The Trinity

[Rosenritter]

Are you aware of the logical fallacy you are using? Whether you may have a personal dislike (or disagreement) with one or more authors of the CARM site is irrelevant. Address the issue: is the definition they offer applicable or inapplicable? If it is incorrect then show us what you would change with their definition.

Who cares about what CARM says? Sounds like you are trying to be deceitful.

CARM is a Calvinist site that teaches the trinity doctrine.

According to CARM, you are an apostate heretic.

Do you really want to use CARM?

 

[Rosenritter]

You're playing word games GT. Not only do you insist on using undefined definitions for purposes of classification and accusation, but you are also making up words that people didn't say and assigning it to them (for the same purposes.)

If you will depart from your role of Accuser of the Brethren for a moment, look at what was actually said. I said "the title ceases to be applicable" not that Jesus ceased from being the Son of God. I can understand if you don't understand what is meant by that, but shouldn't your aim be to understand, rather than to twist and malign?

So here's an example that makes me doubt your literacy and/or truthfulness. When I say (repeatedly) that God is big enough to be in more than one place at a time (such as in heaven and on earth simultaneously) and that I am using the terms as Jesus used them, God the Father in heaven, and the Son of God on earth, why do you persist in claiming that I am "believing the three exist consecutively?"

Reasons like this are why I don't bother to take you seriously.

P.S. Simultaneously means "at the same time" and "consecutively" means "one after the other, excluding at the same time." Just in case you are confused as to word meaning.

Just listen to yourself. You prove you are a modalist. You said Jesus ceased from being the Son.

Modalists believe in three, but they believe the three exist consecutively.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why would you ask that when I tell you Christians are under Jesus?

Examine yourself.

Tell me if Christians have to obey Jesus' teachings, teachings he taught while he walked the earth.

Explain why you would ask me if Christians are under the old law.

Ok, since you don't seem to be understanding what I'm asking, let me make it simple for you:

In Genesis 17, we see God giving to Abraham (not Moses, even though you correctly associate him with the Law) the Covenant of Law. This Covenant is one of faith AND works. You MUST keep the Law AND have faith in God to be saved.

In Genesis 15, two chapters earlier, we see God giving to Abram the Covenant of Grace. This Covenant is of FAITH ONLY. God put Abram into a deep sleep, and passed through the animals alone, to show that this covenant was unconditional, and Abram being asleep as God passed through signifies that we don't have to do anything for the covenant to be fulfilled, it's all on God.

So when I ask, "Are Christians under law or grace," I'm asking about the two Covenants given to Abram/Abraham, whom God calls the father of two groups of people.

All of Abraham's decendants are automatically under the Covenant of Law (Gen 17), whether they want to be or not, but for them to be saved, they had to BOTH obey the Law (which is to be circumcised, not the mosaic law, which is ceremonial and moral/civil laws, but which is under the circumcision).

In other words, "circumcision" and "law" are used synonymously throughout the Bible. Whenever you see anything pertaining to the "Law," it is (usually) talking about circumcision, and not the Mosaic law given by God on Mount Sinai.

But I'm not asking about Israel, who we know for a fact was under the law, for all of Israel was required to be circumcised.

I'm asking about Christians.

So to rephrase my question a bit differently, in the hope of getting a direct answer and maybe clarifying my point:

Should Christians be circumcised?

D) They're under the Law of Grace.

Most on TOL believe that.

Law + Grace = Genesis 17, what Israel was taught.

Grace alone = Genesis 15, what Paul preached.

 

[God's Truth]

Ok, since you don't seem to be understanding what I'm asking, let me make it simple for you:

In Genesis 17, we see God giving to Abraham (not Moses, even though you correctly associate him with the Law) the Covenant of Law. This Covenant is one of faith AND works. You MUST keep the Law AND have faith in God to be saved.

In Genesis 15, two chapters earlier, we see God giving to Abram the Covenant of Grace. This Covenant is of FAITH ONLY. God put Abram into a deep sleep, and passed through the animals alone, to show that this covenant was unconditional, and Abram being asleep as God passed through signifies that we don't have to do anything for the covenant to be fulfilled, it's all on God.

So when I ask, "Are Christians under law or grace," I'm asking about the two Covenants given to Abram/Abraham, whom God calls the father of two groups of people.

All of Abraham's decendants are automatically under the Covenant of Law (Gen 17), whether they want to be or not, but for them to be saved, they had to BOTH obey the Law (which is to be circumcised, not the mosaic law, which is ceremonial and moral/civil laws, but which is under the circumcision).

In other words, "circumcision" and "law" are used synonymously throughout the Bible. Whenever you see anything pertaining to the "Law," it is (usually) talking about circumcision, and not the Mosaic law given by God on Mount Sinai.

But I'm not asking about Israel, who we know for a fact was under the law, for all of Israel was required to be circumcised.

I'm asking about Christians.

So to rephrase my question a bit differently, in the hope of getting a direct answer and maybe clarifying my point:

Should Christians be circumcised?



Law + Grace = Genesis 17, what Israel was taught.

Grace alone = Genesis 15, what Paul preached.

I know what you said.

Jesus is the promise to Abraham.

Now tell us all here right now if obeying Jesus' teachings when he walked the earth is to follow the old law.

 

[God's Truth]

You're playing word games GT. Not only do you insist on using undefined definitions for purposes of classification and accusation, but you are also making up words that people didn't say and assigning it to them (for the same purposes.)

If you will depart from your role of Accuser of the Brethren for a moment, look at what was actually said. I said "the title ceases to be applicable" not that Jesus ceased from being the Son of God. I can understand if you don't understand what is meant by that, but shouldn't your aim be to understand, rather than to twist and malign?

So here's an example that makes me doubt your literacy and/or truthfulness. When I say (repeatedly) that God is big enough to be in more than one place at a time (such as in heaven and on earth simultaneously) and that I am using the terms as Jesus used them, God the Father in heaven, and the Son of God on earth, why do you persist in claiming that I am "believing the three exist consecutively?"

Reasons like this are why I don't bother to take you seriously.

P.S. Simultaneously means "at the same time" and "consecutively" means "one after the other, excluding at the same time." Just in case you are confused as to word meaning.

You have JR giving you thanks just because you went against me. He doesn't care that you also go against him.

I will force myself to read what you wrote later, if I decide to wade in your ignorant false accusations.

 

[God's Truth]

Are you aware of the logical fallacy you are using? Whether you may have a personal dislike (or disagreement) with one or more authors of the CARM site is irrelevant. Address the issue: is the definition they offer applicable or inapplicable? If it is incorrect then show us what you would change with their definition.

You want to use the CARM site, the CARM site which calls you an apostate heretic?

 

[God's Truth]

The blind can continue to lead the blind. I am not interested in trying to discuss with you all who go against the truth and who go against any good discussion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I know what you said.

No, you don't, otherwise you would have answered my question by now.

Jesus is the promise to Abraham.

I'm not even on the topic of Jesus, right now. I'm talking about covenants given to Abram/Abraham by God.

Now tell us all here right now if obeying Jesus' teachings when he walked the earth is to follow the old law.

GT, you still have not answered my question, so why do you expect me to answer yours? Answer mine first, then I shall answer yours.

Are Christians under Law or Grace? (iow, should Christians be circumcised?)

It's a very simple question, one I had hoped you could just answer and we could move on, but you

 

[JudgeRightly]

You have JR giving you thanks just because you went against me. He doesn't care that you also go against him.

I will force myself to read what you wrote later, if I decide to wade in your ignorant false accusations.

How do you know if he goes against me if you haven't even read what he said?

Stop bearing false witness against your neighbor.

 

[SimpleMan77]

So you dispute John 1:1...He was God and was with God, and John 1:14?

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.​

That "word" He sent became a Him? How was it there was an US in Genesis 1?

The "US" in Gen 1: it amazes me how trinitarians take the personal, SINGULAR pronoun "HE" in Gen 1:26 & 27, and are perfectly fine saying that it applies to more than one person. However, they take what appears to be referring to 2 different persons in the NT (the Father and the Son), and are completely unwilling to consider that it might be referring to one Being (the Father being an omnipresent Spirit, who's center of consciousness can't be confined to one physical location, and the Son, where that one, omnipresent Spirit chose to partake of humanity).
Now, to answer the US directly: every true Hebrew scholar for hundreds of years after that was written looked at that and found it totally consistent with there being only one divine being (with only one center of consciousness). People who call themselves Hebrew scholars in modern times can't possibly understand the original language, with all of its subtle nuances, as well as those immersed in it.
If someone 2000 years from now reads the writings of today, there will be parts of our language that may confuse them. However, to those of us who understand the cultures and how language is currently being used, we understand it far better than those who may claim to be English experts in the future.
That's why I say all "true Hebrew scholars" read that to be referring to one Person. The teachers and rabbis were unanimous in this.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lon]

No, neither.

Thanks. Is there a label or a church that believes similarly as you? A website where I can read and understand you better? -Lon

 

[God's Truth]

How do you know if he goes against me if you haven't even read what he said?

Stop bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Just because I didn't continue to read what he says does not mean I don't know what he says about your beliefs.

You have many problems going on with you.

Stop bearing false witness.

He is not a trinitarian like you are.

 

[God's Truth]

The "US" in Gen 1: it amazes me how trinitarians take the personal, SINGULAR pronoun "HE" in Gen 1:26 & 27, and are perfectly fine saying that it applies to more than one person. However, they take what appears to be referring to 2 different persons in the NT (the Father and the Son), and are completely unwilling to consider that it might be referring to one Being (the Father being an omnipresent Spirit, who's center of consciousness can't be confined to one physical location, and the Son, where that one, omnipresent Spirit chose to partake of humanity).
Now, to answer the US directly: every true Hebrew scholar for hundreds of years after that was written looked at that and found it totally consistent with there being only one divine being (with only one center of consciousness). People who call themselves Hebrew scholars in modern times can't possibly understand the original language, with all of its subtle nuances, as well as those immersed in it.
If someone 2000 years from now reads the writings of today, there will be parts of our language that may confuse them. However, to those of us who understand the cultures and how language is currently being used, we understand it far better than those who may claim to be English experts in the future.
That's why I say all "true Hebrew scholars" read that to be referring to one Person. The teachers and rabbis were unanimous in this.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

God give wisdom to little children. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say scholars receive wisdom from God because of their education and for learning another language.

 

[God's Truth]

No, you don't, otherwise you would have answered my question by now.



I'm not even on the topic of Jesus, right now. I'm talking about covenants given to Abram/Abraham by God.



GT, you still have not answered my question, so why do you expect me to answer yours? Answer mine first, then I shall answer yours.

Are Christians under Law or Grace? (iow, should Christians be circumcised?)

It's a very simple question, one I had hoped you could just answer and we could move on, but you

You keep going against the scriptures that say Jesus came with grace and Moses came with the law.

Why do you fight against God's Word?

Give the scripture where Jesus gives instructions on how and when to circumcise in the flesh.

 

[SimpleMan77]

God give wisdom to little children. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say scholars receive wisdom from God because of their education and for learning another language.

Are you saying that God did not give the prophets and rabbis of the Old Testament wisdom? All of them read the writings of Moses, and understood conclusively and unambiguously that "The Lord our God, The Lord is One". In other words, there is one God, and that one God is One.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[God's Truth]

Are you saying that God did not give the prophets and rabbis of the Old Testament wisdom? All of them read the writings of Moses, and understood conclusively and unambiguously that "The Lord our God, The Lord is One". In other words, there is one God, and that one God is One.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Are you saying you do not know that God hid His Truth from the wise and learned and revealed it to little children?

 

[SimpleMan77]

Are you saying you do not know that God hid His Truth from the wise and learned and revealed it to little children?

Are you putting Isaiah in the "wise and learned" category?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lon]

People who call themselves Hebrew scholars in modern times can't possibly understand the original language, with all of its subtle nuances, as well as those immersed in it.

Not even Jews. They rejected their own Messiah. I've had enough Hebrew classes to know the vocabulary as a simple language, had many words conveying multiple meanings. While a modern Jew may only understand the Name as singular, Hebrew left opening for interpretation and that is why they had several commentaries that often disagreed with one another. We have several Jews on TOL. A couple of them have Greek logic and mindsets. Most Hebrews will not argue their doctrines.

If someone 2000 years from now reads the writings of today, there will be parts of our language that may confuse them. However, to those of us who understand the cultures and how language is currently being used, we understand it far better than those who may claim to be English experts in the future.

It depends upon the writer and how often that particular uses colloquial terms.

That's why I say all "true Hebrew scholars" read that to be referring to one Person. The teachers and rabbis were unanimous in this.

Then you lost. The Jews still reject their messiah. 1 Corinthians 2:14 The Jews worshiped other gods and were continually judged for it, thus only spiritual Israel were monotheistic. While I've read some Jewish apologetics, their objections do not hold up to their own history. In a word, don't overtly follow the broad way, the unspiritual way. We can learn a lot from those immersed in a language, but they went through judgement many times for abandoning and/or neglecting their own faith. God judged them and corrected them. If you miss that, you've missed a lot and overtly gave those unspiritual, power to dictate to you your Christianity who have no business in the attempt. Genesis 1:1 indeed is the name of God with a plural ending. Generally, Jews use the verb to identify plural or singular. Problem: God is indeed one, with a plural name ending. Any Hebrew that tells you different has moved into commentary, and I believe wrong commentary. He/she couldn't possibly explain both the plural and singular other than 'assuming' modalism. IOW, he/she reads it 'into' the text, not out of it. -Lon

 

[SimpleMan77]

The Trinity

Not even Jews. They rejected their own Messiah. I've had enough Hebrew classes to know the vocabulary as a simple language, had many words conveying multiple meanings. While a modern Jew may only understand the Name as singular, Hebrew left opening for interpretation and that is why they had several commentaries that often disagreed with one another. We have several Jews on TOL. A couple of them have Greek logic and mindsets. Most Hebrews will not argue their doctrines.
It depends upon the writer and how often that particular uses colloquial terms.
Then you lost. The Jews still reject their messiah. 1 Corinthians 2:14 The Jews worshiped other gods and were continually judged for it, thus only spiritual Israel were monotheistic. While I've read some Jewish apologetics, their objects do not hold up to their own history. In a word, don't overtly follow the broad way, the unspiritual way. We can learn a lot from those immersed in a language, but they went through judgement many times for abandoning and/or neglecting their own faith. God judged them and corrected them. If you miss that, you've missed a lot and overtly gave those unspiritual, power to dictate to you your Christianity who have no business in the attempt. Genesis 1:1 indeed is the name of God with a plural ending. Generally, Jews use the verb to identify plural or singular. Problem: God is indeed one, with a plural name ending. Any Hebrew that tells you different has moved into commentary, and I believe wrong commentary. He/she couldn't possibly explain both the plural and singular other than 'assuming' modalism. IOW, he/she reads it 'into' the text, not out of it. -Lon


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

I understand the potential plurality of Elohim. I also understand the thousands of singular verbs in Hebrew that remove any doubt as to whether Elohim is being used as singular or plural.
I know you are familiar with Exodus 7:1. God said to Moses "I have made you an Elohim to Pharoah". In other words, you are a god to him above all of his small gods". Moses is not a plurality-he was one person. Plurality here is used to express magnitude.
Last point. God knew that the Israelites viewed him as one single Person. They were militantly monotheistic in every sense of the word (not speaking of the backslidden ones). If that was a misunderstanding and deception, why would He go to great lengths in Isaiah to reinforce and deepen their deception. He said "there is no God with me, like me, before me, after me… I made the world alone, and all by myself". He knew that they absolutely credited those statements to one divine Person. God does not lie, or even purposely deceived people. There is no darkness in Him at all.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lon]

I understand the potential plurality of Elohim. I also understand the thousands of singular verbs in Hebrew that remove any doubt as to whether Elohim is being used as singular or plural.

Can you even read Hebrew, or is this your commentary from websites?
If websites, I gave you one from Hebrew speaking Jews. You obviously didn't read it.

I know you are familiar with Exodus 7:1. God said to Moses "I have made you an Elohim to Pharoah". In other words, you are a god to him above all of his small gods". Moses is not a plurality-he was one person. Plurality here is used to express magnitude.
Last point. God knew that the Israelites viewed him as one single Person. They were militantly monotheistic in every sense of the word (not speaking of the backslidden ones). If that was a misunderstanding and deception, why would He go to great lengths in Isaiah to reinforce and deepen their deception. He said "there is no God with me, like me, before me, after me… I made the world alone, and all by myself". He knew that they absolutely credited those statements to one divine Person. God does not lie, or even purposely deceived people. There is no darkness in Him at all.

Yeah, I just read that Google website to see where you were getting this all from.... :think:
Read the post you hastily responded to for▲ content and understanding, please▲