The Trinity

jonny42

Posts: 6,202

May 7, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Blü wrote:

jonny

And plainly this sort of practice is fine by you.

Yes, it's fine by me. I can read English.

It's also the reason Bnet has a Discuss Christianity board.

They also have a Discuss Islam board should I want it.

True. Being disingenuous is not against the ROC. It's disingenuous to say one is "defending" a religious text when one does not embrace the spiritual signficance that the words are meant to give.

I can't imagine telling Muslims that I was "defending the Koran" against Muslim marauders… when the Koran has no spiritual significance to me. Such practice would be deplorable.

Blü

Posts: 21,110

Ed

I haven't adopted JLB's position

You did exactly that in #371 where you said:

JLB, you responded precisely as I would have.

Ed.W

Posts: 9,066

May 7, 2012 -- 9:55AM, Blü wrote:

Ed

I haven't adopted JLB's position

You did exactly that in #371 where you said:

JLB, you responded precisely as I would have.

This is an indication of your poor reading comprehension ability that you also use trying to read scripture.

There is no implication of "adoption" of another's ideas here.

In fact, my statement clearly implies my thoughts were formed before JLB posted, it says "as I would have posted [had you not]".

And it is also clear that he did not know my thoughts when he posted, since I never troubled myself to respond to your post. So there is no indication of him "adopting" my thinking. We simply agree. (There's 2 billion others that agree too.)

Why is it when there is clarity in a text, you have such difficulty? Why is it instead of addressing the issues you use the ad hom argument? You may associate me with JLB all you want, again he is probably the most reasonable and non-confrontational poster here.

If you can't have a discussion with JLB, it's because your argument is weak. I'm truly glad he and I are on the same side, because I feel for you.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Blü

Posts: 21,110

Ed

The style of your answer even further identifies you with jlb - screwing the hell out of the ordinary meaning of words, and wholly free of substance.

Moderated by Adelphe on May 09, 2012 - 11:44AM

Ed.W

Posts: 9,066

May 7, 2012 -- 10:21AM, Blü wrote:

Ed

The style of your answer even further identifies you with jlb - screwing the hell out of the ordinary meaning of words, and wholly free of substance.

You seem to be imploding. Do John 10:30 using ordinary meaning. Do John 1:1 using ordinary meaning.

Moderated by Adelphe on May 09, 2012 - 11:44AM

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Blü

Posts: 21,110

Bye, Ed

Ed.W

Posts: 9,066

May 7, 2012 -- 10:58AM, Blü wrote:

Bye, Ed

It's for the best, because we were not going to proceed until you started dealing with the issues.

Your forfeiture indicates that you don't have the ability to defend your own posts. Or it would be too embarrassing for you to defend your position.

Because it will turn out that the Trinitarian reading will be much "plainer" than yours.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

jlb32168

Posts: 10,247

May 7, 2012 -- 8:56AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:
jlb has managed to turn the verse upside-down.

And I think the verse speaks very matter-of-factly, Mario, that is, Peter cites the LXX version of Psalm 16, saying that David saw Christ in a prophetic vision and David referenced the person in this vision as the “Lord”, which in the Hebrew Psalm is the Tetragrammaton YHWH.

It is true that King David was a typos of Christ; however, Christ was clearly the object of David’s vision when David wrote his Psalm.

Only the most creative of semantic acrobatics erases that fact.

May 7, 2012 -- 8:56AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:
Here is a couple of relevant commentaries.

Matthew Henry’s 18^th Century commentary might be relevant to you. It’s not relevant to me. I can cite just as many scholars, ancient and modern, that support my opinion so why rely upon them when we both can see what the text says?

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles

jlb32168

Posts: 10,247

May 7, 2012 -- 11:19AM, Ed.W wrote:
May 7, 2012 -- 10:58AM, Blü wrote:
Bye, Ed

It's for the best, because we were not going to proceed until you started dealing with the issues.

Your forfeiture indicates that you don't have the ability to defend your own posts. Or it would be too embarrassing for you to defend your position.

Because it will turn out that the Trinitarian reading will be much "plainer" than yours.

To coattail on Ed’s point, Blü,

Your facile dismissal of other people’s points suggests that don’t wish to address opposing points because you would have to interpret the texts so that they comport with your arguments; however, when others did just that, you reclassified their arguments as fallacious, inventing the stupidest names for fallacies I’ve ever heard. You’d have to admit a special pleading, that is, you exempt your own arguments from the same scrutiny by which you judge other people’s arguments.

You are utterly impoverished about the discipline of forensic debate. Furthermore, I have set your arguments in my crosshairs and will attack them with gusto from here on out until everyone sees them for the pretentiously fraudulent twaddle that they are.

Moderated by Adelphe on May 09, 2012 - 11:46AM

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles

Miguel_de_servet

Posts: 16,876

May 7, 2012 -- 11:34AM, jlb32168 wrote:
May 7, 2012 -- 8:56AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:
jlb has managed to turn the verse [Acts 2:25, where Peter quotes Psalm 16:8] upside-down.

And I think the verse speaks very matter-of-factly, Mario, that is, Peter cites the LXX version of Psalm 16, saying that David saw Christ in a prophetic vision and David referenced the person in this vision as the “Lord”, which in the Hebrew Psalm is the Tetragrammaton YHWH.

First, it would be interesting to know how jlb knows that —in his actual speech, of course, NOT in the Greek of Acts— "Peter cites the LXX version of Psalm 16" ...

Second, the Greek verbal form προορωμην (from προοράω, prooraō, G4308) is very unfortunately translated in the KJV as "foresaw", and gives to the whole verse —which is certainly prophetic, because spoken by David about the Messiah— a very misleading "prophetic" idea: the verse does NOT say that David "foresaw" YHWH = Christ, BUT says that David, prophetically speaking as though he himself was the future Christ, referred to YHWH with those words.

Third, and consequent, the above is the ONLY understanding that makes sense of Peter's words immediately following his quotation of Ps 16:8-11 ...

₂₉ “Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ₃₀ So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, ₃₁ David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay. ₃₂ This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. ₃₃ So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear. (Acts 2:29-33)

... which, otherwise, would be totally senseless.

It is true that King David was a typos of Christ; however, Christ was clearly the object of David’s vision when David wrote his Psalm.

Clearly ... NOT: David, as Peter's words attest, spoke as though he was the future Messianic King, and the ONLY way to make sense of his words —says Peter— is that David was identifying himself, prophetically, with the future Messianic King.

Only the most creative of semantic acrobatics erases that fact.

jlb couldn't have referred to his "operation" with more appropriate words ...

Matthew Henry’s 18^th Century commentary might be relevant to you. It’s not relevant to me. I can cite just as many scholars, ancient and modern, that support my opinion so why rely upon them when we both can see what the text says?

It would be "interesting" to see those "scholars, ancient and modern, that support [jlb's] opinion" ...

... as for "we both can see what the text says", what jlb "sees" is spectacular, uninformed projection ...

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)

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot