User Tag List

Page 52 of 56 FirstFirst ... 24249505152535455 ... LastLast
Results 766 to 780 of 836

Thread: Trinity Proof Scriptures

  1. #766
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36441
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    There are many definitions of glory in scripture, in Phil 2:11 I would say it's in a similar sense to honor/praise.
    Is the glory, in Philippians 2:11 KJV honor/praise, or not?

    Since, as a Christ-hater, you claim that God the Father created Jesus, would you say that, before creating Jesus, God the Father had honor/praise?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  3. #767
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36441
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    How is me saying "the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus" but to the "glory of God the Father" me pretending to agree with you, that's exactly what the verse says?
    "but"? Where, in Philippians 2:11 KJV, do we read the word 'but'? That's right, it's not there, not at all:

    And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
    We do NOT read:

    And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, BUT to the glory of God the Father.
    To insert the word 'but', there, is purely EISEGESIS on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    1. There are many definitions of glory in scripture, in Phil 2:11 I would say it's in a similar sense to honor/praise.
    2. It depends on the context, again the word has many definitions. It can mean giving someone a better position, it could mean giving praise and honor to someone.
    3. Same answer, it depends on the context. See above answer 2 for examples.
    4. To the praise, majesty and honor of that person.
    Only a raving fool will deny that knee-bowing to Jesus is honor/praise to Jesus.
    Only a raving fool will deny that tongue-confession that Jesus Christ is Lord is honor/praise to Jesus.

    Since to give honor/praise to Jesus is to give glory to Jesus, and since to give glory to Jesus is to glorify Jesus, the giving of honor/praise to Jesus (in the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV) is, indeed, the glorification of Jesus. Only a raving fool will deny this. And, you do, indeed, deny this:

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    You make the claim the verse is saying Jesus is also glorified, this is not what the scripture is expressing at all.
    To bow the knee to Jesus, and to confess with the tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord, IS, indeed, to GLORIFY Jesus. That being the case, Philippians 2:9-11 KJV does, in fact, depict the glorification of Jesus. Again, only a raving fool will deny this; only a hardened, lying Christ-hater will deny this.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  5. #768
    Over 500 post club NWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Is the glory, in Philippians 2:11 KJV honor/praise, or not?
    As I clearly said previously "I would say it's in a similar sense to honor/praise", so of course yes. The actions spoken to Jesus (in Phil 2:9-11) are to the glory of the Father, in the sense of honor and praise going to the Father one might say.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7
    Since, as a Christ-hater, you claim that God the Father created Jesus, would you say that, before creating Jesus, God the Father had honor/praise?
    I was say God had honor prior to creating anything, but in regards to him receiving honor and praise when he was alone, no. He had no praise and was not honored, but again, was honorable.

    Can you please state whether you ever intend to answer the previous questions I've posed, or are you going to outright ignore them?

    1. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

    Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

    2. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

    3. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?
    If you cant beat them join them

  6. #769
    Over 500 post club NWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    "but"? Where, in Philippians 2:11 KJV, do we read the word 'but'? That's right, it's not there, not at all:

    We do NOT read:

    To insert the word 'but', there, is purely EISEGESIS on your part.
    You have great difficulty separating me explaining my position from me claiming what the scriptures are explicitly stating. Where in my writing did I say or even imply the scriptures says the word "but" in Phil 2:11 for you to moan about me saying "but" in explaining my understanding. Once again, the verse states that "God EXALTED Jesus to a superior position and that every knee bends to him to the glory of God the Father", our discussion is to who's glory is it to, if I then use the English language to convey my idea and point out "all knees bend to Jesus but to the glory of God the Father" how is this me inserting words, where is the dishonesty? I'm simply explaining my position. You are bringing up the poorest of arguments in an attempt to discredit me, it will never work.


    Only a raving fool will deny that knee-bowing to Jesus is honor/praise to Jesus.
    Only a raving fool will deny that tongue-confession that Jesus Christ is Lord is honor/praise to Jesus.
    Once again you appeal to ad hominem to try and bolster your argument, instead of providing any counter reasoning or arguments you simply put me down in a hope that it will make you seem more right about the matter.

    Moreover, where have I denied the knee bowing is NOT honor/praise to Jesus, I haven't, I accept that it is but we should not forget its "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11), you cannot run from this scriptural fact.

    Since to give honor/praise to Jesus is to give glory to Jesus, and since to give glory to Jesus is to glorify Jesus, the giving of honor/praise to Jesus (in the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV) is, indeed, the glorification of Jesus. Only a raving fool will deny this. And, you do, indeed, deny this:
    It is, and I do not deny it, but giving praise and glory to jesus by bending the knee to him is "to the glory of God the Father" as the scripture plainly states, as you say "only a raving fool will deny this".

    the giving of honor/praise to Jesus (in the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV) is, indeed, the glorification of Jesus. Only a raving fool will deny this. And, you do, indeed, deny this: [when you NWL said this "You make the claim the verse is saying Jesus is also glorified, this is not what the scripture is expressing at all."
    You misunderstand the above statement, if you were to have read and fully understood what I said including the parts you left out you would understand that I was expressing that the verse is clear as to who's glory it is too, it clearly mentions it is "to the Fathers glory". The verse implies that Jesus too is glorified -is a sense- when it mentions him being exalted but writer wasn't trying to express explicitly that Jesus was being glorified here, it's simply an implication of the action of exaltation. The writer is clearly demonstrating that the actions and exaltation of Jesus are to the fathers glory, this is irrefutable. That is what I meant when I said "You make the claim the verse is saying Jesus is also glorified, this is not what the scripture is expressing at all", the key word you failed to recognize is expressing.

    To bow the knee to Jesus, and to confess with the tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord, IS, indeed, to GLORIFY Jesus.
    Yes but to the glory of who? Once again, to glorify Jesus it to bring glory to the one who sent Jesus, namely the father. So deal with the point, is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

    (Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."
    If you cant beat them join them

  7. #770
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36441
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    I was say God had honor prior to creating anything, but in regards to him receiving honor and praise when he was alone, no. He had no praise and was not honored, but again, was honorable.
    So, God the Father was needy. I read ya.

    You're saying that God the Father "had honor prior to creating anything", and that, in God the Father's having that honor that He had, God the Father "was honorable". But then, God the Father created things, and, only after that did He begin to receive honor. So, you're saying that God the Father's honor increased; that God the Father became MORE honorable than He had ever been before He created anything. Interesting.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  9. #771
    Over 500 post club NWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    So, God the Father was needy. I read ya.

    You're saying that God the Father "had honor prior to creating anything", and that, in God the Father's having that honor that He had, God the Father "was honorable". But then, God the Father created things, and, only after that did He begin to receive honor. So, you're saying that God the Father's honor increased; that God the Father became MORE honorable than He had ever been before He created anything. Interesting.
    No, God was not needy, I don't know how you came to that conclusion by what I said.

    It would go without saying that to do an honorable deed one would need to be honorable prior to displaying that honor. Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot do things of an honorable nature, only someone with honor can do something of an honorable nature. Thus, God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him.

    Like everyone else who has attempted and failed to dismanlted my -JW- belief's you fail to address points and questioning that clearly shows your flawed reasoning, will you ever deal with them? (Questions below)

    1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

    (Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

    2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

    Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

    3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

    4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?
    If you cant beat them join them

  10. #772
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36441
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    No, God was not needy, I don't know how you came to that conclusion by what I said.

    It would go without saying that to do an honorable deed one would need to be honorable prior to displaying that honor. Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot do things of an honorable nature, only someone with honor can do something of an honorable nature. Thus, God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him.
    When you say that God the Father "was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", what (if anything) do you mean by "honorable"? Do you mean "deserving of honor"? Would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was deserving of honor? If so, would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was receiving the honor of which He was deserving? If so, from whence? From Himself? Before creation, was God the Father honoring--giving honor to--Himself?

    You say "No, God was not needy". So, you're saying God the Father did not NEED to create anything in order to receive the honor of which He was deserving prior to creation. In other words, you are saying that, prior to creation, God the Father was, in fact, receiving the honor of which He was deserving. So, prior to creation, from whence would you say God the Father was receiving honor?

    When you say "Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot....", what (if anything) do you mean by "honor"?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  12. #773
    Over 500 post club NWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    When you say that God the Father "was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", what (if anything) do you mean by "honorable"? Do you mean "deserving of honor"? Would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was deserving of honor? If so, would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was receiving the honor of which He was deserving? If so, from whence? From Himself? Before creation, was God the Father honoring--giving honor to--Himself?

    You say "No, God was not needy". So, you're saying God the Father did not NEED to create anything in order to receive the honor of which He was deserving prior to creation. In other words, you are saying that, prior to creation, God the Father was, in fact, receiving the honor of which He was deserving. So, prior to creation, from whence would you say God the Father was receiving honor?

    When you say "Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot....", what (if anything) do you mean by "honor"?
    How does any of the above or this sub-argument help you answer the question of why glory goes to the Father alone in Phil 2:11? Here you are asking all this questions yet you fail to address mine, that is the very definition of hypocrite, if Jesus were here he would rebuke you the same as he did to the hypocrites in his day.

    When your arguments boil down to semantics it should tell you that you really have lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7
    When you say that God the Father "was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", what (if anything) do you mean by "honorable"? D
    What I meant by "honorable" in my previous statement is someone who has honor by nature, if you struggle with that statement I suggest you look the word up in a dictionary.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7
    Do you mean "deserving of honor"?
    No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created. For example currently I am childless, bearing this in mind do my children need to honor me as the scriptures say? No, since I have no children, that act of honoring only applies upon me having children. Likewise if God existed alone and had created nothing, to who would he be "deserving of honor" to? No one.

    Would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was deserving of honor?
    As already answered no, the same way my children are under no obligation to honor me since they do not exist, I only become deserving of honor by them when I bring them into existence.

    You say "No, God was not needy". So, you're saying God the Father did not NEED to create anything in order to receive the honor of which He was deserving prior to creation. In other words, you are saying that, prior to creation, God the Father was, in fact, receiving the honor of which He was deserving. So, prior to creation, from whence would you say God the Father was receiving honor?
    You've assumed my answer based on your initial question here, I have not expressed or stated most of what you have claimed I have expressed. God does not need anyone or anything, he simply expects it out of divine right and principle. God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God, but this does not mean that God was not honorable by nature prior to creation.

    You've asked my seven questions here, I have answered all the ones that you have asked me to answer, why are you so "hypocritical" as to not to do the same my "Christian" friend?

    1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

    (Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

    2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

    Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

    3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

    4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?
    If you cant beat them join them

  13. #774
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36441
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him.
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    What I meant by "honorable" in my previous statement is someone who has honor by nature
    So, by saying that "God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", you're saying that God, prior to creation, had "honor by nature".

    Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created.
    Here, after stating that God had "honor by nature" prior to creation, you have just denied that God was deserving of the honor you say He had prior to creation. You have just denied that God was deserving of the "honor by nature" you say He had. According to you, God didn't even deserve the honor you say He already had!

    Why don't you try to tell what (if anything) you imagine honor to be, and then, try to explain exactly what (if anything) you think it is for a person to have "honor by nature"?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    No, God was not needy
    God does not need anyone or anything, he simply expects it out of divine right and principle. God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God, but this does not mean that God was not honorable by nature prior to creation.
    So, out of one side of your mouth, you denied that God was needy, and then, out of the other side of your mouth, you affirmed that God was needy. You're really hooked on shooting yourself in the foot, man.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 14th, 2019),Right Divider (February 19th, 2019)

  15. #775
    Over 500 post club NWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    So, by saying that "God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", you're saying that God, prior to creation, had "honor by nature".

    Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?
    You don't even know what you're saying anymore do you.

    You're asking me questions you've already asked and I've already answered, you ask again "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?", I will copy and paste my previous answer to this questions. My answer was this "No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created".

    Just because I say God was honorable prior to him creating anything doesn't imply he gained that honor by from someone honoring him. For example God had love prior to ever creating anything, what you're in effect asking is if God hadn't created anything what did he love to possess the attribute of love? The answer is nothing, God loved nothing, this does not negate the fact that God still had the attribute of love prior to ever displaying that love, since, only someone who possesses the attribute of love can love.

    Likewise God was honorable by nature prior to ever displaying that honor, only someone who is honorable by nature can display that honor. Someone who has no honor cannot display honor, the same way a person who has no love cannot display love. I'm repeating myself here dispute explaining this in my other post.

    Here, after stating that God had "honor by nature" prior to creation, you have just denied that God was deserving of the honor you say He had prior to creation. You have just denied that God was deserving of the "honor by nature" you say He had. According to you, God didn't even deserve the honor you say He already had!
    No, again you are unable to grasp basic language. I said God was honorable by nature prior to creating anything and God was not deserving of honor by anything prior to creating anything. Again, what you are mistaking is God being honorable as a being is the same thing as him being owed honor for creating, these two different things. For example God is a reader of hearts, after creating Adam he could have read the heart of Adam and determined if Adam was a man who was honorable or a person who lacked honor prior to Adam doing any actios that could be deemed as honorable or not. If God determined that he had honor this would not imply that Adam was owed honor by anyone or anything, but simply that he was honorable by nature.

    Likewise God was honorable by nature prior to him creating anything, he needed to be to do actions that were honorable as only someone who is honorable can do actions that are honorable, this does not mean that prior of creating he was owed or deserving of honor.

    Why don't you try to tell what (if anything) you imagine honor to be, and then, try to explain exactly what (if anything) you think it is for a person to have "honor by nature"?
    Hypocrite! Answer my questions and I'll answer yours. You tell me what what you think means to be honorable by nature based on your knowledge of the English language and I'll tell you if you are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL
    God does not need anyone or anything, he simply expects it out of divine right and principle. God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God, but this does not mean that God was not honorable by nature prior to creation.
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7
    So, out of one side of your mouth, you denied that God was needy, and then, out of the other side of your mouth, you affirmed that God was needy. You're really hooked on shooting yourself in the foot, man.
    In a previous post you try and school me on grammar and here now you act as if you don't understand basic grammar and twist word definitions to try and get me to look the fool. Explain to me, how does my statement of "God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God" imply that God relied on something?

    As anyone would be able to tell by my above statement "God does not need anyone or anything" I was talking about anything to sustain himself, since God relies on nothing whereas all other beings do, I don't know of a single branch of Christianity who would disagree with this. When I said "God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God" I was not inferring that God needed to create in someway out of necessity, I was simply saying he needed/had to be the one to create for that creation to owe him honor.

    Let's see if your poor linguistical argument in relation to the word "need" is consistent, answer me if you will, did God need to create Angels for Angels to exist?, if you answer is yes then is this proof that God needs something according to your argument?
    Last edited by NWL; February 16th, 2019 at 11:59 AM.
    If you cant beat them join them

  16. #776
    Over 500 post club NWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    .
    Questions you have yet to address. As you stated to Dartman, I will keep posting these question until you answer them or until you stop conversing with me (this thread or another).

    1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

    (Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

    2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

    Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

    3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

    4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?
    If you cant beat them join them

  17. #777
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36441

    Anti-Trinitarians are NOT neutral about Trinitarianism

    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Trinitarian: No, no no. Prove that the God is not a Trinity.

    Non-Trinitarian: You can't prove a negative.
    Person without thinking cap on: You can't prove a negative.
    Person with thinking cap on: You say that one "can't prove a negative". That's a slogan very commonly parroted by persons without thinking caps on. Here are two propositions:

    1. 'God is not a Trinity'
    2. 'You can't prove a negative'

    You seem to be calling #1, which is an unitarian proposition, a "negative". But, what about #2? Would you not also call the proposition, 'You can't prove a negative', a "negative"? If not, then why the inconsistency? If you call #1 a "negative", yet refuse to call #2 a "negative", then what about #1 makes you call it a "negative", and what about #2 makes you refuse to call it a negative? Now, would you say that you can prove your proposition, 'You can't prove a negative'?

    And, consider this Trinitarian proposition:

    'God is not a non-Trinity'

    Now, this proposition is the contradictory of the proposition, 'God is not a Trinity'. Each of these being the contradictory of the other, one of these two propositions must be true, and the other must be false:

    1. 'God is not a Trinity'
    2. 'God is not a non-Trinity'

    You have already called A a "negative". What about B, though? Would you not, also, call B a "negative"? If not, then, why the inconsistency? Why the special pleading?

    At the end of the day, we have it, in the above quote, from the anti-Trinitarian horse's mouth, that "You can't prove [that God is not a Trinity]", and, in that admission, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that "You can't prove FROM THE BIBLE [that God is not a Trinity]".

    If anti-Trinitarianism were true, and anti-Trinitarianism were taught in the Bible, an anti-Trinitarian shows his/her intense commitment to opposing logical thinking when he/she claims that you can't prove, from the Bible, that Trinitarianism is false. Not only that, but, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism from the Bible, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is extra-Biblical. And, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism AT ALL ("You can't prove a negative"), the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is nothing other than a PRESUPPOSITION!

    Here, we find another instance of an anti-Trinitarian pretending to be neutral regarding Trinitarianism:

    The Bible never teaches that there is a Triune God, so any claims that the God of the Bible is a Triune God must be met with skepticism.
    The Bible does teach that Jesus is the Son of God and that His Father is the God of the Old Testament scriptures, so any claim against that teaching must also be met with skepticism.


    Anti-Trinitarianism is most definitely NOT skepticism.

    Since everything the Bible teaches is true, then, everything that is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is, ipso facto, false. To claim, then, that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is to claim that Trinitarianism is false. To claim that Trinitarianism is false is to deny Trinitarianism.

    Everyone who claims that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the Bible is, in so claiming, very decidedly NOT a skeptic regarding Trinitarianism. No skepticism would ever say:

    "Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

    Rather, skepticism would say:

    "I cannot tell whether or not Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

    Everyone who is an anti-Trinitarian is, ipso facto, a claim-maker, and is not the least bit a skeptic as regards Trinitarianism.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    Apple7 (March 5th, 2019),JudgeRightly (March 6th, 2019),Tambora (March 6th, 2019)

  19. #778
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,591
    Thanks
    16,937
    Thanked 40,117 Times in 20,053 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?
    Well, John doesn't say that, does he? No, you're making that assumption.




    Do you always start your books in the middle of the chapter?

    John started here: John 1:1, John 1:14, John 6:38, and went on.... John 16:27

    The Word who was God became flesh and dwelt among us. He came out from God, down from heaven, and appeared among men as one of us. So, we reach God through God Himself...Emmanuel.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (March 6th, 2019),Apple7 (March 6th, 2019),JudgeRightly (March 6th, 2019),Right Divider (March 6th, 2019),Tambora (March 6th, 2019)

  21. #779
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36441
    I had written to you:

    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    So, by saying that "God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", you're saying that God, prior to creation, had "honor by nature".

    Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?
    Instead of answering that question, you lie, saying that you answered it:

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    You're asking me questions you've already asked and I've already answered, you ask again "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?", I will copy and paste my previous answer to this questions. My answer was this "No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created".
    I did not ask you "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor for simply existing alone?"
    I asked you "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?" So far, you have stonewalled against the question I asked you.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Just because I say God was honorable prior to him creating anything doesn't imply he gained that honor by from someone honoring him.
    What (if anything) do you mean by the word "honorable"? As I understand it, to be honorable is to deserve to be honored. And, to be honored is to be given honor. So, to be honorable is to deserve to be given honor. If you don't like that, then, again what (if anything) do you mean by the word "honorable"?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    For example God had love prior to ever creating anything, what you're in effect asking is if God hadn't created anything what did he love to possess the attribute of love?
    No. I'm not asking that at all. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit each loved one another, prior to Creation. It is false, and asinine, to say that there is love where no object is loved, and Trinitarianism doesn't assert that falsehood; Trinitarianism opposes it. You, however, as an anti-Trinitarian, assert that very falsehood. You say that, prior to Creation, there was, somehow, love sans any loved object. You say that God was love, while saying that, nevertheless, no object was loved:

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    The answer is nothing, God loved nothing
    Here, you are saying that God did not even love God. Obviously, you think that God is not worthy to be loved by God. Yet, you, of course, will not hesitate to claim that God loves what God created: the creature. So, you make out God to love the creature more than the Creator.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    , this does not negate the fact that God still had the attribute of love prior to ever displaying that love, since, only someone who possesses the attribute of love can love.
    Kindly try to explain what (if anything) you mean by your phrase, "the attribute of love".

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    God was honorable by nature prior to ever displaying that honor
    What (if anything) do you mean by the word "honor", when you say that God had honor which had never been given to God. How can anything have honor WITHOUT having been given it.

    And, we notice that you have brought into the discussion the term "display". Do you mean anything by it?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    , only someone who is honorable by nature can display that honor.
    Here, you seem to be trying to make honorableness and honor to be one and the same thing. And, to do that is purely absurd. Tell me, then: is honorableness the same thing as honor, or not?

    What (if anything) would you say honor is?
    What (if anything) would you say honorableness is?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Someone who has no honor cannot display honor
    I'm curious to learn why (if for some reason) you say this. Please explain. What (if anything) do you mean by "display honor"? Above, you had written:

    "God was honorable by nature prior to ever displaying that honor"

    So, you are saying that God has not always "displayed honor", though God has always had honor. Again, what (if anything) do you mean by "display honor"?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Again, what you are mistaking is God being honorable as a being is the same thing as him being owed honor for creating, these two different things.
    I never said anything about anyone "being owed honor for creating". That's something you have so cult-member-like tried to sneak in, because you know you can't answer the questions I asked you.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    In a previous post you try and school me on grammar
    I'm not a fool: I don't try to school the unteachable! I wasn't at all trying to school you on grammar; I was/am mocking your hatred and dismal, persistent butchery of the English language and grammar. It is extremely repugnant to me, and I do not apologize for doing so. I've been very, very, very generous with you, what with all the slogging through your ravings I've allowed myself to endure. I consider language to be a magnificent gift from God, and to see it trampled in the mud by thoughtless oinkers who pretend to authority is quite a trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    When I said "God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God" I was not inferring that God needed to create in someway out of necessity
    You are correct! You, indeed, were not inferring it; you were implying it.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Let's see if your poor linguistical argument in relation to the word "need" is consistent, answer me if you will, [COLOR="#008000"]did God need to create Angels for Angels to exist?
    I don't know what (if anything) you mean by "exist", so, I don't understand what (if anything) you are asking. However, if you ask me, "Did God need to create angels for angels to be created by God?", then I would say "Yes: In order for angels to be created by God, God needed to create angels."

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    if you answer is yes then is this proof that God needs something according to your argument?
    Since God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each, gives honor to, and receives honor from, one another--both before and since Creation--I affirm, indeed, that God has never had need, whatsoever, to create, so as to be given, and to receive, honor.
    Last edited by 7djengo7; March 6th, 2019 at 07:52 PM.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    Apple7 (March 6th, 2019),JudgeRightly (March 6th, 2019)

  23. #780
    Get your armor ready! Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    51,819
    Thanks
    162,140
    Thanked 47,404 Times in 29,234 Posts

    Mentioned
    170 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2148184
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Person without thinking cap on: You can't prove a negative.
    Person with thinking cap on: You say that one "can't prove a negative". That's a slogan very commonly parroted by persons without thinking caps on. Here are two propositions:

    1. 'God is not a Trinity'
    2. 'You can't prove a negative'

    You seem to be calling #1, which is an unitarian proposition, a "negative". But, what about #2? Would you not also call the proposition, 'You can't prove a negative', a "negative"? If not, then why the inconsistency? If you call #1 a "negative", yet refuse to call #2 a "negative", then what about #1 makes you call it a "negative", and what about #2 makes you refuse to call it a negative? Now, would you say that you can prove your proposition, 'You can't prove a negative'?

    And, consider this Trinitarian proposition:

    'God is not a non-Trinity'

    Now, this proposition is the contradictory of the proposition, 'God is not a Trinity'. Each of these being the contradictory of the other, one of these two propositions must be true, and the other must be false:

    1. 'God is not a Trinity'
    2. 'God is not a non-Trinity'

    You have already called A a "negative". What about B, though? Would you not, also, call B a "negative"? If not, then, why the inconsistency? Why the special pleading?

    At the end of the day, we have it, in the above quote, from the anti-Trinitarian horse's mouth, that "You can't prove [that God is not a Trinity]", and, in that admission, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that "You can't prove FROM THE BIBLE [that God is not a Trinity]".

    If anti-Trinitarianism were true, and anti-Trinitarianism were taught in the Bible, an anti-Trinitarian shows his/her intense commitment to opposing logical thinking when he/she claims that you can't prove, from the Bible, that Trinitarianism is false. Not only that, but, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism from the Bible, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is extra-Biblical. And, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism AT ALL ("You can't prove a negative"), the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is nothing other than a PRESUPPOSITION!

    Here, we find another instance of an anti-Trinitarian pretending to be neutral regarding Trinitarianism:

    The Bible never teaches that there is a Triune God, so any claims that the God of the Bible is a Triune God must be met with skepticism.
    The Bible does teach that Jesus is the Son of God and that His Father is the God of the Old Testament scriptures, so any claim against that teaching must also be met with skepticism.


    Anti-Trinitarianism is most definitely NOT skepticism.

    Since everything the Bible teaches is true, then, everything that is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is, ipso facto, false. To claim, then, that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is to claim that Trinitarianism is false. To claim that Trinitarianism is false is to deny Trinitarianism.

    Everyone who claims that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the Bible is, in so claiming, very decidedly NOT a skeptic regarding Trinitarianism. No skepticism would ever say:

    "Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

    Rather, skepticism would say:

    "I cannot tell whether or not Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

    Everyone who is an anti-Trinitarian is, ipso facto, a claim-maker, and is not the least bit a skeptic as regards Trinitarianism.
    I love this post!
    I hope you stick around.

    We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
    They already know monsters exist.
    We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tambora For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (March 7th, 2019),JudgeRightly (March 7th, 2019),Right Divider (March 7th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us