Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NWL
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    You didn't like the syllogism I laid out FOR DARTMAN using Dartman's propositions as the premises. Why? Because you did not agree with the proposition of Dartman that constituted its Major Premise. So, now, let's lay out a different syllogism, one using (at least) one of YOUR propositions as the premises:

    This syllogism is a valid argument: if the premises be true, the conclusion can't but be true. Now, from your above-quoted statement, the major premise of this syllogism has been derived. What do you say about the minor premise? Is it true, or is it false?

    Bear in mind that you have written:

    Here, in your rhetorical question, you seem to have already denied the conclusion of the syllogism.
    I made it clear that I used the term "false Gods/gods" when referring to people who worked against the one true Gods will in common speech. You pointed out that the term "false Gods/gods" is not found in scripture, which I agree with (although a like phrase of "so-called gods" is used [1 Cor 8:5]). I also made mention that despite myself and others using the phrase that is not used in scripture to refer to beings who are mentioned as gods as false gods, that I would not critise them for innocently using the term, since it does not really do any injustice to scripture.

    You then carried on with you argument about the semantics and biblical language of Satan being referred to as "the God/god". Since your argument is based on semantics and language my answer was according to the word definitions and usage laid out in the scriptures and not according to my general speech (written included). Satan is never referred to as a "false God/god" thus I said "Why would I apply the term "false God" to Satan when scripture clearly shows him as a God?".

    In answer to your questions of the major and minor premises:

    Major Premise: It depends on how we approach it, if you want to be technical and only use biblical language then the answer is no, I do not agree with you premise, since, as you stated the bible uses has the term "false God/god". If we want to use language

    Minor Premise: I agree with this premise, Satan is a God/god not working in line with Gods will.

    Your conclusion: I would deny because again, the term "false God/god" is not used in scripture. If however we weren't talking so strictly and definitely by using only language the bible uses, then I could agree that Satan is a false God/god, in the sense of being false against God in his endeavors and not reflecting the qualities that God should have.

    Leave a comment:


  • NWL
    replied
    Originally posted by NWL
    Yes, I readily deny the HS is the "one God", I also deny Jesus is called the "one God" or either are YHWH. Show me a verse that states they are either of those ones?
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Well, your programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society say:

    So, now you have for yourself yet another insurmountable embarrassment.
    You deny that THE Holy Spirit is God, but you affirm that "God is a Spirit". So, according to YOU, you are talking about two different spirits, one of which you call "the holy spirit", the other of which you call "God", yet refuse to call "the holy spirit".

    Which of the following two mutually-contradictory propositions is the true one, and which is the false one?
    1. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is a HOLY Spirit.
    2. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is an UNHOLY Spirit.


    Which do you say is the TRUE? 1 or 2?
    Which do you say is the FALSE? 1 or 2?
    This is you blatantly avoiding and deflecting the question by creating a strawman. I've asked you a question and instead of answering you've created an argument that is completely unrelated to the topic.

    Answer the question and stop running from it, if you can't answer the question then admit you can't instead of creating strawmans.

    I readily deny the HS is the "one God", I also deny Jesus is called the "one God" or either are YHWH, you however claim this is what the bible teaches. Therefore show me a verse that states/expresses they are either of those ones?

    Leave a comment:


  • NWL
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Here, you say that God the Father is a lord, and then you deny that God the Father is YOUR lord. You are saying, "I'll admit that God the Father is A lord, but He's NOT MY LORD!"

    Whose lord would you say God the Father is, then? Is God the Father lord, but lord over nobody? Is God the Father lord over Jesus? Is God the Father lord of the sabbath?

    Try to find even ONE VERSE, in Scripture, in which it is stated that God the Father is LORD OVER the Son of God. Try to find ONE VERSE in which Jesus refers to, or addresses, God the Father as "MY LORD". Have fun with that.

    Jesus says, in John 20:17:

    Notice that Jesus did NOT say "I ascend unto MY LORD". Jesus refers to God the Father as "MY Father", and as "MY God", and yet, NOWHERE does Jesus EVER refer to God the Father as "MY LORD". Nowhere.

    So, again, WHOSE lord would you say God the Father is, N(ew)W(orld)L(iar)?
    Jesus is our Lord in the sense that YHWH the Father who is the Sovereign Lord has established Jesus as our Lord, this does not negate the Father as sovereign lord anymore than YHWH establishing David as Kind negated God being sovereign King. Jesus has not always been Lord but was made Lord by God:

    (Acts 2:36) "..Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake..”

    Zephaniah 1:7 calls YHWH the "Sovereign Lord YHWH", and as we've previously discussed YHWH is the Father "But now, O YHWH, you are our Father" (Isaiah 64:8), therefore the Father is the Sovereign Lord.

    The Father is also the one being spoken of in Rev 1:8 where it states "I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty”. As you can see the "Alpha and Omega" (A&O), the "One who is and who was and who is coming" and the "almighty" are titles given to this one person in v8. We can see Jesus as separate from this one called "One who is and who was and who is coming"by Rev 1:4,5 where it states:

    (Revelation 1:4, 5) "..John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ.."


    As we can see, the “the One who is and who was and who is coming" in v4 is mentioned as a separate person from Jesus Christ in v5. Therefore, Jesus is not the one being spoken of in Rev 1:8, rather, it is the Father being spoken of and as already seen referred to as the Lord God Almighty. Jesus is never called Lord God or Almighty.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Apple7 View Post
    Anyone that still thinks that the term Theos can be applied to The Devil, when it is a title for our God, Jesus, has just stolen Jesus' deity and applied it directly to Satan.
    As you know, I no longer think that there is any necessity to think that the referent of Paul's "the god of this world" is Satan, and, of course, I can't agree that it is YHWH, either. What caught my eye, and sparked a change in my thinking, was a glance at the 96th Psalm. In particular, v. 4 & 5:

    4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
    5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
    I suspect there may be something of an interesting parallelism between the Apostle's phrase, "the god of this world" and the Psalmist's phrase, "all the gods of the nations".

    Would it really be to wreak total havoc upon Scripture, were we to consider certain other Scripture phrases as more or less interchangeable with Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", in 2 Corinthians 4:4?

    3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
    4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
    Would we be egregiously misunderstanding Paul, were we to think, for instance, that the Psalmist's phrase, "all the gods of the nations", might also make pretty good sense in v. 4, as a sort of stand-in for Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"?

    In whom [all the gods of the nations] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
    Seeing as how the Psalmist has told us that all the gods of the nations are idols, we may, then, find the following to be even a bit more to the point:

    In whom [all the [idols] of the nations] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
    According to Psalms 115 KJV, the idols* of the heathen (the nations**) "have mouths, but they speak not", and "eyes have they, but they see not". Now, a little further, it says that they that make idols, and they that trust in idols, are like unto their idols. And, it seems clear, from reading Psalm 115, that one way in which the idol-makers and idol-trusters are like unto their idols, is that they have eyes, but see not. In other words, they're blind. And, I doubt anybody will complain if I decline to bother, here, with writing an explanation of how that eye-blindness is spiritual, and not literally eye-blindness.

    Another phrase I, personally, could consider to be somewhat similar in import to Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", is Paul's phrase from 2 Corinthians 10:5, "imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God". So, then, we might consider thinking of this phrase in the same context as his phrase, "the god of this world":

    ...them that are lost, in whom [imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
    Perhaps we won't be far wrong if we thought of it even more simply:

    ...them that are lost, in whom IDOLATRY hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
    These are just a few thoughts I've had over the last few days. I've taken note of several various passages throughout the Bible which, for one reason or another, seem to me of potential service in further trying to flesh out the (admittedly somewhat (as of yet) vague)idea I've tried to set forth, here. I'd be interested to hear what fellow Christians might think about the matter.

    __________________________________________________ ___________________________________

    * I've often wondered whether the word 'idol' has any etymological relation to the word 'doll', inasmuch as dolls and idols often are formed as more or less humanoid (made like to corruptible man), and can't see, hear, etc., and are, in general, severely mobility-impaired. (And usually, just downright creepy looking. Like the picture on my TOL 'avatar' (which I lifted from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons).

    **One time, the notion struck me that the word 'heathen' has just got to be etymologically related (from way, way back--like to proto-Indo-European days) to the word 'ethnic', which is derived from the Greek, ethnos (nation). I mean, hEaTHeN > E-TH-N > ETHNos; there's got to be something, there! Haven't really looked into it, though, to see what scholars might have to say. And, as much as I've looked into the etymology of various words over the years, I've learned to never get my hopes up too much on a hunch, because, quite often, what you find from the scholars turns out to be quite far from your own hunch, and often quite counter-intuitive, at that. But, I have, naturally, quite a strong taste for etymological speculation, and, even when I'm mistaken, it's always worth it for the mental stimulation that it's bound up with.

    Leave a comment:


  • glorydaz
    replied
    Originally posted by Apple7 View Post




    I respectfully disagree...

    Anyone that still thinks that the term Theos can be applied to The Devil, when it is a title for our God, Jesus, has just stolen Jesus' deity and applied it directly to Satan.

    It simply cannot be viewed in any other fashion...
    Is this Theos, too?
    Philippians 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)




    What of this verse? This was after the Lord had been to the cross. Satan is said to have some power.

    Acts 26:18
    18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apple7
    replied
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post

    Leave a comment:


  • Apple7
    replied
    Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
    Well, satan certainly doesn't have the power he had before the cross. Some say if he's bound, it only with a short chain. A roaring lion seeking whom he MAY devour.....needs a person's permission. Where before, he could enter (possess) people at will.
    It appears that Satan has always required permission, from his Creator, to possess someone...Job 1, Luke 22.31 - 32, etc...



    Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
    There is this....
    Col. 2:15 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
    Clearly showing that Satan was bound at The Cross...



    Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
    But there is also this....
    Ephesians 2:2
    2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
    The key point in this passage is 'at present, putting forth power', of which, refers to Satan's demons, and not himself, personally.

    The only 'power' that Satan has today is that his demons are still roaming free.

    Jesus, Himself, told us in Mat 24 that terrible things would occur BEFORE the end comes, and BEFORE the release of the 'abomination of desolation' (i.e. Satan).

    Jesus lists-out many things occurring BEFORE the release of Satan....false prophets, wars, rumors of wars, nation set against nation, famine, plagues, earthquakes, the killing of Christians, etc...

    So....what we are seeing today IS to be expected, per scripture, and NOT because Satan is roaming free.


    But....


    When Satan is unbound, we will see, for a brief period, 'great affliction, such as has not happened from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.'

    Everything going on in the world today has been seen played-out in various forms for thousands of years.

    We need to be thankful to God that Satan is presently bound!







    Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
    I've actually pondered this for years...I honestly don't see it as people stealing Jesus' deity and giving it to satan. Jesus is God over all....no doubt, but satan is certainly the god over all this world's systems, which is what I think the disputed verse is referring to.
    I respectfully disagree...

    Anyone that still thinks that the term Theos can be applied to The Devil, when it is a title for our God, Jesus, has just stolen Jesus' deity and applied it directly to Satan.

    It simply cannot be viewed in any other fashion...

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"
    NWL's claim

    Based on this text there is no eisegesis here
    You are correct! Simply quoting the text is NOT eisegesis. What IS eisegesis is claiming that the text means something that it does NOT mean.

    So, let me ask you: Does Paul, when he says "But to us there is but one God, the Father", MEAN that NONE but God the Father is YHWH? Yes or No?

    If you answer "YES", you are committing eisegesis upon the text; you are imposing YOUR UNITARIANISM onto in claiming that it means that.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"
    True.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    Your claim is there is one God, the Father(Son & HS)
    True.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    Defination of Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.
    Yes, EISEGESIS is exactly what NWL, and YOU, are doing. BECAUSE you are presupposing your cherished UNITARIANISM, you claim that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, MEANS that ONLY God the Father is YHWH.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    As it is plan to see for this scripture you inserted you own biases and presuppositions into the text.
    This you spoke BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    It is wrong for you to claim someone is doing something that you yourself are doing. That is hypocrisy to the highest degree.
    Well, that's an immensely stupid thing for you to say. You are writing posts on TOL, and I am writing posts on TOL; if that stupid thing you just said were TRUE, I would be guilty of "hypocrisy to the highest degree" for my having just claimed that "You are writing posts on TOL".

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    Stop claiming people are inserting into the text when it is you who is doing this.
    This you spoke BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    When asked what the text actually states just be Honest or others will see and may call you out as I have done.
    This you spoke BECAUSE of your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    If it is your position that the one God is the Father , Son and HS, then state that the text says "the one God is, the Father", but you believe other texts show that the Son and HS are also persons of the one God. Then bring out those texts and discuss them. In other words provide the proof or evidence as NWL requests.
    All things in their proper time. See, BECAUSE OF your hatred of God, of Christ, that is, BECAUSE OF your vain imagination, that is, BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM, you will (so long as you hate Christ) ALWAYS DENY, of EVERY LAST JOT AND TITTLE OF SCRIPTURE, that it teaches TRINITARIANISM. So, obviously, at THIS POINT, it is simply useless to discuss (with those who, as NWL and yourself, PRESUPPOSE UNITARIANISM) the staggering multitude of passages which, BY their mutual logical coherence, and BY their necessary entailment, proclaim that the Son is YHWH, and that the Holy Spirit is YHWH. I specify: It is, at this point, ONLY useless to discuss those passages with you in such a manner as for me to say to you, of them, "These passages testify to the Trinity". For, since you are lost, then so long as you are lost, your vain imagination MUST ALWAYS despise the truth of those passages, and you will never believe them.

    So, the first order of business is that you must be disabused of YOUR bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM, not to mention YOUR incredibly anti-intellectual, and downright STUPID bias and presupposition that YOU are somehow free of being biased, and of presupposing, in your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM. Obviously, I (nor any other person who is NOT YHWH), cannot disabuse you of your vain imagination. But, if you do become disabused of it, it will be by means of Scripture, and by means of you coming to see how you trap yourself by your own words. I'll try to expand on this some more, later, when I get some more time....

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    Also on a number of occasions after NWL states what he believes and why (Clear enough for me to understand, I must say)
    You then misrepresent his beliefs in your reply and then spend your time arguing against that, rather than what he actually has said. This is again very dishonest.
    You are very dishonest in charging me with misrepresenting what NWL has written to me. The CAUSE OF your dishonesty is your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    Can I encourage you to stop doing this. Rather deal with what NWL or others actually say to you.
    Can I encourage you to step away from your vain imagination, and your immense stupidity, and hypocrisy, in pretending that YOU have no bias nor presupposition in your UNITARIANISM? Can I encourage you to stop lying about me, and, instead, deal with what I actually say to NWL, and to you?

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    You've also been called out already (On more than one occasion) for using arguments from silence


    (Definition - To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.)
    I stated the truth that the Bible NOWHERE states that Jesus is not YHWH, and NWL agrees! So, since NWL agrees that the Bible NOWHERE states that Jesus is not YHWH, he has cornered HIMSELF (and YOU) into admitting that either he has derived his claim that Jesus is not YHWH from some EXTRA-BIBLICAL source, or that he merely presupposes it out of thin air.

    It is always dunces with NO FORESIGHT who are ready and eager (like NWL, yourself, and others) to whip out a little cliche phrase like "argument from silence", when you have already cornered yourself by your own inconsistency. It's a ploy of posers; that makes NWL (and you) a poser.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    I thought I would mention all this so that you realize that your dishonesty isn't going unnoticed by those reading the thread.
    Again, you write this BECAUSE OF your hatred of Christ, of truth, and BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    If you believe that you are correct why not let your arguments stand for themselves by providing evidence to back them up, rather than using these shocking debate tactics to make it seem like your argument is stronger.
    Well, you admit, here, that my argument is shocking and strong to you.

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    Why not see if you can continue the discussion (and others), with honesty. Otherwise some may call you out again
    Now that you have been called out on your bias and presupposition that Jesus Christ is not YHWH, why not see if you can DITCH that filthy falsehood that you presuppose, and try to deal HONESTLY with me, instead of as the Christ-hating liar that you have, thus far, exhibited yourself to be?

    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    You have rejected you belief that Satan is "the god of this world", but haven't stated who you believe it to be.
    WHO I believe it to be? Where have I stated that I believe the pronoun 'who' must be applicable to the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"?

    In YOUR case, one thing that perfectly fits the description of the god of this world spoken of by Paul is YOUR bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM. That is what is blinding your mind against believing the glorious gospel of Christ.
    Last edited by 7djengo7; February 20, 2019, 09:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • glorydaz
    replied
    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    Maybe I'll come across him at some point
    Or her.....

    Leave a comment:


  • glorydaz
    replied
    Originally posted by Mixed_Brown View Post
    I don't know who that is, so have no idea if that is a compliment or not.
    Maybe
    It's not. School is not in session.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X