Hey, unitarian! By 'God', do you mean God the Father?

[7djengo7]

When you go about chirpin' out your slogan, "Jesus is not God", all loud and proud, are you, by the word 'God', referring to God the Father? Yes or No?

• Yes? You are?
  Then, whenever you say "Jesus is not God", here is what you are saying: Jesus is not God the Father. And, so what if unitarians believe that Jesus is not God the Father?? You know who else believes that Jesus is not God the Father? Christians. That's one belief you unitarians have in common with us Christians. Saying "Jesus is not God the Father" makes nobody a unitarian. Just take a look at the Trinity diagrams you are pleased to revile. What's inscribed on 'em?
  
  
  Filius non est Pater​
  
  What's that?
  
  
  
  The Son is not The Father.​
  
  That is,
  
  
  [Jesus] is not [God the Father].​
  
  If, when you say "Jesus is not God", you are referring by 'God' to God the Father, why, you're simply stealing material from the Christian world view to try (in laughable futility) to build up your anti-Christian world view. Come up with your own material, instead, how about?
  
  
• No? You are not?
  Then, whenever you say "Jesus is not God", since you are not referring, by the word 'God', to God the Father, to whom are you referring by the word 'God'? Have fun with that question! Have fun trying to tell us to whom that is not God the Father, you (being unitarians!!!) are referring by the word 'God'. If ONLY God the Father is God, then have fun trying to tell us to whom that is not God the Father you are referring by the word 'God'.

You see, unitarians, there are only two ways to answer the question. One is in the affirmative--"Yes." The other is in the negative--"No." Until you give either a "Yes" or a "No" to the question, you will have failed to answer it.

Happy stonewalling!

 

[chair]

Where does "Filius non est Pater" etc. come from? Is it a statement of Trinitarian beliefs? If so- why should Unitarians care if their beliefs don't match that?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

When you go about chirpin' out your slogan, "Jesus is not God", all loud and proud, are you, by the word 'God', referring to God the Father? Yes or No?

You see, unitarians, there are only two ways to answer the question. One is in the affirmative--"Yes." The other is in the negative--"No." Until you give either a "Yes" or a "No" to the question, you will have failed to answer it.

Another typical post, playing with words and shallow questions and wrong logic. There is only One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, Another typical post, playing with words and shallow questions and wrong logic. There is only One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

Your reply to my thread is a boldface advertisement of the fact (what we all already knew beforehand) that YOU ARE FORCED TO STONEWALL AGAINST THE QUESTION THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT. You have just, in palpable chagrin and bitterness, conceded that fact. Thanks for your proud stonewalling against the question!

It's funny, the place in which you, as an anti-Christian--as an unitarian--have trapped yourself! You are too embarrassed to even tell us what (if anything) you mean when you say "Jesus is not God"!!!

You are, indeed, correct when you say "There is only One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God." What you have presented, here, are some of the truths which constitute Trinitarianism. Thank you, again!

Notice that you've been flat out robbed of whatever power you pitifully imagined you had in your meaningless slogan, "Jesus is not God". That's part of why you're bitter.

When you say "Jesus is not God", and you are unable to answer the question as to exactly whom you are referring, in that saying, by your word 'God', what you are doing is uttering words meaninglessly.

When you say that I am "playing with words", what you mean is that I have used some words to ask you a question which embarrasses you in your idiotic heresy. Notice how pathetic you have become, too, that you would call a simple question that embarrasses you in your idiotic heresy, a "shallow question"; since you drown yourself in such abysmal failure on only a "shallow question", imagine how enormous your failure will be with a "deep question".

Your post, by the way, was typical of all your posts: since you can't deal honestly with questions (and there are many!!) that necessarily embarrass your irrational, anti-Christ mindset, you simply do, as a matter of conditioned reflex, your banal little idiot-robot shtick.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that you are even the least bit satisfied with your joke of a performance. You should stop being an irrationalist, and become a Christian, instead.

Oh, and by the way, your posted reaction to the question you can't answer is no worse than any other anti-Christian's reaction to it will ever be. (Sorry, but that's the closest I can come up with toward a compliment of your dung-heap of a performance.)

 

[7djengo7]

Where does "Filius non est Pater" etc. come from? Is it a statement of Trinitarian beliefs? If so- why should Unitarians care if their beliefs don't match that?

Not sure how the meaning of 'Filius non est Pater' was not clear to you from what was given in my first post, but, it is Latin for 'The Son is not The Father'. It's simply a true proposition. Are you saying, "Where does that true proposition come from?"

I'm not talking about Unitarians, exclusively; I'm talking about all unitarians.

It really doesn't seem like you even read my post at all. If, when unitarians say "Jesus is not God", they simply mean that Jesus is not God the Father, they are, in fact, stating the same true proposition that Trinitarians are stating, and believing, when Trinitarians say "Filius non est Pater". If that is what unitarians are stating when they say "Jesus is not God", then they are simply stating a true proposition which, with certain other true propositions, is co-constituent of Trinitarianism. So, unitarians have no satisfaction from their slogan, "Jesus is not God", if, by it, they simply mean something that Trinitarians also believe and teach. In the sense of "Jesus is not God the Father", the slogan "Jesus is not God" does not at all constitute unitarianism, so, to proudly parrot the slogan "Jesus is not God", in that sense, is a failure to advertise oneself as an unitarian.

So, if there's an unitarian who's not entirely stupid, theologically speaking, and has at least a modicum of intellectual honesty, he/she might see reason, and admit that it would be stupid--and dismally useless to the cause of propagating unitarianism--for him/her to say that he/she means God the Father, by the word 'God', when he/she chirps his/her slogan, "Jesus is not God". Thus, the unitarian is left with this question: If I must not mean God the Father, by the word 'God', when I say that Jesus is not God, then who/what must I mean? The unitarian's problem, here, is that what makes him/her a unitarian is his/her anti-Scriptural claim that God the Father is ALL that is God--is ALL that is YHWH--and so, his/her option, as a unitarian, on who/what to say is the referent for the word 'God', in the slogan, "Jesus is not God", has already been exhausted BY HIS/HER UNITARIANISM.

So, any unitarian with his/her thinking cap on cannot help but see that he/she will equally embarrass his/her unitarianism whether the question is answered by a "No", or by a "Yes". The point of this thread (which the unitarian, TrevorL has promptly, and proudly borne out just as expected) is that any unitarian with half a brain (and zero honesty) must stonewall against the thread-starting question.

How about yourself? Do you say "Jesus is not God"? If you do, are you referring to God the Father by the word 'God'? Yes or No?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

You are, indeed, correct when you say "There is only One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God." What you have presented, here, are some of the truths which constitute Trinitarianism. Thank you, again!

Trinitarians deny that "There is only One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Even your question proves that is the case.

Notice that you've been flat out robbed of whatever power you pitifully imagined you had in your meaningless slogan, "Jesus is not God". That's part of why you're bitter.
When you say "Jesus is not God",

I am not bitter, but rather amused at your methods. From the tone and volume of your response I would suggest that you are not altogether happy. You are the one that is trying to force us to say “Jesus is not God” so that you can play your trick with words. For my part I would prefer to expound the fact that the word usually translated as “God” in the OT “Elohim” is also used for the Angels Psalm 8:5-6 and Judges John 10:30-36 who represented God. This is a first or necessary step in understanding the role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. So yes, your direct question is to be avoided because you are locked up in your own reasoning, and need a doctor to cure your malady.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, Trinitarians deny that "There is only One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Here, once again, you show that either you're incredibly stupid, or you're a vicious liar. I, for one, take the latter to be the case: it goes right along, naturally, with your hardened, hypocritical hatred of Jesus Christ.

Even your question proves that is the case.

You're going to have to explain what (if anything) you imagine you mean, here. Of course, you're not even going to try to do this, as you and I both know full well.

I am not bitter,

False. The fact that, in the first place, you even submitted a post onto this very specific thread which I started is due to the fact that I got your goat by asking a succinct unitarianism-damning question that you and I both know you have no hope of answering honestly, being an unitarian. Oh yeah, you're bitter, indeed. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

but rather amused at your methods.

You're "amused" at the fact that I asked you, an unitarian, a Yes/No question which you know you must needs stonewall against, else you'd embarrass your unitarian yourself. What's funny, though, is that, even by stonewalling against the question, you are embarrassing yourself.

From the tone

The tone being unpleasant to you, a hardened heretic who can't save his Christ-blaspheming unitarian doctrine from the embarrassment you bring to it.

and volume of your response I would suggest that you are not altogether happy.

Since you are an enemy of Christ, I am sure I would not want to be what YOU call "altogether happy"!!!

You are the one that is trying to force us to say “Jesus is not God” so that you can play your trick with words.

Now, you're cowering from even saying "Jesus is not God", because you know that it is impossible to say it in a way that is meaningful AND consistent with your cherished unitarianism.

For my part I would prefer

to stonewall against my question!!! I know, I get that. Simply by your continuance in your stonewalling against my question, you have already made it perfectly clear that you would prefer to continue in your stonewalling against my question. Thank you for being honest, at least, that you prefer to, and intend to, stonewall against my question. Now, if you'd only be so honest as to explain WHY you need to stonewall against it. But, you won't be so honest; rather, you'll continue to lie to us, and make up meaningless "excuses" like "You're playing word tricks!"

Really just how stupid do you think everybody is who is not you?? Every time you post on this thread you are inviting readers of the thread to see, in the very text of your posts, the stark absence of any YES or NO answer to my question. Why are you so proud to be forced into refusing to answer my question?

to expound the fact that the word usually translated as “God” in the OT “Elohim” is also used for the Angels Psalm 8:5-6 and Judges John 10:30-36 who represented God. This is a first or necessary step in understanding the role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

That's you farting. Stop farting. Answer the question. By the word 'God', are you referring to God the Father when you say "Jesus is not God"? Yes or No?

So yes, your direct question is to be avoided

Because you're not stupid! Because, like your father, the Devil, you're at least a crafty enough liar to realize the hit you must needs inflict against your own, cherished, Satanic unitarianism, were you to honestly try to answer the simple, direct Yes/No question I asked you.

because you are locked up in your own reasoning,

My reasoning is that, since you know as well as I do that your cherished unitarianism forces you to persist in stonewalling against my question, therefore you are going to keep stonewalling against my question, so long as you cherish your cherished unitarianism.

and need a doctor to cure your malady.

Funny that you consider being an enemy of irrationality to be a malady. I've no eye malady, either; I can look through your posts in this thread and, simply by reading the text you have written, see that you have neither answered "Yes" nor "No" to my question. Moreover, I can so easily see, from what you've written, that you're vainly hoping (though, in abject futility) to appear as though you are satisfied with the fact that you are forced to refrain from answering either "Yes" or "No" to my question. You're trying to appear as though it's merely a matter of your own, "studied" discretion that you simply "choose" (as if under no compulsion) to not answer my question--as though for you to answer my question would be for you to throw pearls to swine. It's all so very transparent of you, TrevorL. Guess what: the question's not going away!

Kind regards
Trevor

Answer the question that I created this thread to be about, ya weaselly feller.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

Here, once again, you show that either you're incredibly stupid, or you're a vicious liar. I, for one, take the latter to be the case: it goes right along, naturally, with your hardened, hypocritical hatred of Jesus Christ.
You're going to have to explain what (if anything) you imagine you mean, here. Of course, you're not even going to try to do this, as you and I both know full well.
False. The fact that, in the first place, you even submitted a post onto this very specific thread which I started is due to the fact that I got your goat by asking a succinct unitarianism-damning question that you and I both know you have no hope of answering honestly, being an unitarian. Oh yeah, you're bitter, indeed. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
You're "amused" at the fact that I asked you, an unitarian, a Yes/No question which you know you must needs stonewall against, else you'd embarrass your unitarian yourself. What's funny, though, is that, even by stonewalling against the question, you are embarrassing yourself.
The tone being unpleasant to you, a hardened heretic who can't save his Christ-blaspheming unitarian doctrine from the embarrassment you bring to it.
Since you are an enemy of Christ, I am sure I would not want to be what YOU call "altogether happy"!!!
Now, you're cowering from even saying "Jesus is not God", because you know that it is impossible to say it in a way that is meaningful AND consistent with your cherished unitarianism.
to stonewall against my question!!! I know, I get that. Simply by your continuance in your stonewalling against my question, you have already made it perfectly clear that you would prefer to continue in your stonewalling against my question. Thank you for being honest, at least, that you prefer to, and intend to, stonewall against my question. Now, if you'd only be so honest as to explain WHY you need to stonewall against it. But, you won't be so honest; rather, you'll continue to lie to us, and make up meaningless "excuses" like "You're playing word tricks!"
Really just how stupid do you think everybody is who is not you?? Every time you post on this thread you are inviting readers of the thread to see, in the very text of your posts, the stark absence of any YES or NO answer to my question. Why are you so proud to be forced into refusing to answer my question?
That's you farting. Stop farting. Answer the question. By the word 'God', are you referring to God the Father when you say "Jesus is not God"? Yes or No?
Because you're not stupid! Because, like your father, the Devil, you're at least a crafty enough liar to realize the hit you must needs inflict against your own, cherished, Satanic unitarianism, were you to honestly try to answer the simple, direct Yes/No question I asked you.
My reasoning is that, since you know as well as I do that your cherished unitarianism forces you to persist in stonewalling against my question, therefore you are going to keep stonewalling against my question, so long as you cherish your cherished unitarianism.
Funny that you consider being an enemy of irrationality to be a malady. I've no eye malady, either; I can look through your posts in this thread and, simply by reading the text you have written, see that you have neither answered "Yes" nor "No" to my question. Moreover, I can so easily see, from what you've written, that you're vainly hoping (though, in abject futility) to appear as though you are satisfied with the fact that you are forced to refrain from answering either "Yes" or "No" to my question. You're trying to appear as though it's merely a matter of your own, "studied" discretion that you simply "choose" (as if under no compulsion) to not answer my question--as though for you to answer my question would be for you to throw pearls to swine. It's all so very transparent of you, TrevorL. Guess what: the question's not going away!
Answer the question that I created this thread to be about, ya weaselly feller.

Phew!!! What a mouthful. Do you feel better now? I had to delete three lines of CR between each part of the above to reduce it in size even then. I do not have time at the moment to respond to your longer post in the other thread, but it seems much of the same.

Jesus is not God (in the English sense of the word “God”) but he is God (Hebrew Elohim) in the Biblical sense of the word. There is only One God (in the English sense of the word), Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God. In the Bible Angels and Judges are called Elohim, the Hebrew word that is usually translated God or gods. Jesus is called “God” in John 20:28 and I understand this in a similar way in which the word Elohim is used for the Angels and Judges. Refer to Jesus’ explanation of this in John 10:30-36. Another aspect of understanding John 20:28 is in considering John 14:8-14 where Jesus reveals the Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, Phew!!! What a mouthful. Do you feel better now? I had to delete three lines of CR between each part of the above to reduce it in size even then. I do not have time at the moment to respond to your longer post in the other thread, but it seems much of the same.

Jesus is not God (in the English sense of the word “God”) but he is God (Hebrew Elohim) in the Biblical sense of the word. There is only One God (in the English sense of the word), Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God. In the Bible Angels and Judges are called Elohim, the Hebrew word that is usually translated God or gods. Jesus is called “God” in John 20:28 and I understand this in a similar way in which the word Elohim is used for the Angels and Judges. Refer to Jesus’ explanation of this in John 10:30-36. Another aspect of understanding John 20:28 is in considering John 14:8-14 where Jesus reveals the Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

You fail, still.

When you say "Jesus is not God", to whom are you referring by the word 'God'?

Are you referring to God the Father? Yes or No?

Here are the only two possible answers to this question:

1. "Yes, I am referring to God the Father."
2. "No, I am not referring to God the Father."

You've given neither answer 1, nor answer 2. Unless, and until you give one (and only one) of these two answers, you will have not answered the question.

 

[chair]

N...
It really doesn't seem like you even read my post at all. If, when unitarians say "Jesus is not God", they simply mean that Jesus is not God the Father, they are, in fact, stating the same true proposition that Trinitarians are stating, and believing, when Trinitarians say "Filius non est Pater". If that is what unitarians are stating when they say "Jesus is not God", then they are simply stating a true proposition which, with certain other true propositions, is co-constituent of Trinitarianism. So, unitarians have no satisfaction from their slogan, "Jesus is not God", if, by it, they simply mean something that Trinitarians also believe and teach. In the sense of "Jesus is not God the Father", the slogan "Jesus is not God" does not at all constitute unitarianism, so, to proudly parrot the slogan "Jesus is not God", in that sense, is a failure to advertise oneself as an unitarian.

So, if there's an unitarian who's not entirely stupid, theologically speaking, and has at least a modicum of intellectual honesty, he/she might see reason, and admit that it would be stupid--and dismally useless to the cause of propagating unitarianism--for him/her to say that he/she means God the Father, by the word 'God', when he/she chirps his/her slogan, "Jesus is not God". Thus, the unitarian is left with this question: If I must not mean God the Father, by the word 'God', when I say that Jesus is not God, then who/what must I mean? The unitarian's problem, here, is that what makes him/her a unitarian is his/her anti-Scriptural claim that God the Father is ALL that is God--is ALL that is YHWH--and so, his/her option, as a unitarian, on who/what to say is the referent for the word 'God', in the slogan, "Jesus is not God", has already been exhausted BY HIS/HER UNITARIANISM.

So, any unitarian with his/her thinking cap on cannot help but see that he/she will equally embarrass his/her unitarianism whether the question is answered by a "No", or by a "Yes". The point of this thread (which the unitarian, TrevorL has promptly, and proudly borne out just as expected) is that any unitarian with half a brain (and zero honesty) must stonewall against the thread-starting question.

If I understand correctly, a Unitarian doesn't have a "God the Father", but simply God. The term "God the Father" is a Trinitarian term. It has no meaning to Unitarians. Your whole argument seems weird and contrived to me.

How about yourself? Do you say "Jesus is not God"? If you do, are you referring to God the Father by the word 'God'? Yes or No?

I am not Christian. Jesus is not God. The term "God the Father" is a term that means nothing to me, beyond my awareness that many Christians believe there is a such a thing.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

You fail, still. When you say "Jesus is not God", to whom are you referring by the word 'God'? Are you referring to God the Father? Yes or No? Here are the only two possible answers to this question:
"Yes, I am referring to God the Father." "No, I am not referring to God the Father."[/B]
You've given neither answer 1, nor answer 2. Unless, and until you give one (and only one) of these two answers, you will have not answered the question.

Please refer to my previous Post. I did answer your question with a few qualifications. Perhaps you may be unfamiliar with the OT usage of “Elohim”. I recommend that you consider this, and it may help you to avoid your type of questions.

To briefly look at this I will simply compare the KJV and the ASV of where Elohim is used for the Angels and the Judges:
Exodus 21:5–6 (KJV): 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Exodus 21:5–6 (ASV 1901): 5 But if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:7–9 (KJV): 7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
Exodus 22:7–9 (ASV 1901): 7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, he shall pay double. 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor.

Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
Psalm 8:4–6 (ASV 1901): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
And the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him but little lower than God,
And crownest him with glory and honor.
6 Thou makest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands;
Thou hast put all things under his feet:

Kind regards,
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

When you say "Jesus is not God", to whom are you referring by the word 'God'?

Are you referring to God the Father? Yes or No?

Here are the only two possible answers to this question:

1. "Yes, I am referring to God the Father."
2. "No, I am not referring to God the Father."

You've given neither answer 1, nor answer 2. Unless, and until you give one (and only one) of these two answers, you will have not answered the question.

I did answer your question with a few qualifications.

False. You have not answered my question. You have persistently stonewalled against my question, and lied to me, saying that you have answered my question. You are a hardened liar. Clearly, that's what the 'L' is for in your name: TrevorL(iar).

TrevorL, have you ever driven a vehicle made by Chevrolet? Yes or No?

TrevorL, by the word 'God', when you say "Jesus is not God", are you referring to God the Father? Yes or No?

Just as plainly as it is the case that you must needs be a lying troll to stonewall against the Chevy question (above) it is the case that you must needs be a lying troll to stonewall against the question about your reference by the word 'God'.

Below, you see two boxes labeled "Box 1" and "Box 2", respectively:

Box 1 7djengo7: TrevorL, by the word 'God', when you say "Jesus is not God", are you referring to God the Father? Yes or No? TrevorL: "YES! By the word 'God', when I say "Jesus is not God", I am referring to God the Father."

Box 2 7djengo7: TrevorL, by the word 'God', when you say "Jesus is not God", are you referring to God the Father? Yes or No? TrevorL: "NO! By the word 'God', when I say "Jesus is not God", I am not referring to God the Father."

If you ever desire to stop stonewalling against my question, and to stop lying to me, and to answer my question, then, in your next reply post to me in this thread, you are going to do one, and only one, of the two following things.

• If you wish to answer my question in the affirmative, you are going to copy, in its entirety, the text of Box 1 (above) from this post of mine, and you are going to paste that text, in its entirety, into your next reply post. Your submitted reply post in which you have done this will contain no text whatsoever beyond the copied/pasted text of Box 1 (above), in its entirety. Failing to carry out these directions, you will fail to have answered my question in the affirmative.
  
• If you wish to answer my question in the negative, you are going to copy, in its entirety, the text of Box 2 (above) from this post of mine, and you are going to paste that text, in its entirety, into your next reply post. Your submitted reply post in which you have done this will contain no text whatsoever beyond the copied/pasted text of Box 2 (above), in its entirety. Failing to carry out these directions, you will fail to have answered my question in the negative.

In case, in your next reply post addressed to me in this thread, you have not done in accordance either with the directions I have plainly stipulated under bullet "A" (above), or with the directions I have plainly stipulated under bullet "B" (above), then you will have continued on in your refusal to answer my question, and, at that point (nota bene!) I shall apply the reputation downgrade button on every post of yours addressed to me within this thread. I do not use that feature of TOL wantonly, and, if my memory serves, I've scarcely ever used it at all. But, your bald-faced lying to me (and to everybody reading this thread) about the question I have asked you--the question that is THE topic of this thread which I started--exacerbated by your lying, venomous, "Kind regards, Trevor"-shtick, is nothing but rank trolling, plain and simple. You see, there, the advance warning that I've given you, and, if you're going to persist in begging for attention in the manner in which you've so done in all your posts in this thread, you now know what you have to expect.

Thank you for your cooperation,

7djengo7

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

False. You have not answered my question. You have persistently stonewalled against my question, and lied to me, saying that you have answered my question. You are a hardened liar. Clearly, that's what the 'L' is for in your name: TrevorL(iar).
TrevorL, have you ever driven a vehicle made by Chevrolet? Yes or No?

No. I have only ridden in a mate’s Chevrolet. They were usually large vehicles in Australia and we used to call them Yank Tanks. In Australia the most popular vehicles have been the GMH Holden and the Ford Falcon but since the closure of their Australian factories Japanese, Korean and European cars are more popular. I presently drive a GMH Holden.

TrevorL, by the word 'God', when you say "Jesus is not God", are you referring to God the Father? Yes or No?

Jesus is not God in the English sense of the word, but he is God (Hebrew Elohim) in the Bible sense of the word. The way that the Hebrew word Elohim is used for the Angels and the Judges who represented God and spoke and acted on God the Father’s behalf flows through to Jesus, the Son of God, who represented God his Father. There is only one God, Yahweh, God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is The Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Idolater]

If I understand correctly, a Unitarian doesn't have a "God the Father", but simply God.

Unitarians who identify as Christians do have a "God the Father," because that is a direct quote from the New Testament. "God" to Unitarians Is "God the Father;" these are synonymous.

Unitarians who do not identify as Christians usually also don't identify as Unitarians either (i.e. "Unitarian" is from a Christian tradition, though not from the authentic Christian tradition), but in one sense, anybody who believes in God, and who does not believe that God is the Trinity (with vanishingly few exceptions), is "unitarian," as an adjective.

The term "God the Father" is a Trinitarian term. It has no meaning to Unitarians.

Supra, and cf. Jn6:27KJV 1Co8:6KJV Gal1:1-2KJV Eph6:23KJV Php2:11KJV 1Th1:1KJV 2Ti1:2KJV Ti1:4KJV 1Pt1:2KJV 2Pt1:17KJV 2Jo1:3KJV Jd1:1KJV re: "God the Father" in the N.T.

Your whole argument seems weird and contrived to me.

It's narrow, and for a purpose. If a Unitarian who identifies as Christian declares that Jesus is not "God," and by "God" they do mean "God the Father," then the declaration equals "Jesus is not God the Father," which is precisely what the Church has always taught and believed, from the first century onward. iow, in order to say what they want to say, they need another way to do it, than to quote /plagiarize those who believe God is the Trinity, because "Jesus is not God the Father" is 'Trinitarian,' and not Unitarian.

I am not Christian. Jesus is not God. The term "God the Father" is a term that means nothing to me, beyond my awareness that many Christians believe there is a such a thing.

Then cf. the following, for the notion of "God the Father," if not the exact phrase.

Dt32:6KJV Isa63:16KJV Isa64:8KJV

 

[chair]

Unitarians who identify as Christians do have a "God the Father," because that is a direct quote from the New Testament. "God" to Unitarians Is "God the Father;" these are synonymous....
Then cf. the following, for the notion of "God the Father," if not the exact phrase.

Dt32:6KJV Isa63:16KJV Isa64:8KJV

Now I see where the problem is. And what your mistake is.

One can refer to God as being "Our Father", without that implying that there is a Trinity, a Son or a Holy Spirit.

We (Jews) do it in some prayers, and indeed, as you pointed out, we even did that in the Hebrew Bible.

You are mixing up the simple concept of God being our father, or our father in heaven, with a different concept of God being a Trinity. These are not the same.

By the way, what do you do with God referring to Israel as "His Son"?

 

[Idolater]

Now I see where the problem is. And what your mistake is.

I didn't err.

One can refer to God as being "Our Father", without that implying that there is a Trinity, a Son or a Holy Spirit.

Nobody said otherwise.

We (Jews) do it in some prayers, and indeed, as you pointed out, we even did that in the Hebrew Bible.

You are mixing up the simple concept of God being our father, or our father in heaven, with a different concept of God being a Trinity. These are not the same.

I am not doing that. Believing in "God the Father" doesn't make you also believe that God is the Trinity. I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. But it does neutralize your argument, if you want to proclaim, as Unitarians do, that "Jesus is not God," because Unitarians will admit that God is Only "God the Father," and so "Jesus is not God" is equivalent to "Jesus is not God the Father," which is precisely what the (Trinitarian) Church has always taught and believed.

For Catholicism, there is distinction between the Father and the Son (i.e., that the Father generates the Son), and the Father is God and the Son is God. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father ("God the Father"). Unitarians claim, through the equivalence, to them, between "God," and "God the Father" (as mentioned, a direct quote from multiple N.T. texts), that Jesus is not God the Father, and this is just what 'Trinitarians' also believe.

So it's moot. I think that's the point of the OP.

By the way, what do you do with God referring to Israel as "His Son"?

Kings of Israel were also referred to as His "son," in a similar if not identical way. Christ's coming and the salvation that comes with Him, which is for all people, was always the point of Israel being chosen as God's own people. His choice then paved the way for the coming of Christ.

For God to become flesh, He had to become part of someone's family, unless He was just going to materialize 'from thin air' outside of every family. He apparently opted for the former, so He was going to become a flesh-and-blood member of a family that already existed when He came.

He chose the family into which He would be born, centuries before He did come. That family was Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We know further that He would be born into the family of Judah, and of David (these families being progressively smaller fibers within the whole thread of Israel). As the centuries went by, the whole family line whittled all the way down to Mary, a woman of the family of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, etc., who more than anybody else in history embodied the people of Israel, perhaps ironically as a daughter and not as a son, but she bore the promised Son, and was a holy vessel; the (Catholic) Church believes that she is the Ark of the (New) Covenant.

 

[chair]

... because Unitarians will admit that God is Only "God the Father," and so "Jesus is not God" is equivalent to "Jesus is not God the Father," which is precisely what the (Trinitarian) Church has always taught and believed.

This is precisely where you are playing games. Because "Jesus is not God the Father," is only part of what the Trinitarian Church teaches. When a Unitarian says "Jesus is not God", he means that Jesus is not God. Period. Not God the Father (yes, yes, we know you say that too), and not God the son and not God the holy spirit. Not God at all.

You are playing semantic word games.

 

[Idolater]

This is precisely where you are playing games. Because "Jesus is not God the Father," is only part of what the Trinitarian Church teaches. When a Unitarian says "Jesus is not God", he means that Jesus is not God. Period. Not God the Father (yes, yes, we know you say that too), and not God the son and not God the holy spirit. Not God at all.

You are playing semantic word games.

Please demonstrate where the alleged game is occurring in the following:

If God is Only "God the Father," then "Jesus is not God" is equivalent to "Jesus is not God the Father," which is precisely what the (Trinitarian) Church has always taught and believed.

 

[chair]

Please demonstrate where the alleged game is occurring in the following:

If God is Only "God the Father," then "Jesus is not God" is equivalent to "Jesus is not God the Father," which is precisely what the (Trinitarian) Church has always taught and believed.

The lie here is that the Church doesn't teach ONLY that "Jesus is not God the Father".

edit:

What would you say if a Unitarian quoted the Church as saying "Jesus is not God."- there fore Catholics are in fact Unitarians?

 

[Idolater]

The lie

The lie? Please at least give me the benefit of the doubt. There are a wide variety of logical fallacies that people can inadvertently stumble into without any mischievous deliberate intent. A lie is only a lie if it is done with full knowledge and with deliberate consent. Uttering a falsehood inadvertently is not a lie. I'm not necessarily begging your pardon for making an error, I am just stating things, and asking you for some civility, since you've no reason to be hostile to me, and question my motives. I've given you no grounds for this.

here is that the Church doesn't teach ONLY that "Jesus is not God the Father".

And as I already said, the Church doesn't only teach lots of other things too, and neither does Unitarianism either, so I maintain my contention that limiting the scope to a verbatim term from both the Catholics' and the Unitarians' same N.T. Scripture is valid.

edit:

What would you say if a Unitarian quoted the Church as saying "Jesus is not God."- there fore Catholics are in fact Unitarians?

OK let me see.

If Unitarians said that, then they'd be using the fact that "God" equals "God the Father," but for Catholics God is not only the Father, God is the Father, Son, and Spirit.

While Unitarians use "God the Father" to be only God, Catholics believe that God is "God the Father," "God the Son," and "God the Spirit."

So for Unitarians to claim that Catholics believe that "Jesus is not God," they would need to also establish that for Catholics, "God the Father" is 'the only' God, which is contrary to the Catholic teaching and belief of the Trinity.

I think that it does not work the other way around. We do understand that "God the Father" for Unitarians is 'the only' God, but also in point of fact, "God the Father" is a verbatim quote from multiple N.T. scriptures, and also in point of fact, Catholicism teaches and believes that "Jesus is not God the Father," however you want to interpret that term, whether it is within the context of the Catholic Trinity, or whether you assume the Unitarians' understanding of it, which is begging the question.

If I have made a mistake anywhere, which I still do not concede, then it would be the informal logical fallacy of 'equivocation.' iow, my claim would rest upon my using "God the Father" to mean one thing in one part of my argument, and then a different thing in my conclusion.

My conclusion is that Unitarians saying that "Jesus is not God," upon inspection of what is meant by Unitarians themselves, that "God" is "God the Father (only)," is moot, since they mean up to and only two distinct things: 1) that they reject the Trinity, which we all already know, and is a tautological restatement that they are Unitarians, and 2) that Jesus is not "God the Father," which Catholics also believe and teach.

So in either case, the claim that "Jesus is not God" is moot; pointless at best.

And I don't see how 'equivocation' is possible when comparing my conclusion here with the rest of my argument.

So can you if you would please attempt again to demonstrate where I'm erring, or concede yourself that I've made no error?


P.S. would you divulge in which discipline that your doctorate is? I ask because it's good for TOL to know who the doctors are, like [MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION] being a doctor of law, to rapidly establish the truth of propositions that we might use in constructing arguments, if authentic doctors of a discipline can quickly confirm or deny, if the propositions concern your discipline. This enables us to employ a valid appeal to authority, to efficiently establish propositions that we might use in our own arguments.