Post Reply
Page 43 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 ... 87 Next
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 12:43AM #421
Ed.W
Posts: 9,423

May 8, 2012 -- 11:58PM, Blü wrote:


Ed


I think worth noting is that Jesus never emphatically denied he was God.


He repeated denied he was Yahweh.


But he never denied he was Aphrodite.




Hey, Elmo, you're just going for a post-count aren't you?  I did a thread that went past a thousand once.  But that doesn't mean you're half as good as I.


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

Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 1:21AM #422
Blü
Posts: 24,692

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 2:26AM #423
Ed.W
Posts: 9,423

None of those verses present problems for the Trinity.  What you should do is look up a commentary on each of them.  And you will see that your concerns are not "explained away"...your concerns don't even come up.  Because you are severely misunderstanding them.  Even the most Liberal NT scholars do not point to these verses (or any others) as problems for the Trinity.



But I will take this verse below,  for there are some issues with it.



John 17
3  And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.



If you remember earlier today in Acts where the risen Jesus identified himself to Paul, he said, "I'm Jesus, whom you are persecuting."  He did not identify himself as "Jesus Christ".


*In fact Jesus never (besides John 17:3) identified himself as "Jesus Christ".  This alone causes us to believe that this verse could be an insertion by a copyist.  The RCC is certain that it is an insertion.  On this basis alone.


*In the midst of a prayer, Jesus apparently pauses, and noticeably breaks up the prose, to define for the Father, "eternal life" .  This makes no sense.  Try reading it leaving out 17:3 and you will see it looks much better.


*Jesus spoke to two people in scripture:  He prayed to God, and he spoke directly to the person in front of him.  To my knowledge Jesus NEVER spoke to the reader of the scripture directly, or to anyone else that was not there.  Which is what he'd be doing here (if he's not explaining to the Father what eternal life is).


Clearly, it is the voice of a narrator interrupting Jesus.


17:3 just like the "sweating blood" passage, and the Pericope Adulterae, is probably an insertion not in the original.



That being said, is just for your information; I have no problem with what the verse says. 


The Father IS the only true God.  Jesus is not a separate true God; Jesus and the Father are one.  He may could have said "know us, the only true God", but that may have excluded the Holy Spirit.  Even though "us" is not limited to two, you may have had a decent case for a biunity rather than a trinity had he said "us".  Therefore the use of "you" rather than "us" somewhat supports at least a tri-unity.  But the use of "you" is not improper; it doesn't necessarily exclude Jesus from also being "true God".  The word "only" has nothing to do with the word "God".


If you are part owner of a business with equal shares,  and I find your keys, and I say I'm returning the keys to you directly, because you are owner of this business.  You'd say you are correct, and thank me for returning the keys.  You wouldn't say I was incorrect because you have two brothers, especially if you all equally owned the business.


Jesus is true God, and the Holy Spirit is true God, and the Father is true God, but I don't have to mention all three if I call any one of them "true God" in a conversation or writing.


thee the only true God


In fact the word "only" modifies "true" and does not modify "God".    You are alleging that he is saying that the Father is the only God.  But you are incorrect, he is the only true God.


And JC, the one you sent.


This portion is no problem either.  Your flawed interpretation would have for the first time in scripture the requirement for belief in a mere man (or demi-god) in addition to a belief in the Father.


Therefore this verse actually confirms the trinity, or else it's blasphemous--the Father and Jesus must therefore be one (unity) because saving belief in two Gods, or 1 God + 1 human is fatal.  Don't you see that?  It's like a puzzle.


But it's only like a puzzle because the scripture wasn't written to be put on trial by atheists it was written for believers.  So if we are going to put it on trial, we have to work our way into it backwards and eliminate possibilities in this manner.



Blu, it takes a clear head, without bias, exegetical skill, experience, cold logic,  to understand the scriptures from the standpoint of non-belief.  If you already know these things, you just say "of course" as you read the scriptures. 


Hope this helps.



EDIT:


I see you pared it down to one scripture, and I had already chosen just that one.  Lucky you.  It's divine, wouldn't you say?

Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 3:30AM #424
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Blü


May 9, 2012 -- 1:21AM, Blü wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 12:43AM, Ed.W wrote:

... 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.


You said recently something to the effect that it is a wasted day the one when you have not learned something new.


Here is, then, something (presumably) new for you. This is what Augustine wrote, to his eternal shame ... 


“And this,” He [Jesus, according to John 17:3] adds, “is eternal life,  that they may know Thee, the only  true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou  hast sent.” The proper order [sic! LOL! the Augustinian chutzpah!]  of  the words is, “That they may know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou  hast  sent, as the only true God.” -- Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John etc., Ch. XVII, 1-5, Tractate CV, §3 (@ ccel.org)


That little squirmy thing, Augustine, dares to change the order of the words of the Gospel of John, for the simple reason that, otherwise they wouldn't jibe with his "trinitarianism".


Let's make it fool proof (NOT for your sake, Blü, BUT) for the sake of the resident trinitarians:


This is what Jesus said, according to the Gospel of John:


“And this is eternal life,
[1]  that they may know Thee,
[2] the only  true God,
[3] and Jesus Christ,
[4] whom Thou hast sent.”
(John 17:3 KJV)


This is how that little squirmy thing, Augustine, abominably twists his words:


“[And this is eternal life,]
[1=>1] [t]hat they may know Thee =>
[3=>2] and Jesus Christ,
[4=>3] whom Thou  hast  sent,
[2=>4] as the only true God.”
(John 17:3, after Augustine's "treatment")


Triple yuck!


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 3:41AM #425
Blü
Posts: 24,692

Ed


What you should do is look up a commentary on each of them.


No you shouldn't.  The commentaries are written by committed Trinitarians who have the sole intention of perverting the plain meaning of the words to fit their own agendas.


That is, they presume the Trinity and then set about wishing that presumption onto the text.


Just like you and jlb.


That of course is back to front.


FIRST you have to find the Trinity in the text.


You can't even make Jesus equal to Yahweh.


Let alone make the Ghost equal to either of them.



See?  I gave you one last shot, and you blew it again.


But never mind.


Keep screwing those texts till they say what you want.


And don't forget your mantra -


Submission to another doesn’t entail inequality.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 3:45AM #426
Ed.W
Posts: 9,423

May 9, 2012 -- 3:30AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Blü


May 9, 2012 -- 1:21AM, Blü wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 12:43AM, Ed.W wrote:

... 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.


You said recently something to the effect that it is a wasted day the one when you have not learned something new.


Here is, then, something (presumably) new for you. This is what Augustine wrote, to his eternal shame ... 


“And this,” He [Jesus, according to John 17:3] adds, “is eternal life,  that they may know Thee, the only  true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou  hast sent.” The proper order [sic! LOL! the Augustinian chutzpah!]  of  the words is, “That they may know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou  hast  sent, as the only true God.” -- Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John etc., Ch. XVII, 1-5, Tractate CV, §3 (@ ccel.org)


That little squirmy thing, Augustine, dares to change the order of the words of the Gospel of John, for the simple reason that, otherwise they wouldn't jibe with his "trinitarianism".


Let's make it fool proof (NOT for your sake, Blü, BUT) for the sake of the resident trinitarians:


This is what Jesus said, according to the Gospel of John:


“And this is eternal life,
[1]  that they may know Thee,
[2] the only  true God,
[3] and Jesus Christ,
[4] whom Thou hast sent.”
(John 17:3 KJV)


This is how that little squirmy thing, Augustine, abominably twists his words:


“[And this is eternal life,]
[1=>1] [t]hat they may know Thee =>
[3=>2] and Jesus Christ,
[4=>3] whom Thou  hast  sent,
[2=>4] as the only true God.”
(John 17:3, after Augustine's "treatment")


Triple yuck!


MdS




Auggie did ok.  He should have said "a better order" rather than "the proper order" however.


Alas, if we could have had that order, would you cave then?  I doubt it.



I don't think Auggie was second guessing Jesus, but perhaps the translator, or the over-zealous copyist that crammed it in there.


Auggie could have dealt with it as it was as I quite skillfully did.  Even he realized the implications of denying the Spirit, as he essentially called for the use of "us" as I briefly for argument's sake proposed.


But all in all Auggie did a good job.


And btw, Auggie DID NOT suggest that the order of words as they are create problems for the trinity, but perhaps only for a careless reader to misunderstand.  Innocent

Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 5:57AM #427
Blü
Posts: 24,692

Ed


The NT says what it says.


Gus, and jlb, and you, can, as the whim takes you, shatter it to bits and then remold it nearer to the heart's desire (FitzGerald).


It'll continue to say what it says.


And Gus, and jlb, and you, will continue to say what you say.


And never the twain shall meet.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 6:17AM #428
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

... some may call him Auggie, some may call him Gus, but I prefer to call that little squirmy thing, Augustine, with his name ... SurprisedCool


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 6:40AM #429
Utilyan
Posts: 5,573

 


:::POOF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE:::


Devil here......let me tell you.


God can do anything......absolutely anything.......  except be a trinity.   


 


So you see some things are impossible for God.    }=D 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 6:49AM #430
jlb32168
Posts: 13,136

May 9, 2012 -- 5:57AM, Blü wrote:

Gus, and jlb, and you, can, as the whim takes you, shatter it to bits and then remold it nearer to the heart's desire (FitzGerald).  And Gus, and jlb, and you, will continue to say what you say.  And never the twain shall meet.


Will you ever address those verses that seems to say things quite the opposite of what you're saying, since you take the verse at face value - since you pride yourself on understanding that is says what it says - or do you just plan on repeating your same verses over and over as evidence that you're right?


I think we all know that the answer is "I will never address other verses contra my argument because in doing so . . .


"I will be demonstrating that verses can have various and sundry interpretations, which means I will have to acknowledge that maybe you Trinitarian guys have a legitimate, logical argument . . .


"and"


"I will have truly embarrassed myself since I've used all manner of silly names to invent illogical fallacies to apply to your arguments - most of which deal with your manner of interpreting verses . . ."


"and"


"I am simply loath to concede that someone else, other than me, can be right".


I've supplied the dialogue Blu.  All you need is sign your name below it.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 43 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 ... 87 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook