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

[TrevorL]

Greetings 7djengo7,

I couldn't care less. I did not ask you, "TrevorL, have you ever ridden in a Chevrolet? Yes or No." I asked you, "TrevorL, have you ever driven a vehicle made by Chevrolet? Yes or No?"

I did own a 1937 Humber for a short while. The engine cavity had room for a straight-8 engine but had a straight-6 engine. Jesus was called "God" by Thomas in John 20:28 and I understand this in the same sense as the Angels and Judges were called "Elohim" because they represented the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, and spoke and acted on His behalf. Your strong reaction to my posts could be likened to a chess player who demands that I move a chess piece to a particular position so that you may then move and declare check-mate. I am a bit more cautious, but a bit concerned with your rant.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

What do you mean by "God the Father"?

Are you asking to Whom I am referring, when I use the phrase, 'God the Father'? If so, then I reply that I mean--that is to say, I am referring to--the First Person of the Triune YHWH.

Regardless. Jesus is not God the Father.

Regardless? What (if anything) are you saying is regardless of something? And of what (if anything) are you saying it is regardless? (Or, were you just making merely an emotive noise when you said, "Regardless"?) Fill in the blanks, and write it out, the whole sentence, so that we have a shot at understanding what (if anything) you mean:

"Regardless of _______, it is the case that _______."​

Jesus is not "God the Son" either.

To say that X is not Y is, necessarily, to imply that something (something other than X) is Y. To say that Jesus is not God the Son is, necessarily, to imply that someone or something (other than Jesus) is God the Son. So, since you, being a fool, deny that Jesus is God the Son, now, by doing so, you've created the problem for yourself that you have to tell who or what is God the Son. And, of course, you and I both know very well that you have no option but to stonewall against doing so.

Regarding the phrase, 'God the Son', you carp:

That is a phrase not found in scripture.

So what, unitarian hypocrite? The truth that Jesus is God the Son is found in Scripture. The falsehood you wrote--"Jesus is not "God the Son" either"--is not found in Scripture, yet you just claimed that "Jesus is not "God the Son" either".

God is the Father of the son of God. Thus the two are not identical.

By "God", here, you mean one person: God the Father. By "the son of God", here, you mean another person. So, all you have stated, here, is no more than the obvious truth that the two persons, God the Father and the Son of God, are not identical persons. All Trinitarians--that is to say, all Christians--believe, and teach, that the person of God the Father is not the same person as God the Son, the Son of God.

God is the originator the source of the son .

What you just wrote, there, of course, is nowhere to be found in Scripture, and is contradictory to Scripture.

God is the father of the lord Jesus Christ thus the two are not the same but very very different

Do you think that, by patching on your phrase, "very very different", you have said something meaningful beyond what you've already said in your statement that "the two are not the same"? Maybe just slam your fists and stomp your feet some, and throw in a couple dozen repetitions of the word 'very'. Yeah, that ought to do it, right?

Indeed, that's Bible truth: God the Father is not Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is not God the Father. And, believing/saying so does not constitute someone an unitarian, at all, so what's your point?

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings 7djengo7,I did own a 1937 Humber Super Snipe for a short while. The engine cavity had room for a straight-8 engine but had a straight-6 engine. Jesus was called "God" by Thomas in John 20:28

Oh, it's Tr(oll)evorL(iar) again.

and I understand this in the same sense as the Angels and Judges ere called "Elohim" because they represented the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, and spoke and acted on His behalf.

You understand nothing, obviously.

Your strong reaction to my posts could be likened to a chess player who demands that I move a chess piece to a particular position so that you may then move and declare check-mate. I am a bit more cautious, but a bit concerned with your rant.

You're not remarkably perceptive, then. See, all you need to do is to keep doing exactly what you've been doing, and are now doing, and you will continue to lose, and truth will continue to win. Here are your only options as an unitarian:

1. Answer "Yes" to the question I asked you. Result? You lose.
2. Answer "No" to the question I asked you. Result? You lose.
3. Refuse to answer the question I asked you. Result? You lose.

Obviously, to your chagrin, you've persistently chosen option 3 with every single one of your posts to this thread. The very existence of the question has checkmated you. Every move you try to make, as an unitarian, cannot but result in your being embarrassed in your being an unitarian.

You are not "a bit more cautious" than you have been from the start: you're just as cautious, now, as you have been all along. It is your caution that has marked you, manifestly, as a weasel. Your problem, though, is that your caution has not helped you in the least. Your being cautious is your stonewalling.

The best part of it all is that, just behold what you have brought yourself, impelled by your frustration with the force of the question I asked you. You have, in your last several posts, found yourself reduced to making yourself into a grand specimen of a jackass by irrelevantly doting about unsolicited details of your personal history with automobiles--details which your readers in this thread could not care less about. And why? Because, upon your having first read my thread-starting post, instead of just silently being content with the fact that you, as an unitarian, have no hope of dealing (to your, or to anyone else's satisfaction) with the question I asked in this thread, you, in your anger, just could not refrain from chiming in. You are the one who, by posting, as an unitarian, in this thread, have begged for attention to the fact that the question asked by this thread is an embarrassment to you, as an unitarian. You and your falsehood lose; the truth and I win.

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

 

[Idolater]

Physical. Spectroscopy.
Having a degree in a field is one way to gain knowledge. It is possible for someone to be self-educated and be knowledgeable as well.

Right. One advantage to the (especially doctoral) degree, is the acknowledged authentication of a person as an expert or authority within a discipline. You didn't just get a PhD in the mail, you had already authenticated experts in Physical Chemistry (PhDs) authenticate you after your successful examination /defense of your dissertation, and their doctorates were authentic due to their own authentication (when and how they received their own doctorates), which establishes your doctorate as valid evidence of your expertise in your discipline.

The advantage to non-doctors like me, is that if I want to employ a proposition like the visual spectrum's wavelength range, all I have to do is appeal to you as an authentic authority in your discipline to confirm that the range I give is correct, if indeed it is correct, without having to go through any sort of studies or experiments or things like this in order to establish what the visual spectrum is.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[oatmeal]

Are you asking to Whom I am referring, when I use the phrase, 'God the Father'? If so, then I reply that I mean--that is to say, I am referring to--the First Person of the Triune YHWH.



Regardless? What (if anything) are you saying is regardless of something? And of what (if anything) are you saying it is regardless? (Or, were you just making merely an emotive noise when you said, "Regardless"?) Fill in the blanks, and write it out, the whole sentence, so that we have a shot at understanding what (if anything) you mean:

"Regardless of _______, it is the case that _______."​

To say that X is not Y is, necessarily, to imply that something (something other than X) is Y. To say that Jesus is not God the Son is, necessarily, to imply that someone or something (other than Jesus) is God the Son. So, since you, being a fool, deny that Jesus is God the Son, now, by doing so, you've created the problem for yourself that you have to tell who or what is God the Son. And, of course, you and I both know very well that you have no option but to stonewall against doing so.

Regarding the phrase, 'God the Son', you carp:



So what, unitarian hypocrite? The truth that Jesus is God the Son is found in Scripture. The falsehood you wrote--"Jesus is not "God the Son" either"--is not found in Scripture, yet you just claimed that "Jesus is not "God the Son" either".



By "God", here, you mean one person: God the Father. By "the son of God", here, you mean another person. So, all you have stated, here, is no more than the obvious truth that the two persons, God the Father and the Son of God, are not identical persons. All Trinitarians--that is to say, all Christians--believe, and teach, that the person of God the Father is not the same person as God the Son, the Son of God.



What you just wrote, there, of course, is nowhere to be found in Scripture, and is contradictory to Scripture.



Do you think that, by patching on your phrase, "very very different", you have said something meaningful beyond what you've already said in your statement that "the two are not the same"? Maybe just slam your fists and stomp your feet some, and throw in a couple dozen repetitions of the word 'very'. Yeah, that ought to do it, right?

Indeed, that's Bible truth: God the Father is not Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is not God the Father. And, believing/saying so does not constitute someone an unitarian, at all, so what's your point?

Are you asking to Whom I am referring, when I use the phrase, 'God the Father'? If so, then I reply that I mean--that is to say, I am referring to--the First Person of the Triune YHWH.

First of all you are assuming that your doctrine of a trinity is true, well, it is not. There is no gennuine scripture that supports such a doctrine.

In other words, your premise is a falsehood.

Regardless? What (if anything) are you saying is regardless of something? And of what (if anything) are you saying it is regardless? (Or, were you just making merely an emotive noise when you said, "Regardless"?) Fill in the blanks, and write it out, the whole sentence, so that we have a shot at understanding what (if anything) you mean:

"Regardless of _______, it is the case that _______."​

Regardless of your definition of "God the Father" for your definition, as a trinitarian is not based on scripture since the trinity is not based on scripture.

Since your definition of "God the Father" is false because it is based on a false premise, after all, that is the point of this thread, I can say, regardless of your definition of "God the Father", Jesus is not"God the Father" from a scriptural basis, for our God and Father is the Jesus' God and Father

To say that X is not Y is, necessarily, to imply that something (something other than X) is Y. To say that Jesus is not God the Son is, necessarily, to imply that someone or something (other than Jesus) is God the Son. So, since you, being a fool, deny that Jesus is God the Son, now, by doing so, you've created the problem for yourself that you have to tell who or what is God the Son. And, of course, you and I both know very well that you have no option but to stonewall against doing so.

Regarding the phrase, 'God the Son', you carp:

Since God, in His Word, ie, the logos, His message in writing, the scripture, and in the message in flesh, Jesus Christ, does not refer to Jesus as "God the Son" but as the son of God, and those two terms are antithetical, I would be sinning to refer to Jesus as "God the Son" for I would not be believing the testimony that God and others gave of His son.

The trinity is a falsehood, it is a pagan construct, it is repugnant to scripture.

I have been banned for saying this before, but, so what.

If truth is not welcome on this website, that is your problem, not mine

 

[7djengo7]

First of all you are assuming that your doctrine of a trinity is true, well, it is not. There is no gennuine scripture that supports such a doctrine.

In other words, your premise is a falsehood.

First of all, you are assuming that your unitarian doctrine is true. Well, it is not. The Bible denies the falsehood you premise: your unitarianism. As an anti-Christ, you blaspheme Jesus Christ by making Him unequal with God the Father. Jesus, Himself, according to John, was making Himself equal to God the Father; you contradict Jesus, though. Obviously you consider John's Gospel to not be genuine (or as you put it, "gennuine") Scripture.

Regardless of your definition of "God the Father" for your definition, as a trinitarian is not based on scripture since the trinity is not based on scripture.

You are motivated to say that merely by your assumption that your unitarianism is true (whereas, it's actually false), and that Trinitarianism is false (whereas, it's actually true).

Since your definition of "God the Father" is false

First of all, you are assuming that it is false that God the Father is the First Person of the Triune YHWH. Well, it isn't. You, of course, did not learn, from Scripture, that God the Father is not the First Person of the Triune YHWH. So, now, you have to say who is the First Person of the Triune YHWH. So, who is it? If it is false that God the Father is not the First Person of the Triune YHWH, it necessarily follows that someone else--someone other than God the Father--is the First Person of the Triune YHWH. So, tell us who is the First Person of the Triune YHWH, since you believe it is not God the Father.

because it is based on a false premise, after all, that is the point of this thread, I can say, regardless of your definition of "God the Father", Jesus is not"God the Father" from a scriptural basis,

So what if you say that Jesus is not God the Father? That is not your unitarianism, and is irrelevant to your unitarianism. If you are really so stupid as to not be able to understand that that is not your unitarianism, why, there's really nothing I can do for you. The Bible teaches, and all Trinitarians (that is to say, all Christians) believe that Jesus is not God the Father. Even you, an anti-Christian, at least pretend to believe that Jesus is not God the Father.

It is simply impossible for you to squeeze "Jesus is not God" out of "Jesus is not God the Father"; it's not in there. "Jesus is not God" is not entailed by "Jesus is not God the Father".

for our God and Father is the Jesus' God and Father

"the Jesus"??

His message in writing, the scripture,

"That is a phrase not found in scripture", you hypocrite.

the message in flesh, Jesus Christ,

"That is a phrase not found in scripture", you hypocrite.

does not refer to Jesus as "God the Son" but as the son of God, and those two terms are antithetical,

Show from where, in Scripture, you imagine you have learned that the term, 'God the Son' is antithetical to the term 'the Son of God'. Have fun!

I would be sinning to refer to Jesus as "God the Son" for I would not be believing the testimony that God and others gave of His son.

You are, indeed, sinning by denying that Jesus is God the Son. You do not believe the testimony that God and others gave of His Son. Plus, you have yet to specify who is God the Son, if Jesus is not God the Son. You're stonewalling.

The trinity is a falsehood, it is a pagan construct, it is repugnant to scripture.

The Trinity is truth. The Trinity is Biblical.

You're a pagan. You're not a Christian. That's why God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are repugnant to you.

I have been banned for saying this before, but, so what.

You seem to care almost as little as I do that you "have been banned for saying this before".:up::up:

You are shallow and repetitive, though, and, frankly, nobody owes it to you to listen to, or take your raving all too seriously, or even to provide you with a platform from which to promulgate it.

If truth is not welcome on this website, that is your problem, not mine

Unlike you, I stick to the truth. But, as you can see, even you, yourself, despite being a proud parrot of false teaching, are still on TOL, so there's obviously no need for your drama queen shtick.

Now, oatmeal, tell us: When you say "Jesus is not God", are you referring, by the word 'God', to God the Father? Yes or No? And, if you are NOT referring, by the word 'God', to God the Father, then to whom or to what are you referring, by the word 'God'?