Blu, after you get through kicking up your dust, please address the issues in your replies.

Ed

Blu, after you get through kicking up your dust, please address the issues in your replies.

I've addressed all the issues again and again.  Nothing of importance is outstanding.

The NT doesn't mention the Trinity.

It expressly denies it.

jlb's attempts to pretend otherwise are done by a series of false arguments, such as that he can reasonably assert anything he likes about the meaning of the text if his meaning isn't expressly contradicted somewhere; his assuming the Trinity and then trying to impose his assumption on the text instead of deriving his claim from the text; his wrenching of the text so as to impose his imagined meaning on it; his inability to come to grips with simple English like My Father is greater than all and I can do nothing on my own authority and  they know thee the only true God and his corresponding pretence that the bible doesn't contradict the Trinity; his absurd use of the anachronism attributed to Peter; his presentation of Jesus-as-liar-deceiver-dissembler with no textual basis; he invention of heavenly scenarios to support the imagined lies; and the depth of his incomprehension, as his last straw once again underlines.

And he always fled from the question of how the Ghost gets to be Yahweh's equal.

You adopted his reply in which he set out those fallacies and other faults.  You may wish to reconsider your view of that.  If not, you've made the fallacies and text-twisting and so on your own.

Either way, end of story.

Now this is just pathetic [snicker, snicker], but typical.  You made up at least four fallacies since you couldn’t defend your points and you’ve still not addressed any scriptures that argue the exact opposite of your argument, namely, that Peter says that King David said, referring to Christ, “I foresaw YHWH always before my face”, and you said you were using the NT and then you changed, saying you were using the Gospels.  Why is that?

If I may, Ed.

May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

The NT doesn't mention the Trinity.  It expressly denies it.

That the NT doesn’t explicitly mention the Trinity is an argument from silence.  The NT doesn’t explicitly mention the name YHWH and yet you’re arguing that the deity of the Jews is YHWH.  Not a few people have commented on your innovative definition of the concept “expressly denies” as well.

May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

jlb's attempts to pretend otherwise are done by a series of false arguments, such as that he can reasonably assert anything he likes about the meaning of the text if his meaning isn't expressly contradicted somewhere . . .

Why is it false to speculate on how the text may be interpreted?  Do you think that speculating on what the text means is wrong or evil?  Do you think that the text is meant to be interpreted literally and no other way? 

May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

his assuming the Trinity and then trying to impose his assumption on the text instead of deriving his claim from the text

Again, you don’t seem to be deriving much from the text since the text records Peter as citing King David and how David says he foresaw Christ when David says, “I foresaw YHWH before my face”.

You appeal to the text when it’s convenient but chuck the text when it’s inconvenient.

May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

his wrenching of the text so as to impose his imagined meaning on it

In other words, you cannot exclude my interpretations from consideration; therefore, you’ll simply repeat your interpretations of the texts.

And you’ve yet to address text that says the exact opposite of what your argument says.  Why is that?

It seems to me that you don’t want to tackle them because you would have to interpret the texts so that they comport with your arguments.  In doing that, you’d be acknowledging that your opponent can do the same.  That, of course, would place you in a terribly awkward position since you have just accused someone else of imposing his assumptions on the text instead of deriving the claim from the text.  Furthermore, your embarrassment would only be exacerbated by the fact that you’ve hurled reckless accusations that others don’t want to “come to grips with simple English” – all while you ignore simple English – such as Peter’s speech about David, Thomas’ “My Lord and my God” and John’s “the Word was God . . . and the Word (which is God) became Flesh [Christ, that is]”

May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

And he always fled from the question of how the Ghost gets to be Yahweh's equal.

I believe that the Holy Spirit (I have yet to understand the uproariously goofy usage of the term “Ghost” unless you’re one of those who is Jacobean-English Obsessed) is the 3^rd Person of the Trinity.  I’ve not asserted His equality other than to say the text allows for it via Christ’s Commission to the Apostles to baptize in nomine P, F, SS.

Obviously it bothers you that I don’t make a stronger assertion, but I can’t imagine why.

May 6, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Blü wrote:

Either way, end of story.

Do please run along.  Your infantile debate is simply tedious and tiring and proves you lost the debate a long time ago.

jlb

Now this is just pathetic [snicker, snicker], but typical.

I see you saved the best till last.

This is the highest level your debating skills have ever reached.

May 7, 2012 -- 2:29AM, Blü wrote:

However, it doesn't expressly deny Jesus is Confucius and it doesn't expressly deny that Jesus is James K. Polk, so you can expect jlb to tell you Jesus is both of them and you can expect Ed to back him up.

Song sung Bluuuuuuuu weeping like a willow....Song sung Bluuuuuuuuuu not sleeping on MY pillow!

Blu, I'm discussing our scriptures with you unless and until you actually learn participate in a discussion. 

I've asked you a question, scroll up there and find it, answer it, and we'll proceed.