that can stump G_d, make Him scratch His Head and say, why didn't I think of that. We will know, then (in Heaven) as we are known. We will see Him as He is. We will also remember every time He helped us, as well as others, and spend a large part of eternity just thanking Him. Another thing we will never come to an end of is searching out the depths of His Grace and Love, which are displayed in this life, and in eternity we will never be done just searching those out and discovering the things He did for us while we were in the physical realm. The spiritual realm is far above our comprehension, much less our understanding or reasoning power.

[Paradõsis]

We can look at Christ and see God’s attributes of love, passion, mercy, and readiness to change when man repents.

Actually, God is passionless and changeless. If God is not immutable, he is not God.

[o2bwise]

I don't know, call me "out there," but I see TWO here:

1. God

2. The Son of God


This entire creation attests to the idea that sons are not their fathers.

Divine? Yes. By virtue of being God? No! God is the Father. By virtue of being HIS SON.

The one thing we are called to confess.

Not complicated...

God Bless Y'All...

Tony (o2)

[missedmarks]

Ok...I am NOT a greek scholar :)

Actually I have just started learning greek, and will tell anyone who will stop long enough to listen all about it (Im pretty fired up about it) Interestingly, at this point the first verse of John is the only thing I can read.

The literal, word for word translation I get is this.

In Begining was Word, and word was with God, and word was God.

of course the guy who wrote that didn't bother to punctuate it which makes some difference. But I think that pretty much says that the Jesus is God, and Jesus is Jesus.

[biblicalanser4u]

This is a post about the trinity at about the same day this came out.

Trinity-Apocalypse666revealed
Go to www.apocalypse666revealed.com Read the web site. Read the book. Subject: Trinity exposed as fraudulent. Church is Babylon the Great. 666 refers to the trinity. 38 bible passages exposed as altered to promote Trinity and Deity of Christ. Holy Spirit exposed as neuter in gender from the Greek.


__________________
SAGE

And now my response to such nonsense!

God is not a trinity (Oh YES He is)
Sage,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What Nonsense.

From the Jesus-is-Lord.com Website

It is amazing how much error there is in this world. Yesterday I got an e-mail from a Pentecostal who asked if I was a "Trinitarian". (And now this guy)

The question prompted me to write this on the tri-unity (aka the trinity) of God (I prefer the Bible word "Godhead"). This is something I've been meaning to do for a long while. A measure of fear came upon me as I sought to write this because herein I am seeking to describe the very nature of the Most High, magnificent, dread LORD God. Nevertheless, upon careful Bible study, I can write...

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

I've heard people say that belief in the trinity means that we worship three gods. This simply reflects ignorance of the word of God. Any Christian willing to read their King James Bible with some clear eyeballs will see the truth. The LORD our God is one LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4) but He does exist in three Persons, a trinity.

If there were no other verse of the Bible testifying of the trinity, 1John 5:7 would be enough for any Bible-believer to see that God consists of three Persons--the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost (Of course, many (if not most) modern Bible versions do not have this complete verse. In this, they agree with the Jehovah's (false) Witness "Bible" called The New World Translation.) But this is not written because of Bible believers. It is written to counteract the error of those who say that there is no Godhead consisting of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. A few groups come to my mind as I think of "anti-trinitarians"--

Folks like the "Jesus Only" group say that only Jesus is God. They say that the Father and the Holy Ghost are only titles. Later in this thread, I will show how each person of the Godhead (a Bible word) actually speaks in the scriptures. A "title" cannot speak. The Jesus Only people will only baptize in the name of Jesus directly contradicting Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

A Pentecostal sect (I'm not talking about all Pentecostals) represented at the Isaiah 58 website denies the trinity saying that God created Jesus and then Jesus created everything else (close to JW theology). This is the error of Arianism, i.e., saying that Jesus is a created being.

In one article on their website, The Influence of Trinitarian Doctrine on Translations of the Bible by John David Clark, Sr., there are number of blasphemies...the author says Jesus was sinless NOT because He was God but because He was obedient. Remember that Jesus was born as a baby--how many two year olds do you know that are willingly obedient 100% of the time? I have yet to meet a sinless person and I never will. Jesus was sinless from birth, no one else can accomplish that feat. He was not an ordinary man. He is God come in the flesh. The article also says that the Father can make anybody a god and that is what He did with Jesus (reminiscent of Mormon theology). The author further attempts to destroy the truth of the word of God by saying that Bible translators purposely mistranslated "the Greek" pronouns for the Persons of the Godhead.

People who spread false doctrine can make it sound correct because they wrest with the scriptures to their own destruction. We've got to know our Bibles intimately. The Bible is the only standard of truth. The Isaiah 58 folks wrongly divide a lot of things including what they call "speaking in tongues"

Then you have the Jehovah's (false) Witnesses. The JWs are infamous anti-trinitarians who deny that Jesus is God This cult follows the teachings of heretick Charles Taze Russell.

all of these groups are dead wrong.

More later, this just steams me

Good day

[Aimiel]

I agree, Jesus came to earth to die in our place, and He was, and is, G_d, in the flesh. The L_rd, or Owner of all there is. He created everything there is, and it is by His Word that all the molecules hold together. It is for His Glory that creation occured. To Him be praise forever more. There is not enough adulation, praise or worship to repay Him for what He is and what He has done, is doing or will do. If we deny any part of the trinity, we run the risk of being denied ourselves. I don't want to miss out on any understanding I might learn of G_d, or on anything He has in His hand to give to me. I believe that our lives are a test, not that we pass or fail, but I believe that we are given trials and tribulations, after the truth is planted in us, so that we can know that we know that we know the truth, and nothing can prevail against the truth. He is that Truth. He is the Only Way. He is the Only Life. Amen.

[Evangelion]

Paradõsis -

Actually, God is passionless and changeless.

Changeless with regard to His characther and identity, yes, But passionless?

II Chronicles 30:8.
Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you.

Nope. No "passionless" God there.

If God is not immutable, he is not God.

True. But His immutability does not extend to His emotion. If this was the case, He would be unable to love at one time, and hate at the other time.

You have followed the path of the Early Church Fathers in accepting Greek philosophy as a means of evaluating and defining the attributes of the Father.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather accept the Scriptural version, thanks all the same.

[Aimiel]

Thank you, I am glad someone was able to defend G_d's passion. I know He is passionate about the Church, Israel, and even each and every single 'lost sheep.'

[Paradõsis]

Okie Dokie

[missedmarks]

Which view glorifies God more...

That Jesus was a man, chosen by God and empowered to be obedient to God's will. That for this obedience he was given an exalted place in the heavens, and through his sacrifice we are given a chance at eternal life.

That Jesus was God, who humbled himself to become human, lived a sinless existence (While facing the same temptations as the rest of us) and then gave his life so our sins can be forgiven.

I personally think you can believe whatever you want about the Trinity. All that the doctrine of the Trinity is, is an attempt to explain truths in the Bible that are a little beyond human comprehension.

Regardless of what you think of the Trinity, the most important thing to know is that Jesus is God.

[Evangelion]

Missedmarks -

Which view glorifies God more...

That Jesus was a man, chosen by God and empowered to be obedient to God's will. That for this obedience he was given an exalted place in the heavens, and through his sacrifice we are given a chance at eternal life.

This one.

:)

[Pilgrimagain]

in regards to the efinate article question...

In the Hebrew culture there was no definate article needed because there was only one god. Te definateness of it is assumed. Therefore if theos is used it is indicating that one God.

[biblicalanser4u]

The Bible says that God made man in His image--but it also says that God is not a man. How then are we in His image? In many ways, one of which is we ourselves are tri-partite. Look at your own self. YOU exist in three distinct persons yet you remain one man.

You have a body/flesh which is the part of you that others can see.

You have a mind where you think your thoughts and make your plans.
Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind...

You have a spirit where you feel and where your essence lies.
I Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Your body, mind and spirit are separate and distinct. My hand is a part of me, but it is not my intellect, my mind. My thoughts are a part of me, but they are not my spirit. I'll give an example. There have been times where I've seen my mind and my spirit in conflict. I'm hurt. My spirit is wounded. I'm crying and my mind says "Stop crying!" but I can't because my spirit has been wounded. Sometimes our mind and our flesh are in conflict. We know something is wrong but we are so weak and powerless that we let the flesh have its way. Paul talks about how his mind and flesh were in conflict--

Romans ...7:25 So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You are undoubtedly tripartite (body, mind, spirit) yet you remain one entity. If you and I were in the same room and I looked at you, I would only see your flesh. I could not see what you were thinking or what you were feeling. I could not see who you really are.

We bear the image of God in that we are tripartite. One of the most direct scriptures testifying of the triunity of God is 1 John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven,the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE.

[biblicalanser4u]

The Bible says that God made man in His image--but it also says that God is not a man. How then are we in His image? In many ways, one of which is we ourselves are tri-partite. Look at your own self. YOU exist in three distinct persons yet you remain one man.

You have a body/flesh which is the part of you that others can see.

You have a mind where you think your thoughts and make your plans.
Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind...

You have a spirit where you feel and where your essence lies.
I Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Your body, mind and spirit are separate and distinct. My hand is a part of me, but it is not my intellect, my mind. My thoughts are a part of me, but they are not my spirit. I'll give an example. There have been times where I've seen my mind and my spirit in conflict. I'm hurt. My spirit is wounded. I'm crying and my mind says "Stop crying!" but I can't because my spirit has been wounded. Sometimes our mind and our flesh are in conflict. We know something is wrong but we are so weak and powerless that we let the flesh have its way. Paul talks about how his mind and flesh were in conflict--

Romans ...7:25 So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You are undoubtedly tripartite (body, mind, spirit) yet you remain one entity. If you and I were in the same room and I looked at you, I would only see your flesh. I could not see what you were thinking or what you were feeling. I could not see who you really are.

We bear the image of God in that we are tripartite. One of the most direct scriptures testifying of the triunity of God is 1 John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven,the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE.

[theophilus]

John 1:1 -

Nominative and Accusative Definite Articles (First and Second Declension Nouns)...

FYI - The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like "is" (i.e. a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case - the predicate nominative. In the sentence, "John is a man," "John" is the subject and "man" is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and the predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in the Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to determine subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

As we have said, word order is especially employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of the word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1. The English versions typically have, "and the Word was God," But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads: "kai theos en ha logos" or, "and God was the Word." We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: "and the Word was God." Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was theos thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: "What God was, the Word was" is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of God (the Father.) That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, "the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism."

To state this another way, look at how different Greek constructions would be rendered: "kai ha logos en ha theos" - "and the Word was the God" (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism), "kai ha logos en theos" - "and the Word was a God" (i.e., Arianism), "kai theos en ha logos" - "and the Word was God" (Orthodoxy). Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes the Father has. But He is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in "kai theos en ha logos." -David Wallace

[theophilus]

Someone asked if God were three persons, why didn't we call Him "they." The following was my answer:

God has one essence and three persons; He has one "What" and three "Whos." The three Whos (persons) each share the same What (essence). So God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is different, yet they share a common nature.

God is one in His substance. The unity is in His essence (what God is), and the plurality is in God's persons (how He relates within Himself).

This is why we call God "He."

"The reason why we cannot understand the "Trinity" is that there is nothing to understand. It is a philosophy of man, born out of gnostism and Plato-ism, not taught by the disciples, nor by Jesus, nor by the Bible. Easy to understand: God is one person, and there is none like him, none beside him. Read Isaiah 43-46."

God is one, and that is why the Bible uses singular personal pronouns like "he, I, his, mine, my, " etc. Not hard to figure out, not a mystery, not something strange and allusive. Plain and simple.

The "holy spirit of God" is just that ... God's spirit, not another "personage". You have a spirit... and is that spirit a seperate person from yoour body, your soul, your heart, your mind?
Example: In the book of Hebrews, when the "holy spirit" said "they shall never enter my rest..." (chpt 3-4).... All you need to do is look up the context in Numbers and Deut, and you will find that it was YHWH ( singular proper noun: "He IS" ) spoke those words. Therefore, one can conclude that "YHWH" and "holy spirit of God" refers to the one and same "person".

No mystery, no confusion. Simple. God is one. No need to call him "they".

Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. The logic of the doctrine of the Trinity is simple. Two biblical truths are evident in scripture, the logical conclusion of which is the Trinity: 1. There is one God; 2. There are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

The Trinity is one of the greates mysteries of the Christian faith. Unlike an antimony (read Kant) or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason. It is known only by divine revelation and is not the subject of "natural" theology (see Heb. 1:1-3, 11:1 and 2 Tim. 3:16, 17). It has been confirmed by miracles (Matt. 3:16, 17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21, 22; John 1:32-34).

The O.T. constantly insists that there is only one God, the self-revealed Creator, who must be worshipped and loved exclusively (Deut. 6:4, 5; Isa. 44:6 - 45:25) and the N.T. agrees (Mark 12:29-30; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5) but speaks of three personal agents, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, working together to bring about salvation (Rom. 8; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14; 1 Pet. 1:2).

So, the bible itself teaches the Trinity.

Jesus taught of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19) If there were no Trinity, He would have commanded us to go and baptize people in the name of the Father, and of an exalted man, and of a certain influence of the Father.

Paul taught the Trinity. 2 Cor. 13:14 says, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all." It doesn't say, "The grace of a creature and the love of the Creator and the communion of creative energy be with you all."

Peter recognized the Father and the Son and spoke of a third divine person in Acts 5:3, 4.

John teaches the Trinity in his prayer for grace and peace from the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ in Rev. 1:4, 5.

The Trinity is throughout scripture though the technical language of historic trinitarianism is not found there. Trinitarian faith and thinking are present in all of scripture. In that sense the Trinity must be acknowledged as a biblical doctrine; an eternal truth aboout God which, though never explicit in the O.T., is plain and clear in the N.T.

The basic assertion of this doctrine is that the unity of the one God is complex. The three personal "subsistences" (as they are called) are coequal and coeternal centers of self-awareness, each being "I" in relation to two who are "You" and each partaking of the full divine essence along with the other two. They are not three roles played by one person (that is modalism), nor are they three gods in a cluster (that is tritheism); the one God ("He") is also, and equally, "they," and "they" are always together and always cooperating, with the Father initiationg, the Son complying, and the Spirit executing the will of both, which is His will also. This is the truth about God that was revealed through the words and works of Jesus, and that undergirds the reality of salvation as the N.T. sets it forth.

See the response to the first quote for the bible's usage of singular, personal pronouns. God is one God and three persons. God is He. Your argument in the above quote is with Him and His Word, not with us.

***1 Jn 5:7 is not in the original greek

***We have to question it because God declares himself to be "one". One in greek and Hebrew means one as in the #1, one only.

Right and wrong.

"One" in Hebrew: Yachead is the O.T. word used for absolute unity; a mathematical or numerical one. It is used about twelve times in the O.T., but never to describe the unity of God (Gen. 22:2; Zech. 12:10).

Echad however speaks of a compound or collective unity. In marriage "the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24); a crowd can gather together "as one" (Ezek. 3:1); or be of one mind or heart: "All the rest of Israel were of one heart to make David king" (1 Chron. 12:38). This is the compound plural ALWAYS used of God when He is called "one" Lord.

There aren't cognates between the hebrew and the greek.

"One" in Greek: "eta nu" or "en." One is one and the context and surrounding words determine the meaning of the "one." A good example is John 17:11, "...that they may be one, as We are." Also used is "mu iota alpha sigma" or "mias." Single or one or first or likeness of one. See 1 Tim. 3:2, "...of one woman."

The lack of a collective "one" in the greek is why the writers named the Members of the Trinity seperately.

Regarding 1 John 5:7, 8 - You are correct when stating that these verses did not appear in early manuscripts. They do not appear in any greek manuscript dated before the tenth century A.D. Only 8 very late greek manuscripts contain the reading, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of those 8 mss. contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quote them; no ancient version except the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate).

If you all were on a debate team you would be soundly thrashed. If you want to succeed in your arguments you have to address each SPECIFIC point that I have brought using the biblical and secular historical record, knowledge of church history, and sound hermenuetical procedures. You have done none of these.

But, you don't do this. You tell people to go look things up for themselves. Why would anyone with a neuron accept your arguments anyway? Your definitions are wrong, your premises are faulty and you condemn the Catholic church. How does one study for thirty years and still be such an ***? Prov. 3:7 to you "brother."

No where did Jesus teach that the holy spirit was a seperate person .... not even in John 14-16.

Nice try. Read John 14:26; John 15:26, 27 and John 16:7-15.

End of point.

[Evangelion]

Oh come on, Theophilus - I expected better from you. :down: Most of your rebuttal was simply plagiarised (without a single word of acknowledgement!) from Dr Norman Geisler.

Here, I'll quote it for you:

__________

The Trinity-Part One.
By Dr. Norman Geisler.

Trinity simply means "triunity." God is not a simple unity; there is plurality in his unity. The Trinity is one of the great mysteries of the Christian Faith. Unlike an antinomy or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason. It is known only by divine revelation, so the Trinity is not the subject of natural theology but of revelation.

The Basis for the Trinity.

While the word Trinity does not occur there, the concept is clearly taught in the Bible. The logic of the doctrine of the Trinity is simple. Two biblical truths are evident in Scripture, the logical conclusion of which is the Trinity:

1. There is one God.

2. There are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

One God.
The central teaching of Judaism called the Shema proclaims: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6:4). When Jesus was asked the question, "What is the greatest commandment?" he prefaced the answer by quoting theShema (Mark 12:29). In spite of his strong teaching on the deity of Christ (cf. Col. 2:9), the apostle Paul said emphatically, "there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live" (1 Cor. 8:6).

From beginning to end, the Scriptures speak of one God and label all other gods as false (Exod. 20:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6). The Bible also recognizes a plurality of persons in God. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not as explicit in the Old Testament as the New Testament, nonetheless, there are passages where members of the Godhead are distinguished. At times they even speak to one another (see Ps. 110:1).

__________

This article may be found at www.ankerberg.com, which is probably where you got it from in the first place. :rolleyes:

By the way, you might want to look into the word "echad." It doesn't mean what you think it means...

[theophilus]

Actually I put my answer together from a pile of books beside my computer. Originally it was posted at another site. Maybe I should have made THAT more clear.

The persons involved in the original thread were quoting Geisler, Packer, Bruce, Moreland, etc. It was a long thread and the participants were citing their authors.

I brought the shortened version of one of my replies here for the reference to 1 John 5:7.

Your plagiarism accusation is blatantly false. So is your accusation of where the material came from.

:)

About "echad." What do you think it means?

[Evangelion]

Well, I dunno, Theophilus... it all seems rather fishy to me. :rolleyes: I'm not convinced that you've disproved my accusation, and in any case, since you didn't cite your sources, you've plagiarised by definition.

As for "echad" - well, that's an easy one.

Read your Bible.

:)


PS. I'll be back to discuss this tomorrow. In the meantime, I suggest that a copy of Brown-Driver-Briggs might come in handy. ;)

[theophilus]

I stole from, in toto.

The burden of proof falls upon you.

I do my own work the hard way...with books...from my own library.

I always cite my sources. Always.

I posted a response. You have accused me of theft. Now prove it.

I am innocent.

[Evangelion]

Love the melodramatics, Theophilus. I don't get to see this kind of performance too often. :p

Anyway, seeing as I've already cited a large proportion of the original article, and told you where this same article can be found, I may as well take it to the next level. :D

First, I'll give you a hotlink to the article in .PDF format. You can download it here. (www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/ theological-dictionary/TD1W0100.pdf)

Next, I'll copy/paste the entire article in toto.

___________

The Trinity - Part One.
By Dr. Norman Geisler.


Trinity simply means "triunity." God is not a simple unity; there is plurality in his unity. The Trinity is one of the great mysteries of the Christian Faith. Unlike an antinomy or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason. It is known only by divine revelation, so the Trinity is not the subject of natural theology but of revelation.

The Basis for the Trinity.
While the word Trinity does not occur there, the concept is clearly taught in the Bible. The logic of the doctrine of the Trinity is simple. Two biblical truths are evident in Scripture,the logical conclusion of which is the Trinity:

1. There is one God.

2. There are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

One God.
The central teaching of Judaism called the Shema proclaims: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6:4). When Jesus was asked the question, "What is the greatest commandment?" he prefaced the answer by quoting the Shema (Mark 12:29). In spite of his strong teaching on the deity of Christ (cf. Col. 2:9), the apostle Paul said emphatically, "there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live" (1 Cor. 8:6). From beginning to end, the Scriptures speak of one God and label all other gods as false (Exod. 20:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6). The Bible also recognizes a plurality of persons in God. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not as explicit in the Old Testament as the New Testament, nonetheless, there are passages where members of the Godhead are distinguished. At times they even speak to one another (see Ps. 110:1).

The Father Is God.
Throughout Scripture God is said to be a Father. Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father in heaven" (Matt. 6:9). God is not only "our heavenly Father" (Matt. 6:32) but the "Father of our spirits" (Heb. 12:9). As God, he is the object of worship.Jesus told the woman of Samaria, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks" (John 4:23). God is not only called "our Father" (Rom. 1:7) many timesbut also "the Father" (John 5:45; 6:27). He is also called "God and Father" (2 Cor. 1:3). Paul proclaimed that "there is but one God, the Father" (I Cor. 8:6). Additionally, God is referred to as the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 15:6). Indeed, the Father and the Son are often related by these very names in the same verse (Matt. 11:27; 1 John 2:22).

The Son Is God.
The deity of Christ is treated in the section on attacks on the Trinity and more extensively in Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics in an article entitled [i]Christ, Deity of. As a broad overview it should he noted that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh God. YHWH, translated in some versions Jehovah, was the special name of God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, when God said, "I AM WHO IAM." In John 8:58, Jesus declares: "Before Abraham was born, I am." This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the "I AM"of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around him clearly understood his meaning and picked up stones to kill him for blas-pheming (see Mark 14:62; John 8:58; 10:31-33; 18:5-6). Jesus also said, "I am the first and the last (Rev. 2:8).


Jesus took the glory of God.
Isaiah wrote, "I am the LORD [Yahweh], that is my name! I will not give my glory to another; or my praise to idols" (42:8) and, "This is what the LORD[Yahweh] says . . . I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God" (44:6). Likewise, Jesus prayed, "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (John 17:5). But Yahweh had said he would not give his glory to another.

While the Old Testament forbids giving worship to anyone other than God (Exod. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9), Jesus accepted worship (Matt. 8:2; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:17; Mark 5:6).

The disciples attributed to him titles the Old Testament reserved for God, such as, "the first and the last" (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13), "the true light" (John 1:9), "the "rock" or "stone" (1 Cor.10:4; 1 Peter 2:6-8; cf. Ps. 18:2; 95:1), the "bridegroom" (Eph. 5:28-33; Rev. 21:2), "the chief Shepherd" (I Peter 5:4), and "the great shepherd" (Heb. 13:20).

They attributed to Jesus the divine activities of creating (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-16), redeeming (Hosea 13:14;Ps. 130:7), forgiving (Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13; cf. Ps. 130:4; Jer: 31:34), and judging (John5:27). They used titles of deity for Jesus. Thomas declared: "My Lord and my God!" (John20:28). Paul calls Jesus the one in whom "the fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9). In Titus, Jesus is called, "our great God and savior" (2:13), and the writer to the Hebrews says of him, "Thy throne, O God, is forever" (Heb. 1:8). Paul says that, before Christ existed as a human being, he existed as God (Phil. 2:5-8). Hebrews 1:3 says that Christ reflects God's glory, bears the stamp of his nature, and upholds the universe. The prologue to John's Gospel also minces no words, stating, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God" (John 1:1).

Jesus claimed equality with God in other ways. He claimed the prerogatives of God. He claimed to be Judge of all (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:27-30), but Joel quotes Yahweh assaying, "for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side" (Joel 3:12). He said to a paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5b). The scribes correctly responded, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (vs. 7b). Jesus claimed the power to raise and judge thedead, a power which only God possesses (John 5:21, 29). But the Old Testament clearly taught that only God was the giver of life (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6) and the one to raise the dead (Psa. 71:20).

Jesus claimed the honor due God, saying, "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him" (John 5:23b). The Jews listening knew that no one should claim to be equal with God in this way and again they reached for stones (John 5:18). When asked at his Jewish trial, "Are you the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Blessed One?" Jesus responded, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand ofthe Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61-62).

The Holy Spirit Is God.
The same revelation from God that declares Christ to be the Sonof God also mentions another member of the triunity of God called the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit. He too is equally God with the Father and the Son, and he too is a distinct person.The Holy Spirit is called "God" (Acts 5:3-4). He possesses the attributes of deity, suchas omnipresence (cf. Ps. 139:7-12) and omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10, 11). He is associated with God the Father in creation (Gen. 1:2). He is involved with other members of the Godhead in the work of redemption (John 3:5-6; Rom. 8:9-17, 27; Titus 3:5-7). He is associated with other members of the Trinity under the "name" of God (Matt. 28:18-20). Finally,the Holy Spirit appears, along with the Father and Son, in New Testament benedictions (forexample, 2 Cor. 13:14).

Not only does the Holy Spirit possess deity but he also has a differentiated personality. That he is a distinct person is clear in that Scripture refers to "him" with personal pronouns(John 14:26; 16:13). Second, he does things only persons can do, such as teach (John 14:26;1 John 2:27), convict of sin (John 16:7-11), and be grieved by sin (Eph. 4:30). Finally, the HolySpirit has intellect (I Cor. 2:10,11), will (1 Cor. 12:11), and feeling (Eph. 4:30).

That the three members of the Trinity are distinct persons is clear in that each is mentioned in distinction from the others. The Son prayed to the Father (cf. John 17). The Father spoke from heaven about the Son at his baptism (Matt. 3:15-17). Indeed, the Holy Spirit was present at the same time, revealing that they coexist. Further, the fact that they have separate titles (Father, Son, and Spirit) indicate they are not one person. Also, each member of the Trinity has special functions that help us to identify them. For example, the Father planned salvation (John 3:16; Eph. 1:4); the Son accomplished it on the cross (John17:4; 19:30; Heb. 1:1-2) and at the resurrection (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-6), and the Holy Spirit applies it to the lives of the believers (John 3:5; Eph. 4:30; Titus 3:5-7). The Son submits to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28), and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John16:14).

___________


There's obviously another part to it, but I couldn't find the link. Still, I've proved my point, and that's the main thing.

Incidentally, I have Geisler's Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics sitting right here on my desk next to me, and I can tell you right now that most of the article above is word-for-word identical with Geisler's entry on the Trinity. I have only spotted a couple of discrepancies so far - one of which is the reference to Kant in the third sentence, which you added yourself. (I guess you must have the Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics too, eh?) So if you didn't get it from www.ankerberg.com (or a similar Website), you must have copied it from Geisler's book.

Either way, you obviously didn't cite your source in this case.

;)

[ya'nar]

Evangelion,

Time to drop down from the high horse a tad. Now, I know you admire yourself as a wordsmith, and revel in debate. That is fine. That is you, and no one need conform to you, exemplar that you may be.

For those who know Theophilus, and have for a long time, we know her somewhat differently. She researches things when asked. Her library is extensive, as extensive as her determination to seek.

You've accused her of plagiarism. I've gone over, in detail, what she posted, and what you showed. You are stretching real hard to discredit someone. She does and did refer to Geisler, and others. In my first debate with her a long time ago, before we fell in love and were married, she did the same.

In this piece, you are correct, she did not cite sources. But it was far from the copy/paste you have accused her of, and the burden is on you, not her.

However, her sources were several, as they usually are.

Now, about plagiarism. What's your definition? It is true, in a strict sense, of using someone else's material or writing, without citing. But the 'spirit' of that has always been about using such to one's personal benefit: the student who plagiarizes and passes something off to obtain a grade, the author who seeks royalties from someone else's work, the charlatan who professes 'this is my work', expecting accolades.

Theophilus does none of those, friend. Never has. She also, when copy/pasting in toto, cite sources, regularly.

You are trying an ad hominem to discredit her on the strictest possible application of plagiarism. She did not copy paste. She did refer to sources, and come up with her own post.

So, let me ask you this, in the 'strict' sense. In another post, you had this:

Evolution can only advance a species if:
„h That species continues to reproduce.
„h The fittest and most well-adapted members of that species are the ones who reproduce most often.
„h Any mutations within that species are beneficial to the continued survival of the species.
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=20217#post20217

Are those completely your original thoughts? You discovered and verified these tenets all on your own? You didn't copy/paste, you may well have phrased it entirely yourself, but was the idea totally and originally yours? Yes? No? Or did you use your own words to express things developed by others?

Plagiarizing: (Merriam-Webster)
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

Bubba, find where she copy/pasted this, which was your charge.

I've looked carefully at what you showed, and what she wrote, and where there are that which overlaps, there is no outright taking. Her thoughts and conclusions are there, based upon what she did research.

How far do you want to go with 'crediting'? I have taken folks to task before for entire copy/paste jobs expressly passed off as their own, even to claiming how much 'work' they put into it.

But Theo and I sit side by side at our terminals when she does these things. The books crouch in on my mousepad. I have to be careful walking lest I trip over them.

That's not plagiarism in my understanding, but perhaps to you, if you are that much of a legalist.

So where'd you get those three precepts about evolution? I've just done a Google search and can find the three paraphrased repeatedly at other sites.

Can I accuse you of plagiarism?

Students are required, it is true, to give their sources for such as papers, but they do indeed gather ideas and information from other sources, and are even expected to. If a student leaves out a footnote with a source, is that plagiarsim, or is the bar a bit higher than that? And is it wrong for the student to use such sources?

Your charge that she copy/pasted this is purely false, and you owe her an apology.

And hey, apologies are good for the soul. I offered you one, when I was clearly in the wrong and without excuse.

Denis

[Freak]

Evangelion,

Ya'nar is correct you owe Theo an apology. For once humble yourself.

[Brother Vinny]

Rock n' roll, Denis!

It's good to see a man stand up for his wife! Shows character!

[Knight]

Based on threads I have read tonight, Evangelion isn't having a very good week.

[Evangelion]

Ya'nar -

Time to drop down from the high horse a tad.

There's no high horse here. The very most you can accuse me of is honesty. :)

Now, I know you admire yourself as a wordsmith

I don't "admire myself" as anything, and I'll thank you to stop attributing motives, which is precisely what you accused me of doing.

and revel in debate.

I don't "revel in debate." Debate comes to me, because so many of the fine Christian folks here at T.O.L. want to grab me by the collar and yell "You're a cultist!!!!" in my face. So I stand up for myself, and - bingo! We have a debate.

That is fine. That is you, and no one need conform to you, exemplar that you may be.

I have never held myself up as an exemplar, and I have never demanded that others "conform to me."

For those who know Theophilus, and have for a long time, we know her somewhat differently.

"Differently"? Different to what? You are accusing me of viewing her in a different light, which is not true. I am not imputing motives, nor have I made any attack on her character. I am not accusing her of being a certain type of person - I am merely pointing out that she did not acknowledge a source, despite having lifted a slab of material from it, word for word.

She researches things when asked.

I know she does. I have seen her do it on several other threads.

Her library is extensive

The same is true of many people here - including myself.

as extensive as her determination to seek.

See above.

You've accused her of plagiarism. I've gone over, in detail, what she posted, and what you showed.

So you see that she plagiarised.

You are stretching real hard to discredit someone.

I am not stretching hard, and you're playing the sympathy card when you claim that I am trying to discredit her. I am not doing anything of the kind.

Let's compare Theophilus' post with the word of Geisler's Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, which I have open before me right now. I'll put them side by side, with Theophilus in read, and Geisler in blue:

Two biblical truths are evident in scripture, the logical conclusion of which is the Trinity:
Two biblical truths are evident in Scripture,the logical conclusion of which is the Trinity:


1. There is one God;
1. There is one God.


2. There are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. There are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


The Trinity is one of the greates mysteries of the Christian faith.
The Trinity is one of the great mysteries (see MYSTERY) of the Christian Faith.


Unlike an antimony (read Kant) or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason.
Unlike an antinomy (see KANT) or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason.


It is known only by divine revelation and is not the subject of "natural" theology (see Heb. 1:1-3, 11:1 and 2 Tim. 3:16, 17).
It is known only by divine revelation, so the Trinity is not the subject of "natural" theology but of revelation (see REVELATION, SPECIAL.)

For the next section, I shall have to spread my net further afield. Let's read what Theophilus had posted, and then compare it with an article which I have since found on several different Trinitarian Websites - none of which give any credit to an original source:

The O.T. constantly insists that there is only one God, the self-revealed Creator, who must be worshipped and loved exclusively (Deut. 6:4, 5; Isa. 44:6 - 45:25) and the N.T. agrees (Mark 12:29-30; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5) but speaks of three personal agents, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, working together to bring about salvation (Rom. 8; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14; 1 Pet. 1:2).

You will find this exact paragraph in a large article here. (http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bobmary/FAQ.htm) It has also been copy/pasted onto a discussion board here (http://pub3.ezboard.com/fxprojectforumfrm12.showMessage?topicID=179.topic) , which is clearly a plagiarised version of the article found here. (http://www.new-life.org/pastor/Trinity.htm)

Theophilus also wrote this...

The basic assertion of this doctrine is that the unity of the one God is complex. The three personal "subsistences" (as they are called) are coequal and coeternal centers of self-awareness, each being "I" in relation to two who are "You" and each partaking of the full divine essence along with the other two. They are not three roles played by one person (that is modalism), nor are they three gods in a cluster (that is tritheism); the one God ("He") is also, and equally, "they," and "they" are always together and always cooperating, with the Father initiationg, the Son complying, and the Spirit executing the will of both, which is His will also.

...which can be found at the message board to which I previously referred (here (http://pub3.ezboard.com/fxprojectforumfrm12.showMessage?topicID=179.topic) ), where it looks like this:

Basically the doctrine is that the unity of the one God is complex. The three personal “subsistences” (as they are called) are coequal and coeternal centers of self-awareness, each being “I” in relation to two who are “You,” and each having the full divine essence of God, the specific existence that belongs to God alone. God is not one person who plays three separate roles; this is the error called “modalism.” Nor are there three gods who only seem to be one because they always act together; this is “tritheism.”

The same paragraph can be found here (http://www.new-life.org/pastor/Trinity.htm), under the title "The basic assertion of this doctrine is that the unity of the one God is complex." It is plagiarised again, over here. (http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bobmary/FAQ.htm)

When Theophilus wrote this...

The Trinity is throughout scripture though the technical language of historic trinitarianism is not found there. Trinitarian faith and thinking are present in all of scripture. In that sense the Trinity must be acknowledged as a biblical doctrine; an eternal truth aboout God which, though never explicit in the O.T., is plain and clear in the N.T.

...she was (once again) using material from the same article to which I have previously referred, in which this paragraph appears as follows:

Though the technical language of historic trinitarianism is not found there, trinitarian faith and thinking are present throughout its pages, and in that sense the Trinity must be acknowledged as a biblical doctrine: an eternal truth about God which, though never explicit in the Old Testament, is plain and clear in the New.

And what is the original source of this much-plagiarised article? I don't know...

...yet. But I'll keep hunting, because it's bound to turn up sooner or later. :)

Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source. I see this time and time again on Trinitarian Websites - particularly on discussion boards. Trinitarians are in the habit of copy/pasting lists of proof texts that they have never actually studied themselves, entire paragraphs from articles and essays which they never wrote, and arguments which they frequently do not understand. Very rarely will a plagiarist go back and study the original material in order to validate its claims. This demonstrates the extent to which Trinitarians are prepared to accept what they are told, without questioning (a) the source, (b) the material, or (c) the logic involved. Indeed, Trinitarian apologetics is largely reliant on the unquestioning submission of people who do not study their Bibles in any depth whatsoever.

She does and did refer to Geisler, and others.

She did in her later post, but not in the one that I'm talking about.

In my first debate with her a long time ago, before we fell in love and were married, she did the same.

On this occasion, however, she did not.

In this piece, you are correct, she did not cite sources.

Thankyou. The charge of plagiarism, therefore, is both accurate and proved.

But it was far from the copy/paste you have accused her of, and the burden is on you, not her.

Firstly, I accept that the material from Geisler was not a copy/paste. I accept that she is telling the truth when she says that she copied it out from her books.

Thus:

Actually I put my answer together from a pile of books beside my computer.

One of these books must have been Geisler's Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, which (as I have already pointed out) I own myself. The rest of it may have been plagiarised from an original source which (as I have since demonstrated) various other Trinitarians have happily plagiarised - or it may have come from the Websites to which I have referred.

However, her sources were several, as they usually are.

I have never denied it. But she did not reference her sources. That's what I'm claiming, and that's what I proved.

Now, about plagiarism. What's your definition?

I use the definition that is found in The Chambers Dictionary.

It is true, in a strict sense, of using someone else's material or writing, without citing.

Especially when it's copied word for word, without a single reference to the original source.

But the 'spirit' of that has always been about using such to one's personal benefit: the student who plagiarizes and passes something off to obtain a grade, the author who seeks royalties from someone else's work, the charlatan who professes 'this is my work', expecting accolades.

No, motivation is irrelevant. That is "stretching" it indeed.

Theophilus does none of those, friend. Never has.

I never spoke a word about her motives. This is irrelevant.

She also, when copy/pasting in toto, cite sources, regularly.

But in this case, she copied out (word for word), material that she passed off as her own without acknowledging her sources. That is plagiarism.

You are trying an ad hominem

It is not an ad hominem, it is simply accurate. I have made no judgement of her character, nor have I imputed motives.

to discredit her

Imputing motives again, eh? Sorry, but that won't wash.

on the strictest possible application of plagiarism.

There's no "strictest possible application" about it. If anything, I am using the standard definition.

She did not copy paste.

I accept that she did not copy/paste. She copied it out by typing the material word for word, with the Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics at her side.

She did refer to sources

In the post with which I have taken issue, she referred to no sources whatsoever. Only later did she "refer to sources."

and come up with her own post.

She came up with her own post, but failed to acknowledge that some of that post consisted of plagiarised material.

So, let me ask you this, in the 'strict' sense. In another post, you had this:

Quote:
Evolution can only advance a species if:
„h That species continues to reproduce.
„h The fittest and most well-adapted members of that species are the ones who reproduce most often.
„h Any mutations within that species are beneficial to the continued survival of the species.

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbull...20217#post20217

Are those completely your original thoughts?

No, they are (for the most part) universally accepted principles. Reference to universally accepted principles is not plagiarism.

You discovered and verified these tenets all on your own?

I didn't have to. I wasn't using anyone else's work - I was referring to universally accepted principles.

You didn't copy/paste, you may well have phrased it entirely yourself, but was the idea totally and originally yours? Yes? No?

No. And in this case, it doesn't have to be, either.

Or did you use your own words to express things developed by others?

I did indeed. But of course, this is not plagiarism.

Bubba, find where she copy/pasted this, which was your charge.

I have already given her (a) the entire article in toto, (b) a hotlink to the Website in which the article appears, which is where I believed she had taken it from. In addition to this, I have also followed up the rest of her post, and discovered that she made extensive use of original material which other Trinitarians have repeatedly plagiarised. Did she take it from an original source, or copy/paste it from the other plagiarists? I don't know. But the point is made, and the charge of plagiarism is undeniably accurate.

I've looked carefully at what you showed, and what she wrote, and where there are that which overlaps, there is no outright taking.

I have since demonstrated that there certainly was "outright taking" - and not just from Geisler, but from another original source which has clearly been plagiarised by others.

Her thoughts and conclusions are there, based upon what she did research.

Her thoughts and conclusions are certainly there - deep within a forest of plagiarised material.

How far do you want to go with 'crediting'?

Standard referencing is very easy to do. You might want to review some of the threads in which I have made extensive use of citations. I always give (a) the author's name, (b) the date of publication, and (c) the title of the work in question. I use italics for the cited material, and I place the referencing in bold.

I have taken folks to task before for entire copy/paste jobs expressly passed off as their own, even to claiming how much 'work' they put into it.

Then you'll understand why I take issue with your wife.

But Theo and I sit side by side at our terminals when she does these things. The books crouch in on my mousepad. I have to be careful walking lest I trip over them.

That's not plagiarism in my understanding, but perhaps to you, if you are that much of a legalist.

I am not a "legalist." There's no need to be.

So where'd you get those three precepts about evolution?

If you check the context of my remarks, you will find that I was not defining evolution, but making a point against evolution.

Thus:

____________

Evolution can only advance a species if:

That species continues to reproduce.

The fittest and most well-adapted members of that species are the ones who reproduce most often.

Any mutations within that species are beneficial to the continued survival of the species.

I suggest to you that homosexuality is not condusive to the propagation of a species.

____________

If you can find an evolutionist who wrote this at some stage, we may have a "plagiarism" charge on our hands.

I've just done a Google search and can find the three paraphrased repeatedly at other sites.

"Paraphrased", eh? (In other words, you can't find any place where the exact same words occur, much less an original source from which they were plagiarised.) Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, since my entire post consisted of (a) three truisms, and (b) an opinion. If, for example, I say "Gravity increases with mass", I am merely repeating a universal principle. I am not plagiarising anybody.

Here, let me show you:

Evolution can only advance a species if:

I reckon you could find that sentence just about anywhere in the world. It's so short and so precise that it's bound to turn up in almost every piece of written work on evolution.

That species continues to reproduce.

A truism (obviously.) No plagiarism here. Too short, too precise, and clearly universal. It's also qualified by the previous statement.

The fittest and most well-adapted members of that species are the ones who reproduce most often.

See above.

Any mutations within that species are beneficial to the continued survival of the species.

See above.

I suggest to you that homosexuality is not condusive to the propagation of a species.

That's clearly my own opinion. I doubt you will find too many evolutionists who would say this in public - although Dr Peter Singer might be radical enough to shout it from the rooftops! :o


Can I accuse you of plagiarism?

No. :)

Students are required, it is true, to give their sources for such as papers, but they do indeed gather ideas and information from other sources, and are even expected to. If a student leaves out a footnote with a source, is that plagiarsim, or is the bar a bit higher than that? And is it wrong for the student to use
such sources?

The issue is not the use of sources, but the lack of acknowledgement. Please address the issue.

Your charge that she copy/pasted this is purely false, and you owe her an apology.

You're being pedantic in order to gain an apology because I was merely incorrect with regard to the mode of transmission. That's OK, I can handle it. :) So I apologise for accusing her of copy/pasting the material in question. I accept that she plagiarised it by copying word for word from Geisler's Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, adding plagiarised material from an as-yet-unidentified source which other Trinitarians have been plagiarising all over the Internet. :)

And hey, apologies are good for the soul.

As one who has given many apologies during his lifetime, I can only agree.

I offered you one, when I was clearly in the wrong and without excuse.

And I accepted it, and I thank you for it again.

:)

[Evangelion]

Freak -

Evangelion,

Ya'nar is correct you owe Theo an apology. For once humble yourself.

You're a pompous hypocrite. :p


Paul -

Rock n' roll, Denis!

It's good to see a man stand up for his wife! Shows character!

While I commend his character, I would remind him that it makes no sense to defend the indefensible.


Knight -

Based on threads I have read tonight, Evangelion isn't having a very good week.

You wish! :p

Any time you want to debate theology, just let me know. ;) It's always easier to sit on the sidelines and cheer those who are confident enough to stand up for what they believe...

...especially when you're not prepared to do it yourself.

:p

[Evangelion]

Incidentally, Trinitarians have been known to invent entire quotes and claim that these came from an original, authoritative source.

I can provide a classic example, if anyone's interested.

:)

[missedmarks]

I love all you guys :)

[Evangelion]

Uh... thanks mate. :up:

:)

[ya'nar]

Evangelion,

You have the dubious honor of having gotten my attention. Sharp attention, and you've given yourself away.

I've perused quite a few of your posts, in trying to get a better understanding of your thoughts and how you operate. With much of it, I am duly impressed. You do stress that virtually everything you write is your own, and in the minimal places where this is otherwise, you do cite sources. You are also, evidently, proud and confident of what you do. That is not said as a negative, by the way. You offer challenges. You use, often (and even well justified), sarcasm to belittle your opponents. You're a debater, Evangelion.

And yes, it takes one to know one, and if you have flaws, which no doubt you do, as do we all, that I may recognize some of them is simply because - we share them. I too am a debater, occasionally condescending and all too often sarcastic.

But, Evangelion, you turned your guns on the wrong target for the wrong reasons. To the beginning.

The first post in section 2 of this thread was by Theo. It was a 'sourced' (by Theo) quote from David Wallace. The second post is the 'brouhaha' - where Theo tells right off that this came from another discussion. She even left in the quotes from the other party in that discussion that she was addressing.

That's when you accused her not only of plagiarism, but of copy/pasting this from an article by Geisler, even claiming that this was probably the site she got it from. Theo replied, and honestly, that she did cherry pick this one reply from a long conversation at another site, apologized if she didn't make that clear (I think it was), and told you she had compiled this answer, back then, from a host of books, including from Geisler. That's all true.

You came back with:

Well, I dunno, Theophilus... it all seems rather fishy to me. I'm not convinced that you've disproved my accusation.

Now friend, I always, ALWAYS, have a real problem with people being required to disprove accusations. Burden is on the wrong side.

Then Theo told you how she does this, from books, and with hard work and study, and does cite her sources. She did not deny that these things came from other places, but told you she gets them from various books. You chose not to believe her. Instead, you went on a search to find that, gosh, some of those passages could be found at other places. Evangelion, I can do that with almost any quote! That the same thing is on the Net does not mean it was not found in a printed book, and for you to draw that connection as an immutable flow is absurd!

A; I got this from my studies, and found it in a book.

B: No, since it is on the Internet, you must have gotten it from there!

Absolute rubbish!

You have apologized for claiming this was a copy/paste, and that is good. You also accused Theo of taking most of this all from a single article, with an insinuation:

This article may be found at www.ankerberg.com, which is probably where you got it from in the first place.

Evangelion, Theo did take this, as she said, from another thread at another site, that she posted. That's obvious since she is replying to things not said in this discussion. That she did not cite her sources is either oversight, or what you try so damnably hard to make of it - intentional deceit and a character flaw.

I told you about how Theo does this stuff. You and she are not the same. You use your own words, are apparently proud of that, and it works for you. Theo looks things up, is not either as confident or proud of her own words, but is and always has been an earnest student and one willing to make effort to get answers for others, especially those who ask.

I pointed out that in the post just before the one in question, she did cite the source. In a 'getting to know who you are dealing with', try these, from another site. Whether they are entire articles, or just comments, or definitions, Theo regularly cites. These are a mix, of MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, Novak, Mother Theresa, Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary, Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, etc:

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=19162&highlight=sproul#post19162

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=18430&highlight=macarthur#post18430

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=19058&highlight=macarthur#post19058

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=19545&highlight=macarthur#post19545

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=18424&highlight=piper#post18424

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=18423&highlight=piper#post18423

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=18420&highlight=piper#post18420

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=19026&highlight=spurgeon#post19026

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=19024&highlight=spurgeon#post19024

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=18628&highlight=theresa#post18628

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=14727&highlight=darwin#post14727

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=13818&highlight=pope#post13818

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=16722&highlight=dictionary#post16722

http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=17155&highlight=dictionary#post17155
http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?postid=16832&highlight=dictionary#post16832

Here's 'hindsight', Evangelion, usually my personal 'best sight'. If asked if she got this from other sources, and what they were, Theo would have not only replied honestly, but would have eagerly recommended the books. She always does. What happened, though, is that she was immediately charged with something untoward and unwholesome, and this was insisted upon, by you, as being the case. Further, you insisted this could not be oversight or anything else, but absolutely contrary to your disclaimer that you were not attacking her character, you very much were doing so, and for a polemical reason.

You've proved that, and that your purpose was the ad hominem attack to score points and discredit another by that.

You wrote:

"Differently"? Different to what? You are accusing me of viewing her in a different light, which is not true. I am not imputing motives, nor have I made any attack on her character. I am not accusing her of being a certain type of person - I am merely pointing out that she did not acknowledge a source, despite having lifted a slab of material from it, word for word.

and...

I am not stretching hard, and you're playing the sympathy card when you claim that I am trying to discredit her. I am not doing anything of the kind.

Really? REALLY????Try this:

Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source. I see this time and time again on Trinitarian Websites - particularly on discussion boards.

Check and mate on a text book standard ad hominem attack. That's why this couldn't be innocent oversight, or anything other than a 'character flaw', because you determined to lump her with a class of deficient persons - by definition: Trinitiarians.

'Standard Trinitarian tactic!' Sounds a lot like 'Usual Irish behavior' or 'customary Jewish greed".'

How many weeks have you been posting at Walter Martin, Evangelion? Have you noticed the anti-Trinitarians there copy/pasting entire unsourced tracts, repeatedly, and being brought up short on it by several folks?

As an example:
http://www.waltermartin.org/dcforum/DCForumID4/145.html

But you weren't done yet with the polemical:

Trinitarians are in the habit of copy/pasting lists of proof texts that they have never actually studied themselves, entire paragraphs from articles and essays which they never wrote, and arguments which they frequently do not understand. Very rarely will a plagiarist go back and study the original material in order to validate its claims. This demonstrates the extent to which Trinitarians are prepared to accept what they are told, without questioning (a) the source, (b) the material, or (c) the logic involved. Indeed, Trinitarian apologetics is largely reliant on the unquestioning submission of people who do not study their Bibles in any depth whatsoever.

Evangelion, I have never, in all my years of this, seen such a blatant and intentioned ad hominem attack, carried off with such determined fervor.

That is why rather than ask if Theo had culled these from somewhere, it had to be plagiarsim, and nothing but. That's why when she said she got these out of books, by her study, you had to try to reject that, because it did not fit your prejudiced broad brush of those gullible and lazy Trinitarians! That's why you have persisted, because it is precisely your intent to discredit by presumed character flaw. You again:

It is not an ad hominem, it is simply accurate. I have made no judgement of her character, nor have I imputed motives.

You haven't?

Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source.

That's an attack on character, and a lumping together of people by 'class'.

Trinitarians are in the habit of copy/pasting lists of proof texts that they have never actually studied themselves, entire paragraphs from articles and essays which they never wrote, and arguments which they frequently do not understand.

Ditto!

Very rarely will a plagiarist go back and study the original material in order to validate its claims. This demonstrates the extent to which Trinitarians are prepared to accept what they are told, without questioning (a) the source, (b) the material, or (c) the logic involved. Indeed, Trinitarian apologetics is largely reliant on the unquestioning submission of people who do not study their Bibles in any depth whatsoever.

And I suppose that is not an indication of flawed character?

In six years on the Net, I have become quite a researcher of quotes, Evangelion. There has been and is an industry of miscontextualized, distorted, corrupted and entirely bogus 'Catholic' quotes. I've searched them out, painstakingly. Had a lovely discussion with a monk at a monastery with a printing house, about a book credited to them as publisher. He was amused, as I wasn't the first inquiry. The book was credited with having been published years before that monastery started publishing, and then too, they only published sheet music, mostly chant! I've found as many as four different quotes attributed to a single issue of a Catholic periodical, that never once mentioned the topic of any of the quotes (God bless the UMich archives!). These supposed quotes are all over the Net, and are, well, copy/pasted without question. They are used by all manner of folks, including anti-Trinitarians, but also by all types of Christians and anti-Christians and atheists. In short, Evangelion, I have never felt that I could reasonably make the claim, even after dozens of these incidents, that 'non-Catholics' or 'anti-Catholics' do such and such, are gullible, don't check, etc. Some do. Most, the overwhelmingly 'most' do not.

But if I were to do as you do here, I would do exactly that. I would paint all opposition with the broad brush ad hominem as you do.

The fact that you jumped on Theo over this, and then linked it to being an ATTRIBUTE of her belief in the Trinity gives you away completely.

She did this and it is wrong.
Why did she do this?
She's a Trinitarian and they do that kind of thing.

You can substitute anything you like for Trinitarian, and it basically reads the same: Negro, Jew, Catholic, Christadelphian.

You were indeed trying to establish character flaw directly linked to her profession of faith, and should be ashamed.

If that were not the case, her being a Trinitarian would have zero to do with it, but that was not the case: you made it central, to make a polemical point about Trinitarians in general. It's also why you resisted her honest 'I got it from books' she studied. It didn't fit the image you wanted to portray of such believers.

Denis

[Freak]

Evangelion,

Have you looked within your heart and see the evil that resides there lately?

[ya'nar]

Bugger off.

There's no bandwagon for you to jump on, and no one is buying Evangelion as 'evil'. Needing the occasional course correction, as we all do from time to time, maybe.

Consigned to stoking the coals - not by a long shot.

We're adults, and we will fight and sharply with words and ideas, and sometimes cross lines we shouldn't, mea culpa...but there's no condemnation of hearts and souls here, Freak, and no one willing to sign on either.

Denis

[Freak]

ya'nar,

Bugger off

NO, I will not.

Evangelion is a man who espouses evil doctrine that must be exposed. He needs salvation. He needs to recognize the evil within him. He needs to admit this before the Lord Jesus.

By the way, do you know what anti-Christ movement ev. belongs to?

[ya'nar]

Freak: Evangelion is a man who espouses evil doctrine that must be exposed. He needs salvation. He needs to recognize the evil within him. He needs to admit this before the Lord Jesus.

First, Freak, who doesn't this apply to: ". He needs salvation. He needs to recognize the evil within him. He needs to admit this before the Lord Jesus."

I'd suggest you, me, everybody.

You also wrote:

By the way, do you know what anti-Christ movement ev. belongs to?

Freak, if Theo and I and Evangelion were next door neighbors, I'd imagine the fence between the backyards would be at about 12' at the moment, and one or the other party is preparing to run the concertina wire along the top. It happens.

I'm disputing with Evangelion a single issue.

In that, it doesn't matter whether Evangelion is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist or Bishop of Rome. It's immaterial. I care not one whit about demonstrating that he is 'evil', because I can't know that and don't know that. I'm called to, by and with the grace of God, root out my own predilection for evil. I've enough there to keep me occupied, in the 'evil' department.

Evangelion and I may well debate, and strenuously and with concern, the serious issues of faith and theology. Maybe not. But if we do, from my end, it will be issue by issue, and whatever membership in whatever faith Evangelion holds to, Christadelpian or otherwise, will be immaterial to me. Completely.

Likewise, his being Christadelphian is no more relevant to our current spitting contest than that I am Catholic or that Theo is Evangelical. Whichever of us are right or wrong in this - it's not a matter of faith and doctrine.

Matter of fact, I'd be quite the hypocrite if what I was disputing with Evangelion was imputing to my wife certain actions based on her being 'Trinitarian', to then impute to him certain acts or motives (e.g., 'evil') based on his being a Christadelphian.

It ain't a crusade, it's a squabble.

You want to debate Evangelion on points of faith, you are more than entitled, and no doubt he is more than ready.

But that's not the discussion *** mud-wrestle we are having.

Denis

[Evangelion]

Thanks Denis. I really appreciate the spirit of your posts. :up:

Freak - back off, or you will find yourself publicly challenged to a debate on the Trinity. :p

[Evangelion]

Denis -

You have the dubious honor of having gotten my attention.

I'm flattered.

Sharp attention, and you've given yourself away.

We shall see.

I've perused quite a few of your posts, in trying to get a better understanding of your thoughts and how you operate.

I appreciate your desire to understand where I'm coming from. 99.9% of the time, nobody can be bothered to try, and consequently, I am frequently misrepresented - which is why I'm so often on the defensive.

With much of it, I am duly impressed. You do stress that virtually everything you write is your own, and in the minimal places where this is otherwise, you do cite sources. You are also, evidently, proud and confident of what you do. That is not said as a negative, by the way. You offer challenges. You use, often (and even well justified), sarcasm to belittle your opponents.

Thankyou. :up: I trust that you have also noticed the places in which I give credit where credit is due.

You're a debater, Evangelion.

It is what I have been trained for. It is what I do, and to a large extent, it is who I am.

And yes, it takes one to know one, and if you have flaws, which no doubt you do, as do we all, that I may recognize some of them is simply because - we share them. I too am a debater, occasionally condescending and all too often sarcastic.

Mea culpa. Errare humanum est.

But, Evangelion, you turned your guns on the wrong target

I think not.

for the wrong reasons.

If this is what you are determined to believe, there's not a lot I can do to change your mind. But I can at least defend my position, and hope that you will see where I'm coming from.

To the beginning.

Indeed.

The first post in section 2 of this thread was by Theo. It was a 'sourced' (by Theo) quote from David Wallace.

I did not take issue with this post.

The second post is the 'brouhaha' - where Theo tells right off that this came from another discussion. She even left in the quotes from the other party in that discussion that she was addressing.

She did not cite her sources in the post which contained the material from Geisler. I took issue with this.

That's when you accused her not only of plagiarism, but of copy/pasting this from an article by Geisler, even claiming that this was probably the site she got it from.

Yes, that is what I did. And some of this was untrue, as I later acknowledged.

Theo replied, and honestly, that she did cherry pick this one reply from a long conversation at another site, apologized if she didn't make that clear (I think it was), and told you she had compiled this answer, back then, from a host of books, including from Geisler. That's all true.

You came back with:

Quote:
Well, I dunno, Theophilus... it all seems rather fishy to me. I'm not convinced that you've disproved my accusation.

Now friend, I always, ALWAYS, have a real problem with people being required to disprove accusations. Burden is on the wrong side.

At this point I was still in the process of hunting down the material she had used. I was not convinced because my investigation was not yet complete.

Again - from Theophilus:

Your plagiarism accusation is blatantly false. So is your accusation of where the material came from.

Plagiarism, Denis, is what we call "using material without referencing the souce." So I responded thus:

I'm not convinced that you've disproved my accusation, and in any case, since you didn't cite your sources, you've plagiarised by definition.

I was not convinced that she had disproved my accusation. What accusation? The accustion of plagiarism. The original source was still under dispute - and I later apologised for the error when I discovered that the source was not a Website, but Geisler's book.

Then Theo told you how she does this, from books, and with hard work and study, and does cite her sources.

True - and I know that she does, which is precisely why I had said (in my original post) that I was disappointed to find that she had not acknowledged her sources on this occasion. If I had wanted to write her off completely, I would not have expressed disappointment. My disappointment was a direct result of Theophilus acting out of character.

She did not deny that these things came from other places, but told you she gets them from various books. You chose not to believe her.

Correct. At this point, I was not convinced - especially since she had still not referenced her material.

Instead, you went on a search to find that, gosh, some of those passages could be found at other places.

Yes. And in light of the fact that I had not been given any references, this was the only way to prove my claim that she had used someone else's material without referencing it - which is what she had asked me to prove. Which I did.

Evangelion, I can do that with almost any quote! That the same thing is on the Net does not mean it was not found in a printed book, and for you to draw that connection as an immutable flow is absurd!

It is not true that I had "drawn that connection as an immutable flow." Indeed, I revised my position as soon as I was satisfied that I had made a mistake. "Immutable" means "unchanging." I changed; ergo, I had not drawn a connection "as an immutable flow."

A; I got this from my studies, and found it in a book.

B: No, since it is on the Internet, you must have gotten it from there!

Absolute rubbish!

Here you overstep the mark. Remember that in my next post, I had written:

Incidentally, I have Geisler's Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics sitting right here on my desk next to me, and I can tell you right now that most of the article above is word-for-word identical with Geisler's entry on the Trinity. I have only spotted a couple of discrepancies so far - one of which is the reference to Kant in the third sentence, which you added yourself. (I guess you must have the Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics too, eh?) So if you didn't get it from www.ankerberg.com (or a similar Website), you must have copied it from Geisler's book. Either way, you obviously didn't cite your source in this case.

By now, I was prepared to accept that she had indeed used a book - specifically, the Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. My point, therefore - "either way, you obviously didn't cite your source in this case" - still stands.

You have apologized for claiming this was a copy/paste, and that is good.

There was no alternative but to apologise, since I had clearly been proved wrong on this account.

You also accused Theo of taking most of this all from a single article, with an insinuation:

Quote:
This article may be found at www.ankerberg.com, which is probably where you got it from in the first place.

This was in reference to the Geisler material only - not to the other material, which had come from another source. The accusation was later proven to be false, and I retracted it, with an apology.

Evangelion, Theo did take this, as she said, from another thread at another site, that she posted. That's obvious since she is replying to things not said in this discussion.

I accept all of this (as I did before), but my point still stands.

That she did not cite her sources is either oversight, or what you try so damnably hard to make of it - intentional deceit and a character flaw.

I never accused her of intentional deceit, and I never accused her of a character flaw. I merely accused her of sloppy research methods - and sloppy research methods always make a person look bad, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt. That is why I have to be so careful around here - because the moment I put a foot wrong, I have half a dozen Trinitarians baying for my blood. So I have learned to be meticulous in my own debates, and rigorous when it comes to the examination of others.

I told you about how Theo does this stuff. You and she are not the same. You use your own words, are apparently proud of that, and it works for you. Theo looks things up, is not either as confident or proud of her own words, but is and always has been an earnest student and one willing to make effort to get answers for others, especially those who ask.

I have not denied this - I have merely observed that she did not cite her source. Which was true. There is another issue involved, but you go on to discuss this later, so I shall wait to address it.

I pointed out that in the post just before the one in question, she did cite the source. In a 'getting to know who you are dealing with', try these, from another site. Whether they are entire articles, or just comments, or definitions, Theo regularly cites. These are a mix, of MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, Novak, Mother Theresa, Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary, Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, etc:

*snip*

Referring to "another site" (which she did not do until I made my accusation) is not the same as providing references in a post which draws heavily on original material. It is precisely this that I take issue with.

Here's 'hindsight', Evangelion, usually my personal 'best sight'. If asked if she got this from other sources, and what they were, Theo would have not only replied honestly, but would have eagerly recommended the books. She always does.

I do not dispute this. My contention is that she did not do it in the first place, and that she should have done, especially since that is what she usually does.

What happened, though, is that she was immediately charged with something untoward and unwholesome, and this was insisted upon, by you, as being the case.

I did not accuse her of anything "untoward and unwholesome" - I merely accused her of plagiarising a source, which - even if we take the most general definition as our working model - she clearly had.

Further, you insisted this could not be oversight or anything else

No, I never insisted anything of the sort. And it was only later that I discussed the general trend of Trinitarian plagiarism as it relates to my personal experience.

but absolutely contrary to your disclaimer that you were not attacking her character, you very much were doing so, and for a polemical reason.

Alas, this was not my intention, nor was it ever stated or implied in any of my posts. I attacked sloppy research methods, not character.

You've proved that, and that your purpose was the ad hominem attack to score points and discredit another by that.

This is simply not true.

You wrote:

Quote:
"Differently"? Different to what? You are accusing me of viewing her in a different light, which is not true. I am not imputing motives, nor have I made any attack on her character. I am not accusing her of being a certain type of person - I am merely pointing out that she did not acknowledge a source, despite having lifted a slab of material from it, word for word.

and...

Quote:
I am not stretching hard, and you're playing the sympathy card when you claim that I am trying to discredit her. I am not doing anything of the kind.

Really? REALLY????Try this:

Quote:
Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source. I see this time and time again on Trinitarian Websites - particularly on discussion boards.

Let's review that last paragraph:

Basically, Theophilus is merely resorting to the standard Trinitarian tactic of copy/pasting the work of others without acknowledging the original source. I see this time and time again on Trinitarian Websites - particularly on discussion boards.

Where's the character attack, Denis? This has everything to do with sloppy research methods, and nothing to do with character. And FYI, this is indeed my experience with Trinitarians on the Net.

Check and mate on a text book standard ad hominem attack.

Accusing someone of sloppy research is a "text book standard ad hominem attack", is it? Even when it is true? This is too much, Denis.

That's why this couldn't be innocent oversight, or anything other than a 'character flaw', because you determined to lump her with a class of deficient persons - by definition: Trinitiarians.

'Standard Trinitarian tactic!' Sounds a lot like 'Usual Irish behavior' or 'customary Jewish greed".'

Well, I'm sorry if this is the kind of idea that springs immediately to your mind. My observation was simple - that I have seen this kind of tactic (call it sloppy research, if you will) many times before, and I have noted that this is a standard mode of procedure for Trinitarian apologists. All of this is perfectly true. Your personal interpretation of it is another matter entirely.

How many weeks have you been posting at Walter Martin, Evangelion? Have you noticed the anti-Trinitarians there copy/pasting entire unsourced tracts, repeatedly, and being brought up short on it by several folks?

As an example:
http://www.waltermartin.org/dcforum/DCForumID4/145.html

Yes, I have seen it done many a time - and not just by Trinitarians, either. But the context was Trinitarianism, and it was a Trinitarian to whom I was speaking. There was nothing in my post which implied that Trinitarians are the only ones who do this, so please stop suggesting that this is what I had meant.

But you weren't done yet with the polemical:

Quote:
Trinitarians are in the habit of copy/pasting lists of proof texts that they have never actually studied themselves, entire paragraphs from articles and essays which they never wrote, and arguments which they frequently do not understand. Very rarely will a plagiarist go back and study the original material in order to validate its claims. This demonstrates the extent to which Trinitarians are prepared to accept what they are told, without questioning (a) the source, (b) the material, or (c) the logic involved.

Insofar as I have solid evidence to prove that this is often the case with other Trinitarians, there's no way that it can be misconstrued as a personal character attack on your wife. Indeed, the paragraphy above could be applied to Catholics as well. Or JWs. Or other denominations in which the "hierarchy factor" plays an important role. General com