Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Sum1sGruj is playing word games with the scriptures here. SG is saying that term "YHWH the King of Israel" in 6a and the term "YHWH of hosts" in 6b represent TWO YHWHs. But the prophet was employing synthetic parallelism which was a Hebrew literary style. This means that The term "YHWH of hosts" in 6b is an expansion of the term "YHWH the King of Israel" in 6a.
Note the reading of the Jehovah's Witneses translation (NWT) which is anti-Trinitarian:
"This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel
And the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies...."
Line 2 is an expansion of line 1 giving the name "Jehovah" a fuller explanation. Jehovah is the King of Israel and also the Repurchaser of Israel, Jehovah of armies.
Parallelism was the Hebrew literary style. Deuteronomy 32:18 is another example:
"Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you."
Line 2 is an expansion of line 1 and is defining and identifying the "Rock" of line 1. The "God" who fathered Israel out of Egypt in line 2 is the "Rock" that begat them out of Egypt in line 1. The term "God" in line 2 defines the "Rock" of line 1 as the word "fathered" in line 2 defines the term "begat" in line 1. Paul said that the "Rock" that went with them out of Egypt was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4).
LOL! You have TWO Jehovah's and then have the audacity to fault Trinitarians. You say the second Jehovah in 6b is an angel when it CLEARLY says that the second Jehovah is Israel's Kinsman-Redeemer.
Are angels Israel's Kinsmen? I rest my case!!
SG is running away from the truth! Thus he concocts TWO Jehovahs and makes the second "Jehovah" an angel, a Kinsman of Israel.
There are different kinds of parallelism and different approaches to it you pretentious blowhard. And if you knew much about it, you would see just how obsolete your argument is.
And secondly, I never said there were two Yehweh(s). Your obvious straw man and dishonesty is typical of the trinitarian brand. You're sure to make others proud.
And lastly, 'kinsman' does not serve a single ounce to your argument. That to is obsolete, and it should be self-evident why but with trinitarians, accountability tends to take a backseat.
You have not....nor can you....otherwise you would show us right now.
All you can do is suck your thumb in the corner...
Or I could simply enjoy gazing at your idiocy. Why would I even begin to debate with someone who is a liar? Because that is what you are, and you know you are and have been called out on it before.
Still waiting to see your very best 'Trinity-killer' verse.
The longer you stall the more pathetic your uni-position looks....
I'm waiting for something that will never come.. the day Apple7 becomes an adult.
There is plenty of debate already going on about the Trinity. Why don't you join in? It wouldn't be because you know you'll just get schooled would it?
Of course not
I'm waiting for something that will never come.. the day Apple7 becomes an adult.
There is plenty of debate already going on about the Trinity. Why don't you join in? It wouldn't be because you know you'll just get schooled would it?
Of course not
You just busted yourself again, brother...
You don't have even one single 'Trinity-killer' verse....otherwise you would loudly and proudly be posting it all over this thread and others.
Maybe, just maybe...its tucked away in one of your back-woods blogs somewhere in cyberworld where nobody can ever locate it....
I'm waiting for something that will never come.. the day Apple7 becomes an adult.
There is plenty of debate already going on about the Trinity. Why don't you join in? It wouldn't be because you know you'll just get schooled would it?
Of course not
That will be awhile yet friend.
Psalm 1[/color] and Job 28:28
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Joh 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
I find it extremely difficult not to lose my patience with such pretentious, repetitious, and otherwise ridiculous gambits of trinitarians. They portray the fanaticism that propels their doctrine.
There are different kinds of parallelism and different approaches to it you pretentious blowhard. And if you knew much about it, you would see just how obsolete your argument is.
Enlighten me. I learned Hebrew poetry in Bible college. Maybe you know something my professors didn't know. Take note of the fact that several translations give all of Isaiah in lines showing the poetic parallelism.
Quote:
And secondly, I never said there were two Yehweh(s). Your obvious straw man and dishonesty is typical of the trinitarian brand. You're sure to make others proud.
You are indeed saying that there are TWO YHWH'S. Come on! You distinguish between YHWH the King of Israel in 6a and YHWH of Hosts in 6b. One YHWH + one YHWH = TWO YHWHs. Yet you have the audacity to find fault with Trinitarians?
Quote:
And lastly, 'kinsman' does not serve a single ounce to your argument. That to is obsolete, and it should be self-evident why but with trinitarians, accountability tends to take a backseat.
So that's how you're going to approach it eh? Whenever you don't like a word or it doesn't fit your theology you will say it's "obsolete." Was the word "kinsman" obsolete to the ancient Hebrew when Isaiah used it.
Explain why you say that "YHWH of Hosts" in 6b is an angel when nothing is said about an angel in the text. And show how an angel was Israel's Kinsman-Redeemer
I often wonder (sincerely wonder) what it is that attracts people who don't know the Lord (sum1sGruj is one of these, for he has stated most specifically that he is "not born again") to theology sites.
It is simply ridiculous that those who don't know the Lord, presume to tell those who do know the Lord, the status quo on the Lord. Such people are ignorant, and in a manner of speaking, not even worthy of speaking on the Lord: they are in darkness.
So to speak carnally for a minute, we are the experts who know the Lord, and they the babes in the woods, yet they presume somehow to instruct us. And we just look at them bemused, wondering: "why on earth are they even interested in these things? Don't they know that they're going to hell if they're not born again, and that it is better to therefore know less than more, for then they will at least be judged less?".
But these things don't seem to occur to them: they seem instead to be drawn like a magnet to these theology sites. Sort of like the demon possessed people in Jesus' time who just couldn't stop yelling out to Him and throwing themselves at His feet.
In short, it's funny how that Satan likes to go to church.
Don't they know that they're going to hell if they're not born again, and that it is better to therefore know less than more, for then they will at least be judged less?".
You get a rep from me.
Sum1sGruj could not answer the arguments so he had to invent TWO YHWHs. When that didn't work he tried to say that the YHWH of hosts is an angel when there is no mention of an angel in te text. The text says that the YHWH of hosts is Israel's Goel (Kinsman-Redeemer). Angels are NOT Israel's kinsmen.
When SG saw his argument was falling apart he comes up with the explanation that the word kinsman is "obsolete." This is when I decided that SG is more than just ignorant and that he is blatantly dishonest.
If the word "kinsman" was obsolete then the text is corrupt. The Muslims just come right out and say that a scripture text is corrupt when it don't fit their views. So I invite SG to just come right out with it. He should just say that the word "Goel" is corrupt and is not the inspired word of God.
SG inserted an angel into the text and deleted the word "Goel."
I often wonder (sincerely wonder) what it is that attracts people who don't know the Lord (sum1sGruj is one of these, for he has stated most specifically that he is "not born again") to theology sites.
It is simply ridiculous that those who don't know the Lord, presume to tell those who do know the Lord, the status quo on the Lord. Such people are ignorant, and in a manner of speaking, not even worthy of speaking on the Lord: they are in darkness.
So to speak carnally for a minute, we are the experts who know the Lord, and they the babes in the woods, yet they presume somehow to instruct us. And we just look at them bemused, wondering: "why on earth are they even interested in these things? Don't they know that they're going to hell if they're not born again, and that it is better to therefore know less than more, for then they will at least be judged less?".
But these things don't seem to occur to them: they seem instead to be drawn like a magnet to these theology sites. Sort of like the demon possessed people in Jesus' time who just couldn't stop yelling out to Him and throwing themselves at His feet.
In short, it's funny how that Satan likes to go to church.
What does 'knowing' Jesus as God grant a person in wisdom?
Nothing. There is not one single thing you can tell me about Scripture other then your interpretation of the Godhead.
That is the irony of you blowhard trinitarians, making a split between yourselves and others because of little triangle.
The mark of an unsaved person is exactly that kind of bigotry. You all don't even know the truth of what God meant when He said 'Let us make man in our image'. And so what is the trinity really? It seems to me like it's a man-made blinder whose greatest use has been to be a blunt object to bash others with. You are audacious enough to call yourself an 'expert' of the Lord when it is clear that you both are pretentious little children. The average IQ of a trinitarian, in fact, has to be a suffering number. In fact, looking up statistics will tell that very well, seeing how trinitarians make up the majority of Christendom.
It's funny how people such as you and Wile think you are actually Christians because you accept a piece of Greek philosophy.
Furthermore, Wile, you may as well stop peddling your lies about going to studying Hebrew poetry. You wouldn't have bounced around the subject and then finally come upon parallelism, and you wouldn't be asking me questions about it neither.
You both can kiss each others feet and whatnot, but I am no longer debating with a liar, Wile. Welcome to my ignore list.
As for Colossians, I sort of expected better from you, but it seems that when push comes to shove your idol does a good job of bringing out fanatics just like the crux of fanaticism that it is.
Wile lies about his education and promotes a false idea that I say there are two Yehweh(s), and you call me Satan. In fact, Wile has been a liar up and down this thread, including his last post about the word 'Goel'. He has fabricated a lie, and calls himself Christian. And Apple7 is a liar and a troll (which everybody knows), and you are a false witness.
That is why, in the end, you pretty much defeat your own arguments and general standing as Christians, resembling nothing more then ancient Italian tyrants. If their is a place called Hell and a thing called righteousness, it is clear who deserves the purge and it has nothing to do with your triangle.
Last edited by Sum1sGruj; April 13th, 2012 at 09:45 AM.
It's funny how people such as you and Wile think you are actually Christians because you accept a piece of Greek philosophy.
The apostle John accepted a piece of Greek philosophy also. He would not have used the term "Logos" if he hadn't. You erroneously think that there is something inherently wrong with the Greeks having a concept of the Supreme Being and giving Him a name. Paul said that the glory of God was manifest in them. They just called Him the Logos and John borrowed the term and applied it to Christ. Paul did the same thing at the Areopagus. He used their term "The Unknown God" and applied it to the true God.
Quote:
Furthermore, Wile, you may as well stop peddling your lies about going to studying Hebrew poetry. You wouldn't have bounced around the subject and then finally come upon parallelism, and you wouldn't be asking me questions about it neither.
I have asked you nothing. I have only made assertions. Hey, I didn't have to invent a second YHWH and have it fail and then try to recover by reading an angel into the text. Neither did I have to throw away the word "goel" and claim that it was "obsolete."
Quote:
You both can kiss each others feet and whatnot,
I have had no private or public discourse with Colossians. So how is it that I am kissing his feet?
Quote:
but [b]I am no longer debating with a liar, Wile.
Translated this means, "You have beaten the crap out of me Wile so I am going to leave you with my tail between my legs." Again, I didn't have to invent a second YHWH and have it fail and then insert an angel into the text and then throw away the word "goel" (kinsman).
Just be honest like the Muslims when they don't like something in the Bible. They say that a word or a verse is "corrupt." Just say that the word "goel" (kinsman) is corrupt.
Quote:
Welcome to my ignore list.
I hope you keep your promises better than you argue a case.
i love the dynamic living and manifold wisdom of God.
How one can read the same holy scripture and get one level of meaning from it, then, one day in time, one can reread the very same scripture and get a wholly new and differant, level of meaning from it.
Glad to see the Potters Hand molding and shaping out the dross.
I lost track of all the times that uni’s like 'sum' have told me that I was placed on their ‘ignore’ list(s)…and then, even within a 24hr period, they are right back arguing their same points again with me, like they never said anything at all.
No…being on a uni’s ‘ignore list’ is simply yet another one of their lies…
Linear Mode
