I wonder why you will not discuss the BIBLE itself?
And your particular opinion isn't important. You've had PLENTY long enough to state ANY kind of biblical case and you've failed miserably (means you aren't doing anything particularly compelling on TOL, just wasting time arguing for what you think, rather than know). MOST, likely 99.9% of all scholars, are in fact, Triune. You lost before you started as one who has never been in that league.
Mine are (Your sentence is missing an important adverb or pertinent punctuation)! 2 Corinthians 10:5 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
Well, partial delusion then. NOBODY thinks that about you on TOL. Aren't they the actual ones who 'should' give that assessment? I'm pretty sure I know what most on TOL would say about my prowess: "Lon makes theology easier to understand so I read him. He isn't the most brilliant scholar but he has certainly studied. I disagree with him on a number of theological points but believe he is in the faith."
You are mistaken. You really DON'T understand trinitarian thought/theology if you think that. You've never bothered to learn what we believe. There is ONLY one God. Isaiah 9:6?
Never heard of it? Hebrews 2. Simply making shallow statements/soundbytes isn't really seen as academic or scholarly (means nobody but you thinks you are good at theology or faithful in Bible reading).
Prove it. Show ANY scripture (ANY) that says Jesus is created. Show it. "You have prepared a body for me" is NOT creating Him! Find ANY scripture that says so. No? Means you are "Making it up as you go" Keypurr. You 'think' you are good at theology with this kind of rationalization mess from human minds, not God's? You are arrogant and attempting to take His place. Its a sin, frankly. You've said, here and now "created" and have literally (literally) no scripture that says He is. THAT, is not only not good theology, it isn't scholastic either. You go beyond scripture with 'rationality' thus elevating YOUR thoughts above those revelations of God. That idolatrous man is you!
"Thus saith Keypurr." There is NO scripture that says this. It is rather YOUR math answer. While some math is very simple, scripture gives Jesus with Algebraic terms. There is no way you can simplify "was God" AND "was with God." NO way. You tried, but 'simplistic' is wrong (let alone you being 'good' at math or theology). :nono:
:yawn: "I and the Father are One." "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was 1) with God and the Word 2) WAS God." "The Word (Jesus) 'became' flesh and dwelled among us." I have a whole thread on this with scripture after scripture. JudgeRightly JUST posted another. Did you read it???
BECAUSE John 1:1 says He both "was with" AND 'was' --> GOD! Doesn't make sense? Good! Listen to Him even if you can't! This much is CRYSTAL clear and you are remiss for not listening to Him, going off on a tangent of YOUR rationalization rather than His revelation AND ignoring/trampling scriptures with your 'theories.' Theories are proven wrong yet you cling to them as if they are gold. : Plain:
Yes He did (was 'with' AND 'was' Keypurr! Pay attention!).
No, you are LEAVING the rest of us intelligent beings and going off on your own thus make many mistakes for your mavericking. You just are NOT this good. I am pretty savvy yet I'd never go it alone. Galatians 6:6 YOU ignored/are ignorant of this directive scripture from God! You went ahead and didn't bother to have anybody correct you. That isn't 'brilliant' its shallow and delusional. ALL you have to do is ask, like you did above AND listen to the answer. Nope, Keypurr is exactly this arrogant, he and .01% of the Christendom steeped in cultism actually, arrogantly, thinks he is that .01% superior and "THE REST OF US" are idiots. Yes you do! You just said so, arrogantly, that you are sensational at theology implying the rest of us are slouches. : Plain: You are audacious, Keypurr. You know that, right? Do you REALLY not see yourself how the rest of us think of you? Do you really not?
Gotcha.
I am very conscious of the history of the RCC and the gradual development of many of her doctrines. There has always or often been a minority who have believed differently to the RCC and at some times these have been severely persecuted by the RCC. God has blessed us today in limiting the persecuting power of the RCC, partly by the French Revolution. My present espousal of the concept that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ goes back to my youth and upbringing in an environment that has been established since the 1840s, but even this relies on earlier teachings from individuals throughout the centuries. Perhaps you could also study the history of the Waldenses and the Anabaptists (who were also persecuted by the Protestants) and individuals such as Sir Isaac Newton, who personally did not accept the Trinity.
Yes, there is another possibility. Yes, we need to accept the uniqueness of the way that Jesus spoke by comparison to the prophets “Thus saith the LORD”, but I repeat that Jesus spoke God the Father’s words, and these were given to him by God, that is, the One God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God.
Do you anti-trinitarians believe that Jesus was a liar?
I hope to answer JudgeRightly soon and he has given a thorough answer on this aspect.
I am conscious of this part of the history of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the definitions found in wiki and Britannica are helpful. Quoting only two paragraphs from each:
Quoting the first sentence from the Post you referenced: “In this forum you will often see the acronym RCC tossed about. Sometimes it is done in innocence, but very often it is done out of malice by people who know better.”
Yes, there is, Jesus is the Son of God.
For a start he had so absorbed God’s words that they were completely his own thoughts and thus when he spoke they were both his words and God the Father’s thoughts and words. One example of this flow is given in the following:
No, it is not blasphemy, as God’s words had become his own thoughts and words.
Jesus was and is very special as he is the only one that is THE Son of God in all of its full meaning. The prophets of old quite often did not fully understand the Word of God that was given them and therefore they were not really all their own words, but they were the messengers of God's words:
Yes. They were also his own thoughts and words and we have the expression "Great minds think alike".
In the same sense that the "Word was 'with' and 'was' God." It means that something can be both. Son of God is a position rather than a hereditary description. There is no 'when I became, from the Father' scripture. It's very important to recognize at which point men start 'making it up' when scripture stops. Unit-arian is made up of the 'missing pieces' as if God doesn't know what He is conveying or doing. It because presumptuous and human-centered because of it. The irony is the Watchtower quotes Romans 3:4, unfortunately out of context, to try and prove themselves 'right.' Because it is violently ripped (meaning they completely (completely) changed the meaning of that verse) out of context of man being able to affect God's salvation faithfulness, to meaning that they are right, that they believe God, not man. :doh: Thus by their ignorant arrogance, they not only don't read scripture for THEIR need of Salvation from God, building off works salvation instead, they ALSO make up the differences between what they don't understand from revelation of God, thus being the biggest offense to the already wrong idea, they took from scripture.
Awkward sentence
Also awkward and vague. It is 'fuzzy' in conveyance, and I think fuzzy in logic as well and the sentence structure is grammatically broken, making it hard to ascertain your theological intent (if there was any). John 1:1 simply says "Was God." Easy enough, "AND was with God," which is clear enough, but difficult to explain. The Watchtower took it upon itself in horrible grammatical fashion, to say "was a god." It is not what the Greek, which does translate well "word for word" into English, says. It literally says "The Word was 'the' God," word for word. There is no 'a' (which Greek does have and could have been used) in the text. None.
Er, no. That is problematic and not logically consistent with scripture. AT ALL. There is no "God became His words" in all of scripture. It is a man-made construct that does indeed trample other scriptures and a Biblical concept of God. Because it is inaccurate, it becomes idolatry, attributing to God an attribute that YOU (and other Unitarians) assumed, rather than found in scripture. Blasphemy is a profaning of what is sacred, thus one might see this misconception of God's nature 'profaning'/sacrilegious (harming), thus blasphemous. Generally it is a correction that needs to be made and the one with the wrong perception corrected. I've seen the above often from Arians/Unitarians and it is truly human rationalizing. There is no scripture that says such a thing so it is obviously coming extra-Biblically from Arians/Unitarians, from their own minds and not the Bible.
A continued problem of those who have rejected the rest of us, is that they piece together 'what they think is right' rather than what is very clear from scripture. It is the 'made-up' parts of narrative/commentary that are problematic unless one can show clarity from scripture. I don't have a problem with 'very special' as God is so but from there, we finite beings cannot qualify nor quantify one who never had a beginning or end (Hebrews says Melchizedek had none and The Lord Jesus Christ is given as equivalent in Hebrews "without any beginning and with no end." When a mere man/men come and say "Yes he did have a beginning" they are contradicting scripture and God Himself. THAT is problematic regardless of what you've bought wholesale as true. It isn't AND goes against scripture thus we Trinitarians must necessarily seek God, not mere men and inadequate words and explanations, as Arians/Unitarians do. It doesn't matter if it 'looks' right to you, we collectively have double checked our work and looked again to see if such tramples God's words, and it does. Whether you agree or not, this is WHY we reject it: We see it as bad math and poor human rationalization rather than the words and truth of God because, specifically, it genuinely is extra-biblical in nature.
You make grammatical mistakes in English, how could you give us a grammatical lesson in Hebrew (or Greek for that matter)?
The following from the promises to David indicate that it was to be a future event:
Yes, I am not very good at English and explanation. I am a technical person and enjoyed Maths and Physics.
I am not a JW and do not agree with their treatment of John 1:1. They understand Jesus to pre-exist, most probably as Michael the archangel. I understand The Word in John 1:1to be similar to the wise woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with God in the creation.
Melchizedek's priesthood did not have a beginning and an end, but I do not believe that Jesus is the historical Melchizedek, nor is Melchizedek alive today or acting in his priesthood. The man Jesus had a birth and a beginning. The Word was continuous and is a quality and characteristic of God the Father, not a separate being before the birth of Jesus.
I am not qualified in that sense, but I assent to what some scholars have taught such as Tyndale, RV and RSV margins and other Hebrew scholars. When I first joined another forum 16 years ago there was a long running thread on the subject of the Yahweh Name, and the member was advocating that “Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14 should be translated as “I will be” and not “I AM”. He was at first opposed by three Trinitarians, and yet they agreed with him after there was 143 posts. For the first time in 16 years I encountered one of these Trinitarians again, and he is a Hebrew scholar, and I was able to ask him if he still subscribed to the idea that “Ehyeh” should be translated as “I will be” and he said: Yes. I received instruction from one of our Youth Leaders on this subject in a systematic way when I was 19, and have been interested in this subject since then.
Come on lets do the twist....
You think that because you do not wish to see truth when it conflicts with your traditions. But you got to admit I am loveable.
Ever wonder what Jesus was anointed with? What is the power in Acts10:38?
Opinions are like . . . . well, you know.