Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Whilst it appears you agree Christ was God, "hahahahahahaha" is usually intrepretted as ridicule. So you confuse the reading audience as to which side you are on.
Always remember you are writing not only for those who are regular contributors, but viewers who visit this site from around the world, who are in fact the silent majority.
So you need to always make the intent of your posts clear.
If you look at the Bible through Jewish eyes instead of a Hellenist, you will see that the trinity does not exist within it. Jesus is the Son of God/the firstborn. Those things speak for itself. Was God ever born? Is a son their own father?
This is why trinitarians can never really make too much of an argument. It is obvious that Christianity got spammed with Greek mythology/philosophy to suffice for Italians who had already built their entire culture and logic around.
If you look at the Bible through Jewish eyes instead of a Hellenist, you will see that the trinity does not exist within it. Jesus is the Son of God/the firstborn. Those things speak for itself. Was God ever born? Is a son their own father?
This is why trinitarians can never really make too much of an argument. It is obvious that Christianity got spammed with Greek mythology/philosophy to suffice for Italians who had already built their entire culture and logic around.
The first century Jews understood Jesus' claims, but rejected them. You are a modern Gentile and do not understand what He said and also reject the truth of it.
If you do a Greek word study on firstborn (prototokos) and look at the context, you would not be so dogmatic (same with Son of God which is equality of nature, not inferiority nor createdness).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Rather, if you read the OP, you will see you can't refute it, and that therefore something is wrong with your idea.
As for the 1st Commandment- When we worship Jesus, we are worshiping his Christ. It's just as a kingdom., one may praise a king but even if you do not like him, you serve his highness.
As for the 3rd Commandment- God's name is Yahweh, so you just kind of defeated your own argument there.
In regard to the constancy of God- Yahweh is quite different then Jesus., number one being that Jesus is meek and mild, a servant and the Lamb. Yahweh is 100% justice, which is why Leviticus for example is so unrelenting. One can tell which passages are speaking of either- that is if one takes off their trinity glasses. There are even passages which are speaking of God and Jesus, and trinitarians take such statements as relaying they are one in the same.
And so the Commandments do not go against the non-trinitarian concept (which is a very important object), and the matter of consistency is obsolete. Everything else you stated along the lines of substance, axioms, Jewish perception, and so on can be argued against with this:
As for the 1st Commandment- When we worship Jesus, we are worshiping his Christ. It's just as a kingdom., one may praise a king but even if you do not like him, you serve his highness.
There is no reason to have a king above all kings if He is not God.
So your hair-splitting is unrealistic and unnatural. And on that basis it fails.
To worship someone to the extent we worship Christ, would constitute transgression of the 1st commandment, and that is that.
So contrary to your idea that you prefer the Jewish view, you show that you don't know what you are talking about, for the Jews crucified Christ for the very reason I am pointing out.
Thus:
"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." John 19:7
As for the 3rd Commandment- God's name is Yahweh, so you just kind of defeated your own argument there.
Er…no. I never defeat my own argument. And no-one has ever defeated me in any debate, and you will be no exception.
The point made was in reference to intuition, so your idea here is a non-sequitur. I have made the point in the OP that we all intuitively feel it is blasphemous to use the name of Jesus in vain. Even non-believers feel the same.
So it is you who stands defeated.
In regard to the constancy of God- Yahweh is quite different then Jesus., number one being that Jesus is meek and mild, a servant and the Lamb. Yahweh is 100% justice, which is why Leviticus for example is so unrelenting.
Non-sequitur.
The point made in the OP with regard to the constancy of God was that for God to exult Christ to the degree He has would constitute temptation to worship another before God if Christ were not in fact God, thus rendering God a tempter in opposition to Himself and His people.
So learn to read.
And then address the rest of the OP, including the fact that your much-vaunted “Jewish eyes” of Thomas declared to Jesus’ face: “My Lord and my God”.
But as for your idea that Jewish eyes are somehow superior, if Jesus were alive today, they’d crucify Him all over again. Paul declares there to be a vail over their eyes in the reading of the Old Testament. So run away with your pseudo-intellectual ‘Jewish eyes’.
Is a son their own father?
Question begging and therefore invalid.
You have framed your premise that the son is not God, as your argument.
So you're not too bright.
Last edited by Colossians; April 11th, 2012 at 06:36 AM.
As for the 1st Commandment- When we worship Jesus, we are worshiping his Christ. It's just as a kingdom., one may praise a king but even if you do not like him, you serve his highness.
There is no reason to have a king above all kings if He is not God.
To worship someone to the extent we worship Christ, would constitute transgression of the 1st commandment, and that is that.
There is perfect reason for Jesus being king of kings. He is the mediator between us and God. How is he the mediator if he is God?
In all reality, it hurts the trinity two-fold.
Logos (wisdom, logic) does not create reality alone. It takes a painter to make use of a paintbrush. And so therefore, the Father cannot simply be that alone. Jesus could not have been born by mere idea without a stimulus.
Quote:
So contrary to your idea that you prefer the Jewish view, you show that you don't know what you are talking about, for the Jews crucified Christ for the very reason I am pointing out.
Thus:
"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." John 19:7
It's no wonder trinitarians cannot fathom any other view- you all have no idea what is even meant by interpreting through Jewish eyes. Take 'Logos' for example. Through Jewish eyes, this is just a transliteration of 'wisdom'. But the Italians- they took this and turned it into what would suffice for their philosophies.
Quote:
As for the 3rd Commandment- God's name is Yahweh, so you just kind of defeated your own argument there.
Er…no. I never defeat my own argument. And no-one has ever defeated me in any debate, and you will be no exception.
The point made was in reference to intuition, so your idea here is a non-sequitur. I have made the point in the OP that we all intuitively feel it is blasphemous to use the name of Jesus in vain. Even non-believers feel the same.
It doesn't really matter what one feels. As you can see from Scripture, Jesus said that whoever blasphemies against him can be forgiven, but whoever blasphemies against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Proof positive that speaking against the Christ is what is damning, as it is a sanction by God. Not Jesus himself, though it is not good to do so seeing that he is the Son.
Quote:
In regard to the constancy of God- Yahweh is quite different then Jesus., number one being that Jesus is meek and mild, a servant and the Lamb. Yahweh is 100% justice, which is why Leviticus for example is so unrelenting.
Non-sequitur.
The point made in the OP with regard to the constancy of God was that for God to exult Christ to the degree He has would constitute temptation to worship another before God if Christ were not in fact God, thus rendering God a tempter in opposition to Himself and His people.
But the argument is meaningless. It carries no weight for or against the trinity. That is why I used the word obsolete.
Quote:
And then address the rest of the OP, including the fact that your much-vaunted “Jewish eyes” of Thomas declared to Jesus’ face: “My Lord and my God”.
Two things here:
Thomas was in shock
and
Who's to say he wasn't speaking of two beings? I mentioned this before. For example, "I went up the road with my friend and my colleague". Am I speaking of one person, or two?
Quote:
Is a son their own father?
Question begging and therefore invalid.
Really? I find it to be a completely valid question
There is perfect reason for Jesus being king of kings. He is the mediator between us and God. How is he the mediator if he is God?
In all reality, it hurts the trinity two-fold.
Logos (wisdom, logic) does not create reality alone. It takes a painter to make use of a paintbrush. And so therefore, the Father cannot simply be that alone. Jesus could not have been born by mere idea without a stimulus.
It's no wonder trinitarians cannot fathom any other view- you all have no idea what is even meant by interpreting through Jewish eyes. Take 'Logos' for example. Through Jewish eyes, this is just a transliteration of 'wisdom'. But the Italians- they took this and turned it into what would suffice for their philosophies.
It doesn't really matter what one feels. As you can see from Scripture, Jesus said that whoever blasphemies against him can be forgiven, but whoever blasphemies against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Proof positive that speaking against the Christ is what is damning, as it is a sanction by God. Not Jesus himself, though it is not good to do so seeing that he is the Son.
But the argument is meaningless. It carries no weight for or against the trinity. That is why I used the word obsolete.
Two things here:
Thomas was in shock
and
Who's to say he wasn't speaking of two beings? I mentioned this before. For example, "I went up the road with my friend and my colleague". Am I speaking of one person, or two?
Really? I find it to be a completely valid question
Isaiah 44:6-8:
6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Kinsman-Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
7 And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,
Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come,
Let them show these to them.
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.’”
God is the King of Israel, (vs. 6a)
Jesus is the King of Israel (John 12:12-15)
God shall be Israel's Kinsman-Redeemer (vs. 6b)
Jesus is Israel's Kinsman (Romans. 1:2) and Redeemer (Titus 2:13-14).
God is the First and the Last (vs. 6c)
Jesus is the First and the Last (Revelation 1:8;17)
God is the Rock (vs. 8)
Jesus is the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Note: The Hebrew "goel" in verse 6b means "kinsman-redeemer" or "blood relative-redeemer." God said that He would become Israel's blood relative who would redeem them. The law required that the redeemer be a blood relative.
Explain how God was Israel's "blood relative" if Jesus was not God.
6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Kinsman-Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
7 And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,
Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come,
Let them show these to them.
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.’”
There is a Lord and a Lord of Hosts. Your Italian buddies attempted to blot the fact that there are two by emphasizing a notion of one.
It is how lordship is in general. All the way to the medieval era, lords had masters, who were a lot of times kings especially if they were barons. Needless to say, lord and king are virtually synonymous at their core definition.
According to the same people who prescribed the trinity, the rock also doubles as Peter. Therefore, the trinity is a limitation.
Quote:
God is the King of Israel, (vs. 6a)
Jesus is the King of Israel (John 12:12-15)
The above in green can reconcile this.
Quote:
God shall be Israel's Kinsman-Redeemer (vs. 6b)
Jesus is Israel's Kinsman (Romans. 1:2) and Redeemer (Titus 2:13-14).
The above in green can reconcile this, with the addition that Jesus shares the blood of the Father and the Jews.
Quote:
God is the First and the Last (vs. 6c)
Jesus is the First and the Last (Revelation 1:8;17)
The Father is first and last, the Son is first and last via being the firstborn.
Quote:
God is the Rock (vs. 8)
Jesus is the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).
..Peter is the rock. What you have is a succession, not an all-in-one being.
As for the 1st Commandment- When we worship Jesus, we are worshiping his Christ. It's just as a kingdom., one may praise a king but even if you do not like him, you serve his highness.
There is no reason to have a king above all kings if He is not God. To worship someone to the extent we worship Christ, would constitute transgression of the 1st commandment, and that is that. There is perfect reason for Jesus being king of kings. He is the mediator between us and God. How is he the mediator if he is God?
Why would God need a mediator? Doesn’t He know how we tick?
So we see you don't think past your nose.
So contrary to your idea that you prefer the Jewish view, you show that you don't know what you are talking about, for the Jews crucified Christ for the very reason I am pointing out.
Thus: "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." John 19:7 It's no wonder trinitarians cannot fathom any other view- you all have no idea what is even meant by interpreting through Jewish eyes. Take 'Logos' for example. Through Jewish eyes, this is just a transliteration of 'wisdom'. But the Italians- they took this and turned it into what would suffice for their philosophies.
Obfuscation and non-sequitur.
You are defeated.
As for the 3rd Commandment- God's name is Yahweh, so you just kind of defeated your own argument there.
Er…no. I never defeat my own argument. And no-one has ever defeated me in any debate, and you will be no exception. The point made was in reference to intuition, so your idea here is a non-sequitur. I have made the point in the OP that we all intuitively feel it is blasphemous to use the name of Jesus in vain. Even non-believers feel the same. It doesn't really matter what one feels.
Yes it does. For we feel that way by the Spirit, whose one ministry is to magnify Jesus Christ.
As you can see from Scripture, Jesus said that whoever blasphemies against him can be forgiven, but whoever blasphemies against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
The two types of blasphemy do not indicate the rank of the two being blasphemed, but the nature of the respective blasphemies.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit comprises cognisant rejection of God - rejection of God after having spiritually perceived who He is: it is an internal matter.
Blasphemy against the Son is an external passion according to the flesh.
For the Son manifested in the flesh, whereas the Spirit did not and never will do so.
When an atheist on a building site hits his thumb with a hammer accidentally, he doesn't blaspheme against the Holy Spirit: he blasphemes against the name of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, blasphemy against the name of Jesus Christ is paradoxically 'provided' by God in order to amplify the ministry of grace which Christ preached.
Contrasting, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is less likely to be committed by the guy with the hammer, and more likely to be committed by religious people. Thus those whom Jesus warned about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit were the Pharisees.
The Son sent the Spirit, thus making the Son greater than the Spirit.
In regard to the constancy of God- Yahweh is quite different then Jesus., number one being that Jesus is meek and mild, a servant and the Lamb. Yahweh is 100% justice, which is why Leviticus for example is so unrelenting.
Non-sequitur. The point made in the OP with regard to the constancy of God was that for God to exult Christ to the degree He has would constitute temptation to worship another before God if Christ were not in fact God, thus rendering God a tempter in opposition to Himself and His people. But the argument is meaningless. It carries no weight for or against the trinity. That is why I used the word obsolete.
The argument is perfectly meaningful, and you are therefore defeated.
God doesn’t tempt people to worship one other than Himself.
address the rest of the OP, including the fact that your much-vaunted “Jewish eyes” of Thomas declared to Jesus’ face: “My Lord and my God”. Thomas was in shock
You are defeated.
Is a son their own father?
Question begging and therefore invalid. Really? I find it to be a completely valid question
It’s not.
You have framed your premise that the Son is not God, as argument.
Last edited by Colossians; April 12th, 2012 at 05:03 AM.
You know nothing about Hebrew parallelism. Each line builds upon the preceding line:
Thus says YHWH the King of Israel
And his (Israel's) Kinsman-Redeemer YHWH of hosts
The second line which contains the name "YHWH of hosts" is an expanded definition of the name YHWH in the preceding line. This is called synthetic parallelism which was the Hebrew literary style.
Again I marvel that you say that there are two YHWH's in Isaiah 44:6 and then find fault with Trinitarians. There is only ONE YHWH in Isaiah 44:6 and He said that He would become Israel's Kinsman-Redeemer. The Father was neither. Jesus was both Israel's Kinsman and Redeemer.
Therefore, Jesus is the YHWH speaking in Isaiah 44:6
Quote:
According to the same people who prescribed the trinity, the rock also doubles as Peter. Therefore, the trinity is a limitation.
Huh?
Paul said that they drank of the spritiual Rock that "went with them" and that Rock was Christ. In Isaiah 44:6 YHWH said that He was the Rock and that He "knows of no other Rock" besides Himself. Did Paul know something that YHWH didn't know?
Quote:
The Father is first and last, the Son is first and last via being the firstborn.
LOL! YHWH clearly said that He is BOTH the "First and the Last." Jesus said that He is BOTH the "First and the Last" (Isaiah 44:6;Revelation 1:7, 18). Therefore, Jesus is YHWH! You're doing your hatchet job on the scriptures again.
Quote:
..Peter is the rock.
So Peter "went with them" out of Egypt (1 Corinthians 10:4)?
You are really a piece of work my friend. You see TWO YHWH's in Isaiah 44:6 and then find fault with Trinitarians. Then you say that Peter is the Rock and find fault with the Catholics. You cannot be taken seriously my man!
Yes, there is a Lord and a Lord of Hosts. The Lord of Hosts is not always referred to as the Lord of Hosts, but simply Lord.
All trinitarians did was try to make them the same thing, playing a game of semantics which is all 'Scriptural reference' for the trinity really is.
The same can go for the Rock. In one instance, it is spoken in two different ways. If there is only one rock, then he is part of the Godhead by your standards and Scripture says that he is the rock in which the church will be built upon. He was even given the Keys to Heaven which is something a mere man should not have. So what really going on here? The trinity cannot reconcile it.
Trinitarians do exactly the same with this as the Lord/of Hosts, and yet again with the 'first and last'. But since that is inconvenient, let's actually put common sense into that part and keep on with the trinity, am I right?
You want to talk about doing 'hatchet jobs' to Scripture, but trinitarians are the ones that do it. I simply mend the pieces together.
What you have stated is just that usual circularity/grandstand/straw man nonsense that trinitarians resort to when they can't produce a solid argument, and then when I decline, your going to sit there and say that you are right and I am wrong. I have already spoken of the Isaiah passages and you just circulate it again and again. Your third time bringing up something which has been rendered obsolete, as if pushing it until I decline will resort in some delusion of granduer you can run off with. That's trinitarianism for you.
Sorry, but I am not here to change a mind which can not be changed. I am here to relay the truth.
Linear Mode
