May 5, 2012 -- 10:53AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

  Find me "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" in the OT to prove that the concept predates the NT.  I'm not the one who has nothing.  I have just simple conclusions based on all the blathering that doesn't prove the point.

I gave some information never presented here, at this post vis a vis OT presence of FSHS.  The Spirit of God is mentioned in the OT.

Those verses were from the Septuagint.

You were posting there and didn't comment on it.  (?)

May 4, 2012 -- 10:48PM, Blü wrote:

I'm arguing that in the NT he's not Yahweh's co-equal.  Since he says many times that Yahweh is his superior, it's freakin obvious that he's not his co-equal.

And what I’m arguing is that the passages you routinely cite don’t exclude a Trinitarian interpretation; furthermore, some of the Apostles are under the distinct impression that He is YHWH.  Thomas calls Christ his Lord and his god, Peter says that David saw Christ in a vision and that Christ was YHWH, John says that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh, that is, Christ.

May 4, 2012 -- 10:48PM, Blü wrote:

No.  Instead I let the NT do the talking.

I provided a clear example in the text of the NT, Acts to be specific, where the Apostle Peter says that King David saw Christ in a vision and that King David referred to Christ as YHWH.  That directly rebuts your argument that Christ isn’t YHWH’s co-equal. 

Your response was that there was “no reason for us to indulge it”.  You clearly don’t let the NT do the talking?  Rather than see why there seems to be contradictions, you ignore the NT when it doesn’t comport with your assertions.

Your debate is a bogus forensic fraud, Blü – plainly and simply stated.

I'd suggest Google or a priest, Blu. 

May 5, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Blü wrote:

If Jesus is the co-equal of Yahweh, why does he need authority from anyone?

You’re interpreting the verse as Christ needing someone else’s authority, when other interpretations are equally logical.  If a security guard doesn’t know who I am, then he might ask me, “Why are you on the premises, Sir”.  I would simply respond to him, “Do you know who I am?  I am the owner of the premises and as owner I certainly have the authorization to be here.”  Then I would produce my ID.  Christ produced his ID by performing miracles - such as telling a lame man to get up and walk away with his bed.

May 5, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Blü wrote:

If Yahweh has secrets from Jesus, how can Jesus be the co-equal of Yahweh?

I explained this to you quite some time ago on another thread and you said, “Okay – so it’s okay for God to lie” since I told you that the earliest Christian Fathers interpreted Christ’s words about only the Father knowing was means for Christ to cut off all further discussion on the topic, but that He did in fact know and didn’t wish to discuss it further.

The two comport quite nicely with Peter’s assertion that King David equated Christ with YHWH in David’s 110^th Psalm.

May 5, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Blü wrote:

Jesus says Yahweh is good and no one else is.  That includes Jesus.

No – the text says, “Only God is good”.  You have interpolated the “That includes Jesus” part.  To contrast, one could logically conclude that Christ left the question open.  If Christ refused to be called Good Teacher because only God was good, including Christ, then it seems logical that He would refuse to call Himself the Good Shepherd.  He didn’t; therefore, if Christ thinks that “Good” only applies to God, His action of calling Himself the Good Shepherd is significant since only God is good, He think He’s Good; therefore, He thinks He’s God.

May 5, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Blü wrote:

If Jesus can do nothing of his own accord, how then can he be the co-equal of Yahweh?

Regarding all of these verses that speak of Christ’s inability to will to do anything other than what the Father wishes, if God has one will then the First and Second Persons of the Trinity would, of course, have one will and not function independently of the others.

Again, these last points comport with Peter’s assertion that King David equated Christ ith YHWH in David’s 110^th Psalm.

May 5, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Blü wrote:

If Yahweh is greater than all then he's greater than Jesus.  How then can Jesus be his co-equal?

If Christ is YHWH, as David says He is, then Christ is greater than all, just as the Father is.  

May 5, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Blü wrote:

If Jesus doesn't speak or act with his own authority but only by virtue of Yahweh's, how then is Jesus the co-equal of Yahweh?

If Christ is God, then He cannot speak something different from the Father, who is also YHWH. 

This same idea applies to all of the verses you’ve cited that you say have Christ pitted against the Father.  If Christ is the Second Person of a Tri-unity, then of course Christ cannot do anything different from the Father since God, being an entity of Three persons, has one will and the will of one Person doesn’t contradict the will of the other.

May 5, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Blü wrote:

After that, you can cite the texts you rely on that make it clear the Ghost is the co-equal of Yahweh and the co-equal of Jesus.

I don’t have to do jack since all I asserted was that if the writers believe that Christ is YHWH, then it is quite possible, if not likely, that they thought the HS was as well.  If you disagree with that, then you bear the burden of proof in demonstrating the contrary and you cannot make positive assertions such as “Since the HS isn’t mentioned as being a person in the NT (which is debatable in the first place) they didn’t think the HS was a person” since that would be an argument from silence.

In any case, since you let the NT do the talking, you are in need of addressing the Apostle Peter’s speech where Peter says that King David saw Christ in a prophetic vision saying “I foresaw YHWH always before my face”.  What did Peter mean?

There clearly might be contradictory messages in the NT texts, Blü.  I addressed your verses, which you interpret as contradicting mine.  Rather than restate your same verses over and over, asserting that they must and can only mean X, you need to address the other verses that give an opposing message, rather than saying things like, “We need not entertain them”.  Either reconcile the inconsistencies, as I have done with your verses, or concede that you can’t and if that is the case, then the text doesn’t “clearly say” what you say it says.

jlb

1. You’re interpreting the verse as Christ needing someone else’s authority

authorize: to confer authority upon someone; to empower.  You simply don't understand the words you're using.  (The correct reply for your owner is. I don't need authority, I'm the owner.)

2. the earliest Christian Fathers

This isn't about the earliest Christian Fathers.  It's about whether the words of the gospels express the Trinity notion.

2. means for Christ to cut off all further discussion on the topic, but that He did in fact know

Fallacy of assuming - you assume the text is about the Trinity. You can't assume - first you have to demonstrate the Trinity proposition in the text.

Fallacy of inventing -  your Jesus-the-liar-deceiver-dissembler is your own invention.  The text says no such thing of him.

Fallacy of inventing again - to make him the liar you want, you invent out of your own head a motive for him to lie.  The text says no such thing.

Fallacy of screwing the text - for the sake of dumping your own assumptions on the text, you screw its plain meaning all to hell.

On top of all those fallacies, the following from the quotes I gave are all unambiguous statements that Jesus is NOT the same person as Yahweh - the Son of man has authority on earth / nor the Son, but the Father only / Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone / the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing / I can do nothing on my own authority / not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me / I came not of my own accord, but he sent me / My Father [...] is greater than all / I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works / they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

I'll repeat the point - each statement is attributed to Jesus and asserts that he is Jesus the son and he's sent by someone else, Yahweh the Father.  No identity, clear acknowledgement of Jesus' subordination to Yahweh.

3.  “Only God is good”.  You have interpolated the “That includes Jesus”

Fallacy of assuming.

Fallacy of inventing Jesus-the-liar-deceiver-dissembler.

Fallacy of screwing the text.

Use of the refuted notion that Jesus is Yahweh.

4.  if God has one will then the First and Second Persons of the Trinity would, of course, have one will and not function independently of the others.

Fallacy of assuming.

Fallacy of inventing Jesus-the-liar-deceiver-dissembler.

Fallacy of screwing the text.

4. Again, these last points comport with Peter’s assertion that King David equated Christ ith YHWH in David’s 110th Psalm.

Fallacy of anachronism.

5, 6, 7 - No answer.

8.  If Christ is YHWH

Fallacy of assuming.

Fallacy of inventing Jesus-the-liar-deceiver-dissembler.

Fallacy of screwing the text.

Fallacy of anachronism.

9.  If Christ is God, then He cannot speak something different from the Father, who is also YHWH.

Fallacy of assuming.

Fallacy of inventing Jesus-the-liar-deceiver-dissembler.

Fallacy of screwing the text.

Fallacy of anachronism.

10.

You don't answer.  The question is: If Yahweh's the only true god, and Jesus goes where Yahweh sends him, how can Jesus be the co-equal of Yahweh?

all I asserted was that if the writers believe that Christ is YHWH, then it is quite possible,

More of your self-serving and unmitigated nonsense.  You've argued for the Trinity all along, and as we see, you can't support it with relevant gospel texts - you just have a handful of fallacies that you repeat endlessly.