Post Reply
Page 47 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 87 Next
3 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 10:11PM #461
jonny42
Posts: 6,733

May 9, 2012 -- 8:57PM, Blü wrote:


Ed, jlb, jonny, Adelphe


You all want the Trinity.  You don't care that it's a nonsense.  So embrace it, hug it to your nonsense-loving bosoms.


Just don't pretend that it's found in the NT.



After all, on top of the ten-and-still-counting express denials attributed to Jesus and everything else, you're ALL still silent on making the Ghost the co-equal of Jesus or of Yahweh.


But hang in there.  Surely there's a verse somewhere that big-time text screwers like you can torture a confession out of - especially now you're running as a pack.


Good luck!





The Spirit is omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in power, eternal, performs divine works.   "Holy Spirit" and "God" are used interchangeably, Spirit is called "Lord," it is possible to blaspheme the Spirit, Spirit is given divine titles like "Spirit of God."    


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 12:15AM #462
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 9, 2012 -- 2:23PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

I quite understand that the lady may find indisputable facts so boring as to make her *yawn*, when compared to the immediateness of her ... er ... mystical insights ...


... but why doesn't she simply stay out of what she cannot manage?

MdS




The "indisputable fact" is God is light but Jesus is the true light.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 12:18AM #463
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 9, 2012 -- 3:33PM, jlb32168 wrote:

...I think that the reason he does this is because he would have to interpret Trinitarian verses in a manner that isn’t slavishly literal.  In doing this, he would be forced to allow that Trinitarians can do the same.




Excellent insight--really!


We can apply it to the JW's as well.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 12:23AM #464
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 9, 2012 -- 8:57PM, Blü wrote:


Ed, jlb, jonny, Adelphe


You all want the Trinity.  You don't care that it's a nonsense.  So embrace it, hug it to your nonsense-loving bosoms.


Just don't pretend that it's found in the NT.



After all, on top of the ten-and-still-counting express denials attributed to Jesus and everything else,



Blu, are you and jlb consubstantial?


you're ALL still silent on making the Ghost the co-equal of Jesus or of Yahweh.



Why bother when you deny that even Jesus is in the face of all the evidence that's been presented to you?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 12:28AM #465
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 9, 2012 -- 9:55PM, Ed.W wrote:


Blu, when you get through huffing and puffing, did you have any questions on the Trinitarian exposition on John 17:3?


Or do you just agree with my total response?


Once we address any issues that you aren't clear on, we can move to another verse.


-Ed




Excellent response, btw.  Especially this, "Therefore this verse actually confirms the trinity, or else it's blasphemous."


Unitarians and their...supporters are like little kids playing with a chemistry set--which then blows up in their faces.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 12:34AM #466
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 9, 2012 -- 10:11PM, jonny42 wrote:


May 9, 2012 -- 8:57PM, Blü wrote:


Ed, jlb, jonny, Adelphe


You all want the Trinity.  You don't care that it's a nonsense.  So embrace it, hug it to your nonsense-loving bosoms.


Just don't pretend that it's found in the NT.



After all, on top of the ten-and-still-counting express denials attributed to Jesus and everything else, you're ALL still silent on making the Ghost the co-equal of Jesus or of Yahweh.


But hang in there.  Surely there's a verse somewhere that big-time text screwers like you can torture a confession out of - especially now you're running as a pack.


Good luck!





The Spirit is omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in power, eternal, performs divine works.   "Holy Spirit" and "God" are used interchangeably, Spirit is called "Lord," it is possible to blaspheme the Spirit, Spirit is given divine titles like "Spirit of God."    





Also referred to as "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", the "Spirit of our God", "Spirit of the Lord", "the Lord, who is the Spirit", "the Lord is the Spirit", etc.


Voila--the Trinity.  And in those phrases alone.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 3:11AM #467
Blü
Posts: 25,176


The Spirit is omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in power, eternal, performs divine works.


Where does the NT say that?


Because it's a very silly thing to say.  There can only be one omnipotent entity.  If it's the Ghost, it can't be Yahweh or Jesus.




"Holy Spirit" and "God" are used interchangeably


Where does the NT say that?


If it should say that, then it would simply mean Yahweh himself is manifested as the Ghost, not that the Ghost exists independently of him.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 4:46AM #468
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,096

May 9, 2012 -- 9:55PM, Ed.W wrote:

Blu, when you get through huffing and puffing, did you have any questions on the Trinitarian exposition on John 17:3?


Or do you just agree with my total response [post #425]?


Once we address any issues that you aren't clear on, we can move to another verse.


This is Ed.W's famous "total response" ...


... 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.


[Ed.W, post #425]



... then, in the way of further obfuscation ... er ... "clarification", Ed.W adds this other pearl ...


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 skilfully 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.


[Ed.W, post #428]



All the above obfuscation ... er ... "clarification" has already been taken care of. Once again ...


First Ed.W, the "pupil" of that little squirmy thing, Augustine has the even more daring chutzpah of further embroidering, claiming that "this verse could be an insertion by a copyist" [#], nay, that "[t]he RCC is certain that it is an insertion" [§] ...


... and then, with a spectacular somersault, of claiming that he would have "no problem with what the verse says" [%], and the even more spectacular chutzpah that "Auggie [viz. that little squirmy thing, Augustine] could have dealt with it as it was as I [Ed.W] quite skilfully did" [&]. 


What else can we say? Perhaps only this ...


quos deus vult perdere prius dementat


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
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 8:14AM #469
jlb32168
Posts: 13,605

May 9, 2012 -- 4:45PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Poor, poor jlb, who could only manage to . . .


. . . thoroughly thrash you, perhaps? 


Yeah, I know that’s not what you said, but I think it’s apropos. 

May 9, 2012 -- 8:57PM, Blü wrote:

Ed, jlb, jonny, Adelphe, You all want the Trinity. You don't care that it's a nonsense.   So embrace it, hug it to your nonsense-loving bosoms.  Just don't pretend that it's found in the NT.


First of all, you clearly don’t want the Trinity since you asserted that it could not possibly be found in the NT, then you revised it to “the Gospels”, then you revised it to “Jesus’ dialogue”.


You conceded two arguments before you realized just how far you needed to move the goalposts and end-zones to actually win the argument.  I would have at least made sure I knew my material first.  Then I’d know how far I had to limit the scope of allowable evidence.  Granted, that would still be dishonest on my part, but I’d make it less obvious and thus get away with it.


May 9, 2012 -- 8:57PM, Blü wrote:

After all, on top of the ten-and-still-counting express denials attributed to Jesus and everything else, you're ALL still silent on making the Ghost the co-equal of Jesus or of Yahweh.


You’re lumping all of us together, you’ve never addressed my arguments as I actually presented them – that is, that if Christ is YHWH then it is logical to assume that the writer’s inclusion of Christ’s Commission to Baptize in nom. P., F., SS, very likely suggests that the writer was equating the three.  It didn’t prove the conclusion, but it certainly suggests it is likely.


Furthermore, you’ve not addressed Mme. Adelphe’s comment that Christ says that God is light and also calls himself the True light.


In addition to that, you’ve not addressed the problem with your argument that Christ took great care to correct a man who called him Good Teacher, saying that Good should only be applied to God, which allegedly meant that Christ was “unambiguously” [snicker, snicker] saying that He wasn’t God; however, Timothy’s statement to Christ of “My Lord and my God”, Christ lets pass w/o comment [???].


You’d have us believe that Christ moved the world to correct someone who called him Good, since only God is good and He’s not God, but Christ says absolutely nothing when a disciple says “My Lord and my God”.  Are you serious??!?


And I am thoroughly convinced of your expertise in judging the screwing of text.  You’ve demonstrating you’re adeptness in copious amounts [more “guffaws!”] Even the atheists and agnostics have commented on your ad nauseams and subsequent failure to address arguments contra your points.


I'd call your debate troll-esque but most of the trolls don't want it associated with them since they're above such sophomoric twaddle.

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
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 8:15AM #470
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,355

jonny42:  Spirit is called "Lord," it is possible to blaspheme the Spirit, Spirit is given divine titles like "Spirit of God."


Well, there's this:


Mark 3:  28 “I tell you the truth, all sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, 29 but anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. This is a sin with eternal consequences.” 30 He told them this because they were saying, “He’s possessed by an evil spirit.”



And ...


Passage Luke 12: 10 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.


So, what we have here is that you can dis Jesus but screw with the Holy Spirit and God loses His sense of humor.  How are they interchangeable?

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 47 of 87  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 87 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook