May 9, 2012 -- 7:04AM, jonny42 wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 1:21AM, Blü wrote:

Ed

just give me one verse or passage, not ten, where he said he was NOT God.

John 17

3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

You're a really slow learner, Ed.

John 1:1 makes this a non-issue.

The Word (Jesus) is with God and is also God. That God could send Jesus, or be referred to independently of Jesus, makes Jesus no less God than being with Him does.

I wholly agree with you Jonny, and don't know what Blü hopes to accomplish.

The problem here is that Blü refuses to allow that the opposition even might be right.  Other than engaging in improper debate, which would result in his being disqualified at any official forensic debating competition, the verses he continuously cites, and the verses contra his point (those of Trinitarians), are reconcilable if God is a Tri-Unity of three Persons.  The verses that Trinitarians cite, however, are not reconcilable with Blü’s interpretations if Christ isn’t God.  For that reason, Blü doesn’t bother addressing them.  Doing so would entail his interpreting the verses in a manner other than the manner in which Blü prided himself when he said, “It'll continue to say what it [the verse] says.”  His predicament is only exacerbated by the fact that he has accused others of whimsical interpretation and he would either find himself falling under his own condemnation or composing a special pleading to excuse his own arguments from the same criteria with which he scrutinizes others’ arguments.

The best way to alleviate himself of this quandary is to simply not address verses contra his point.  Instead, he’ll repeat his own verses ad nauseam and simply hope that no one notices.  Unfortunately, it’s not worked thus far.  It was already noticed by another poster who isn’t a Christian, and has no desire to become one, but who values academic objectivity and forensic honesty.  Of course, I’ve continued to hammer home this fraudulence as well.

I predict that he will simply disappear, but will continue this same MO on other threads.  This type of debate is not a little troll-esque.

May 8, 2012 -- 11:29AM, tfvespasianus wrote:

I recently heard the phrase 'hermeneutical ventriloquism' used to describe an idiosyncratic/disingenuous way of getting the text to say what you'd prefer it said. Feel free to use it when appropriate.

May 8, 2012 -- 12:17PM, jlb32168 wrote:

I like the concept.

May 9, 2012 -- 8:13AM, jlb32168 wrote:

... It was already noticed by another poster who isn’t a Christian, and has no desire to become one, but who values academic objectivity and forensic honesty.

Perhaps jlb could start applying the concept that he seems to like so much to his own spin ... er ... take on Acts 2:25-28 and on the OT prophetic passage therein quoted by Peter, Ps 16:8-11 ...

MdS

May 9, 2012 -- 8:37AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Perhaps jlb could start applying the concept that he seems to like so much to his own . . . take on Acts 2:25-28 and on the OT prophetic passage therein quoted by Peter, Ps 16:8-11

I agree with much of what you say, Mario. I just take the verse at face value in addition to its second fulfillment.

As for the Greek word being incorrectly translated, it's translated the way it is because that's how you translated it and Peter is quoting the LXX version of the Psalm.  Notice this secular translation of the word:

Diodorus Siculus, Library “Throughout Greece, after the battle of Salamis, since the Athenians were generally believed to have been responsible for the victory, and on this account were themselves exultant, it became manifest to all that they were intending to dispute with the Lacedaemonians for the leadership on the sea; consequently the Lacedaemonians, foreseeing(προορώμενοι) what was going to happen, did all they could to humble the pride of the Athenians.”

May 9, 2012 -- 11:01AM, Blü wrote:

Faced with 10 bible quotes all saying that . . .

And we have more of the same.

All of the quotes that you have been given have various and sundry interpretations.  For example . . . 

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

. . . which was one of your supposed “unambiguous” verses.  According to you, Jesus was denying the title “Good Teacher” because only God was good and Jesus wasn’t God that He could claim add the term “Good” to anything about Himself.  Of course, Jesus then proceeds to call himself the “Good Shepherd”, demonstrating that He had no problem with the term “Good”, which you said Christ only attributed to God.

Only God can be called “Good”.  I am the Good Shepherd.  I am God.  What’s illogical about the syllogism, Blü?

May 9, 2012 -- 11:01AM, Blü wrote:

Whereas I never pretended John 1.1 wasn't there. I addressed it repeatedly, saying that it wasn't attributed to Jesus as all my citations are, and that it was heavily outgunned.

The same writers, who recorded the dialogue you attribute to Christ, also recorded the rest of Scripture.  You have allowed the Scriptures as evidence of your points.  You can’t then ignore those parts of Scripture that don’t support your point.

Of course, you didn’t address Timothy’s “My Lord and My God” as spoken to Christ.  Apparently we’re to believe that Christ felt it of paramount importance to correct someone’s use of “good”, used with the term teacher since only God is good, but that Christ let slide “My Lord and my God” w/o comment since such an error was negligible.

That could not be more absurd.

And you haven’t addressed the problem with Christ’s claiming the authority to forgive sins.  You gave one definition for authority – a secondary definition in fact – while ignoring other definitions, such as its primary meaning.

May 9, 2012 -- 11:01AM, Blü wrote:

I also addressed the Peter nonsense on more than one occasion, pointing out to you that the NT isn't capable of rewriting the OT and that anachronism is a fallacy.

You said that the NT in no way could support the idea that Christ is YHWH and Peter’s speech directly countermands that theory.  You couldn't support that argument so you chucked most of the NT and went straight with the four Gospels.  You've seen that problem now and so you've now chucked most of the Gospels and limited your point to Christ's dialogue.

Move the goal posts and end zone when you can't score from where you are.  Right? 

In any case, whether or not Peter used an anachronism is irrelevant.  He used it for a purpose – probably in good faith – and that purpose was to convince the hearers that Christ was the Hebrew deity.  Perhaps Peter was wrong (I don’t think he was), but that’s irrelevant.  He used the Psalm in order to convince others to adopt his views and we both know what that view was and it rebuts your point - at least the point as it was originally stated which said that the idea of the Trinity couldn't be supported when considering the entire corpus of the NT.

If I say to a crowd “I believe that Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim.  Look at his name! Barack is an Arabic form for good or happy and Hussein is a common Arabic name”, I might we right on some details and think that I’m right in all; however, I would be wrong on several counts.  Nonetheless, it would be quite clear to many educated people that my motives and intentions are to convince hearers to believe that Obama practices the beliefs of Islam and can’t be trusted with protecting Americans via guilt by association.

Finally, that you use the term nonsense and apply it to someone else’s argumentation is uproarious.

May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Blü wrote:

As the Catholic Encyclopedia freely admits, the idea isn't complex, it's nonsense.

LOL!

We need to add "freely" and "admits" to the New Blu Dictionary of Novel English.