Trinity Proof Scriptures

[NWL]

Your dishonesty is so insidious that it kind of gives me the creeps. Here is what I actually wrote:



Nowhere have I granted that you even asked a question. I nowhere said anything about some burden to answer some question.

I said that there is no burden upon me to try to explain YOUR phrase, "ultimately receives worship". So far, you have not tried to explain, nor explained, what (if anything) you think you mean by YOUR NON-BIBLE phrase, "ultimately receives worship".

The phrase you used (ultimately receives worship) was part of a whole sentence, a question rather, namely "Who ultimately receives worship according to the bible". You refused to answer the question because of the phrase in the question, when I stated "You are correct, there is no burden on you to answer the question" I was referring not only to what you said about the phrase but the overall question.

I am not you 7djengo7, I'm not out to get you nor do I need to belittle you as you do with me to bolster my arguments. If you think I'm being dishonest point it out and I will try my best to correct what you perceive to be wrong.

So far, you have not tried to explain, nor explained, what (if anything) you think you mean by YOUR NON-BIBLE phrase, "ultimately receives worship".

I have explained this multiple times even giving an example of a mathematician passing on his glory to his teacher.

Once again I will explain it. Jesus receives worship, he then passes this praise worship to the Father, its as simple as that. The same was a police officer who saves a hostage can say to the hostage victim who thanks him "Don't thank me, thank Inspector Holmes who located you and sent me to save you" passes on the thanks and praise to Inspector Holmes is the same way in principle that we worship the Jesus who then passes it onto the Father. The same way you thank your mother, or you brother when they send you a card for the a letter and its message instead of the postman is the same way we thank and worship the Father who sent his messenger Jesus, but we do so through the messenger who than passes this message of thanks back to the original sender.

Now stop saying I have not explained it, this has to be at least the third or fourth time I have done so.

 

[NWL]

WHAT "same thing" would you say all those things (which YOU are calling "the above questions") "are asking"?

Where, in Scripture, would you say that any of YOUR terms--"fundamentally receives", "essentially receives", "in the end receives", "ultimately receives"--can be found in conjunction with Scripture's term "worship"?

Cite a phrase, or phraseology, in Scripture, that YOU would claim is equivalent to YOUR NON-BIBLE phrase, "ultimately receives worship".

Something, or somebody, either is worshiped, or is not worshiped; it's as simple as that.

Once again your playing the "dumb game", you know exactly what the question means and what I meant by "All the above questions are asking the same thing". This is coming from the person who was trying to educate me on grammar and know you can't understand basic sentences even when there five examples which all ask the same thing? Its really pitiful.

I am not able to dumb down my statement of "all the above questions are asking the same thing", what else could is possibly mean other than how it reads. Tell me what you think it means, I will tell you if you are correct or incorrect and further explain, when you do then you can answer the question.

In the mean time, if you happen to start understanding basic sentences again, deal with one of the following questions;

Who finally receives worship according to the bible Animals, Humans, Angels or God?
Who fundamentally receives worship according worship in the bible, animals, Humans, Angels or God?
Who essentially receives worship according to the bible, animals, Humans, Angels or God?
Who in the end receives worship according to the bible, animals, Humans, Angels or God?
Who ultimately receives worship according to the bible, animals, Humans, Angels or God?

Again, how can you reasonably expect me or other to take your points seriously if you outright refuse to answer basic questions, all it shows is that you're hiding from something.

 

[NWL]

To my question, "Are the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing to Jesus? Yes or No?", I answer: YES.
To my question, "Either the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus, or they are not. You can't have it both ways. Which do you say it is?", I answer: The knee-bowing and tongue-confessing ARE to Jesus.

And, here, you pretend to agree with me:

How is me saying "the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus" but to the "glory of God the Father" me pretending to agree with you, that's exactly what the verse says?

"that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:9-11)

What (if anything) are you accusing me of "adding to scripture"?
What (if anything) are you accusing me of "wanting it to say"?

You make the claim the verse is saying Jesus is also glorified, this is not what the scripture is expressing at all. The verse is clearly showing by implication that despite every knee bwoing to Jesus its to the Father glory. You would have it show its also to Jesus glory despite the verse not mentioning it to his glory. For example, God might glorify you 7djengo7 to further his work and that so ultimately his is glorified in the long run. If then someone said "God gave power and authority to 7djengo7, and made every knee bend to him to the glory of God the Father" yes you have been glorified by God, but those actions to you are to the glory of God the Father and not for you own glory.

[1] What (if anything) would you say GLORY is?
[2] What (if anything) would you say it is to GIVE GLORY to someone?
[3] What (if anything) would you say it is for someone to be GLORIFIED?
[4] What (if anything) would you say it is for something to be TO THE GLORY of someone?

1. There are many definitions of glory in scripture, in Phil 2:11 I would say it's in a similar sense to honor/praise.
2. It depends on the context, again the word has many definitions. It can mean giving someone a better position, it could mean giving praise and honor to someone.
3. Same answer, it depends on the context. See above answer 2 for examples.
4. To the praise, majesty and honor of that person.

Now imagine if I refused or played dumb to your questions, stating I don't understand them, would that make my argument stronger? I should give it a try next time.

 

[NWL]

You just admitted, here, in agreement with me, that, in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV, the things done to the glory of Jesus are THE THINGS DONE TO THE GLORY OF JESUS!

See, the presence, in v. 11, of the words, "to the glory of God the Father", cannot negate that fact.
Just the same, the absence of a phrase such as "to the glory of Jesus" or "to the glory of the Son" cannot negate that fact.

Now, whereas you have just admitted that the things done to the glory of Jesus are done to the glory of Jesus, in an earlier post, you denied that the things done to the glory of Jesus are done to the glory of Jesus:

Sorry buddy, I simply wrote Jesus instead of the Father in the statement you jumped on, I was meant to say "As I've already stated, your argument here is one of silence, for example where does Paul in Phil 2:8-11 state the things done to the glory of [the Father] are NOT done to the glory of Satan, or James, or Moses, or Judas? He doesn't." This should have been clear as I specfically mentioned "where does Paul state" and went on to quote part of the text by the words "the things done to the glory of" but listed Jesus instead of the Father. Paul never states "to the glory of Jesus" in Phil 2:8-11, but he does state "to the glory of God the Father".

Moreover, the question on principle still made sense and yet you did not address it. Once again you failed to demonstrate how your argument is not one from silence.

Just so we're clear, Phil 2:9-11 shows that actions are done to Jesus but are done to glorify not himself, but the Father, as the verse clearly shows.

So, now, you have contradicted what you earlier asserted.

Not a contradiction, just an error when typing.

 

[NWL]

.

Questions you refuse to answer, why, what are you hiding? If you have answered the question I apologize, simply show me where and how you answered them.

1. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

2. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

3. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything or in worship who do we need to direct that worship through according to John 14:6?

 

[7djengo7]

There are many definitions of glory in scripture, in Phil 2:11 I would say it's in a similar sense to honor/praise.

Is the glory, in Philippians 2:11 KJV honor/praise, or not?

Since, as a Christ-hater, you claim that God the Father created Jesus, would you say that, before creating Jesus, God the Father had honor/praise?

 

[7djengo7]

How is me saying "the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing are to Jesus" but to the "glory of God the Father" me pretending to agree with you, that's exactly what the verse says?

"but"? Where, in Philippians 2:11 KJV, do we read the word 'but'? That's right, it's not there, not at all:

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We do NOT read:

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, BUT to the glory of God the Father.

To insert the word 'but', there, is purely EISEGESIS on your part.

1. There are many definitions of glory in scripture, in Phil 2:11 I would say it's in a similar sense to honor/praise.
2. It depends on the context, again the word has many definitions. It can mean giving someone a better position, it could mean giving praise and honor to someone.
3. Same answer, it depends on the context. See above answer 2 for examples.
4. To the praise, majesty and honor of that person.

Only a raving fool will deny that knee-bowing to Jesus is honor/praise to Jesus.
Only a raving fool will deny that tongue-confession that Jesus Christ is Lord is honor/praise to Jesus.

Since to give honor/praise to Jesus is to give glory to Jesus, and since to give glory to Jesus is to glorify Jesus, the giving of honor/praise to Jesus (in the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV) is, indeed, the glorification of Jesus. Only a raving fool will deny this. And, you do, indeed, deny this:

You make the claim the verse is saying Jesus is also glorified, this is not what the scripture is expressing at all.

To bow the knee to Jesus, and to confess with the tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord, IS, indeed, to GLORIFY Jesus. That being the case, Philippians 2:9-11 KJV does, in fact, depict the glorification of Jesus. Again, only a raving fool will deny this; only a hardened, lying Christ-hater will deny this.

 

[NWL]

Is the glory, in Philippians 2:11 KJV honor/praise, or not?

As I clearly said previously "I would say it's in a similar sense to honor/praise", so of course yes. The actions spoken to Jesus (in Phil 2:9-11) are to the glory of the Father, in the sense of honor and praise going to the Father one might say.

Since, as a Christ-hater, you claim that God the Father created Jesus, would you say that, before creating Jesus, God the Father had honor/praise?

I was say God had honor prior to creating anything, but in regards to him receiving honor and praise when he was alone, no. He had no praise and was not honored, but again, was honorable.

Can you please state whether you ever intend to answer the previous questions I've posed, or are you going to outright ignore them?

1. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

2. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

3. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?

 

[NWL]

"but"? Where, in Philippians 2:11 KJV, do we read the word 'but'? That's right, it's not there, not at all:

We do NOT read:

To insert the word 'but', there, is purely EISEGESIS on your part.

You have great difficulty separating me explaining my position from me claiming what the scriptures are explicitly stating. Where in my writing did I say or even imply the scriptures says the word "but" in Phil 2:11 for you to moan about me saying "but" in explaining my understanding. Once again, the verse states that "God EXALTED Jesus to a superior position and that every knee bends to him to the glory of God the Father", our discussion is to who's glory is it to, if I then use the English language to convey my idea and point out "all knees bend to Jesus but to the glory of God the Father" how is this me inserting words, where is the dishonesty? I'm simply explaining my position. You are bringing up the poorest of arguments in an attempt to discredit me, it will never work.

Only a raving fool will deny that knee-bowing to Jesus is honor/praise to Jesus.
Only a raving fool will deny that tongue-confession that Jesus Christ is Lord is honor/praise to Jesus.

Once again you appeal to ad hominem to try and bolster your argument, instead of providing any counter reasoning or arguments you simply put me down in a hope that it will make you seem more right about the matter.

Moreover, where have I denied the knee bowing is NOT honor/praise to Jesus, I haven't, I accept that it is but we should not forget its "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11), you cannot run from this scriptural fact.

Since to give honor/praise to Jesus is to give glory to Jesus, and since to give glory to Jesus is to glorify Jesus, the giving of honor/praise to Jesus (in the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV) is, indeed, the glorification of Jesus. Only a raving fool will deny this. And, you do, indeed, deny this:

It is, and I do not deny it, but giving praise and glory to jesus by bending the knee to him is "to the glory of God the Father" as the scripture plainly states, as you say "only a raving fool will deny this".

the giving of honor/praise to Jesus (in the knee-bowing and tongue-confessing in Philippians 2:9-11 KJV) is, indeed, the glorification of Jesus. Only a raving fool will deny this. And, you do, indeed, deny this: [when you NWL said this "You make the claim the verse is saying Jesus is also glorified, this is not what the scripture is expressing at all."

You misunderstand the above statement, if you were to have read and fully understood what I said including the parts you left out you would understand that I was expressing that the verse is clear as to who's glory it is too, it clearly mentions it is "to the Fathers glory". The verse implies that Jesus too is glorified -is a sense- when it mentions him being exalted but writer wasn't trying to express explicitly that Jesus was being glorified here, it's simply an implication of the action of exaltation. The writer is clearly demonstrating that the actions and exaltation of Jesus are to the fathers glory, this is irrefutable. That is what I meant when I said "You make the claim the verse is saying Jesus is also glorified, this is not what the scripture is expressing at all", the key word you failed to recognize is expressing.

To bow the knee to Jesus, and to confess with the tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord, IS, indeed, to GLORIFY Jesus.

Yes but to the glory of who? Once again, to glorify Jesus it to bring glory to the one who sent Jesus, namely the father. So deal with the point, is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

(Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

 

[7djengo7]

I was say God had honor prior to creating anything, but in regards to him receiving honor and praise when he was alone, no. He had no praise and was not honored, but again, was honorable.

So, God the Father was needy. I read ya.

You're saying that God the Father "had honor prior to creating anything", and that, in God the Father's having that honor that He had, God the Father "was honorable". But then, God the Father created things, and, only after that did He begin to receive honor. So, you're saying that God the Father's honor increased; that God the Father became MORE honorable than He had ever been before He created anything. Interesting.

 

[NWL]

So, God the Father was needy. I read ya.

You're saying that God the Father "had honor prior to creating anything", and that, in God the Father's having that honor that He had, God the Father "was honorable". But then, God the Father created things, and, only after that did He begin to receive honor. So, you're saying that God the Father's honor increased; that God the Father became MORE honorable than He had ever been before He created anything. Interesting.

No, God was not needy, I don't know how you came to that conclusion by what I said.

It would go without saying that to do an honorable deed one would need to be honorable prior to displaying that honor. Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot do things of an honorable nature, only someone with honor can do something of an honorable nature. Thus, God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him.

Like everyone else who has attempted and failed to dismanlted my -JW- belief's you fail to address points and questioning that clearly shows your flawed reasoning, will you ever deal with them? (Questions below)

1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

(Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?

 

[7djengo7]

No, God was not needy, I don't know how you came to that conclusion by what I said.

It would go without saying that to do an honorable deed one would need to be honorable prior to displaying that honor. Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot do things of an honorable nature, only someone with honor can do something of an honorable nature. Thus, God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him.

When you say that God the Father "was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", what (if anything) do you mean by "honorable"? Do you mean "deserving of honor"? Would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was deserving of honor? If so, would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was receiving the honor of which He was deserving? If so, from whence? From Himself? Before creation, was God the Father honoring--giving honor to--Himself?

You say "No, God was not needy". So, you're saying God the Father did not NEED to create anything in order to receive the honor of which He was deserving prior to creation. In other words, you are saying that, prior to creation, God the Father was, in fact, receiving the honor of which He was deserving. So, prior to creation, from whence would you say God the Father was receiving honor?

When you say "Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot....", what (if anything) do you mean by "honor"?

 

[NWL]

When you say that God the Father "was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", what (if anything) do you mean by "honorable"? Do you mean "deserving of honor"? Would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was deserving of honor? If so, would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was receiving the honor of which He was deserving? If so, from whence? From Himself? Before creation, was God the Father honoring--giving honor to--Himself?

You say "No, God was not needy". So, you're saying God the Father did not NEED to create anything in order to receive the honor of which He was deserving prior to creation. In other words, you are saying that, prior to creation, God the Father was, in fact, receiving the honor of which He was deserving. So, prior to creation, from whence would you say God the Father was receiving honor?

When you say "Someone who has absolutely no honor cannot....", what (if anything) do you mean by "honor"?

How does any of the above or this sub-argument help you answer the question of why glory goes to the Father alone in Phil 2:11? Here you are asking all this questions yet you fail to address mine, that is the very definition of hypocrite, if Jesus were here he would rebuke you the same as he did to the hypocrites in his day.

When your arguments boil down to semantics it should tell you that you really have lost.

When you say that God the Father "was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", what (if anything) do you mean by "honorable"? D

What I meant by "honorable" in my previous statement is someone who has honor by nature, if you struggle with that statement I suggest you look the word up in a dictionary.

Do you mean "deserving of honor"?

No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created. For example currently I am childless, bearing this in mind do my children need to honor me as the scriptures say? No, since I have no children, that act of honoring only applies upon me having children. Likewise if God existed alone and had created nothing, to who would he be "deserving of honor" to? No one.

Would you say that, before God the Father created anything, He was deserving of honor?

As already answered no, the same way my children are under no obligation to honor me since they do not exist, I only become deserving of honor by them when I bring them into existence.

You say "No, God was not needy". So, you're saying God the Father did not NEED to create anything in order to receive the honor of which He was deserving prior to creation. In other words, you are saying that, prior to creation, God the Father was, in fact, receiving the honor of which He was deserving. So, prior to creation, from whence would you say God the Father was receiving honor?

You've assumed my answer based on your initial question here, I have not expressed or stated most of what you have claimed I have expressed. God does not need anyone or anything, he simply expects it out of divine right and principle. God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God, but this does not mean that God was not honorable by nature prior to creation.

You've asked my seven questions here, I have answered all the ones that you have asked me to answer, why are you so "hypocritical" as to not to do the same my "Christian" friend?

1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

(Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?

 

[7djengo7]

God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him.

What I meant by "honorable" in my previous statement is someone who has honor by nature

So, by saying that "God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", you're saying that God, prior to creation, had "honor by nature".

Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?

No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created.

Here, after stating that God had "honor by nature" prior to creation, you have just denied that God was deserving of the honor you say He had prior to creation. You have just denied that God was deserving of the "honor by nature" you say He had. According to you, God didn't even deserve the honor you say He already had!

Why don't you try to tell what (if anything) you imagine honor to be, and then, try to explain exactly what (if anything) you think it is for a person to have "honor by nature"?

No, God was not needy

God does not need anyone or anything, he simply expects it out of divine right and principle. God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God, but this does not mean that God was not honorable by nature prior to creation.

So, out of one side of your mouth, you denied that God was needy, and then, out of the other side of your mouth, you affirmed that God was needy. You're really hooked on shooting yourself in the foot, man.

 

[NWL]

So, by saying that "God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", you're saying that God, prior to creation, had "honor by nature".

Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?

You don't even know what you're saying anymore do you.

You're asking me questions you've already asked and I've already answered, you ask again "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?", I will copy and paste my previous answer to this questions. My answer was this "No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created".

Just because I say God was honorable prior to him creating anything doesn't imply he gained that honor by from someone honoring him. For example God had love prior to ever creating anything, what you're in effect asking is if God hadn't created anything what did he love to possess the attribute of love? The answer is nothing, God loved nothing, this does not negate the fact that God still had the attribute of love prior to ever displaying that love, since, only someone who possesses the attribute of love can love.

Likewise God was honorable by nature prior to ever displaying that honor, only someone who is honorable by nature can display that honor. Someone who has no honor cannot display honor, the same way a person who has no love cannot display love. I'm repeating myself here dispute explaining this in my other post.

Here, after stating that God had "honor by nature" prior to creation, you have just denied that God was deserving of the honor you say He had prior to creation. You have just denied that God was deserving of the "honor by nature" you say He had. According to you, God didn't even deserve the honor you say He already had!

No, again you are unable to grasp basic language. I said God was honorable by nature prior to creating anything and God was not deserving of honor by anything prior to creating anything. Again, what you are mistaking is God being honorable as a being is the same thing as him being owed honor for creating, these two different things. For example God is a reader of hearts, after creating Adam he could have read the heart of Adam and determined if Adam was a man who was honorable or a person who lacked honor prior to Adam doing any actios that could be deemed as honorable or not. If God determined that he had honor this would not imply that Adam was owed honor by anyone or anything, but simply that he was honorable by nature.

Likewise God was honorable by nature prior to him creating anything, he needed to be to do actions that were honorable as only someone who is honorable can do actions that are honorable, this does not mean that prior of creating he was owed or deserving of honor.

Why don't you try to tell what (if anything) you imagine honor to be, and then, try to explain exactly what (if anything) you think it is for a person to have "honor by nature"?

Hypocrite! Answer my questions and I'll answer yours. You tell me what what you think means to be honorable by nature based on your knowledge of the English language and I'll tell you if you are correct.

God does not need anyone or anything, he simply expects it out of divine right and principle. God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God, but this does not mean that God was not honorable by nature prior to creation.

So, out of one side of your mouth, you denied that God was needy, and then, out of the other side of your mouth, you affirmed that God was needy. You're really hooked on shooting yourself in the foot, man.

In a previous post you try and school me on grammar and here now you act as if you don't understand basic grammar and twist word definitions to try and get me to look the fool. Explain to me, how does my statement of "God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God" imply that God relied on something?

As anyone would be able to tell by my above statement "God does not need anyone or anything" I was talking about anything to sustain himself, since God relies on nothing whereas all other beings do, I don't know of a single branch of Christianity who would disagree with this. When I said "God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God" I was not inferring that God needed to create in someway out of necessity, I was simply saying he needed/had to be the one to create for that creation to owe him honor.

Let's see if your poor linguistical argument in relation to the word "need" is consistent, answer me if you will, did God need to create Angels for Angels to exist?, if you answer is yes then is this proof that God needs something according to your argument?

 

[NWL]

.

Questions you have yet to address. As you stated to Dartman, I will keep posting these question until you answer them or until you stop conversing with me (this thread or another).

1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?

(Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?

Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)

3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?

4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?

 

[7djengo7]

Anti-Trinitarians are NOT neutral about Trinitarianism

Anti-Trinitarians are NOT neutral about Trinitarianism

Trinitarian: No, no no. Prove that the God is not a Trinity.

Non-Trinitarian: You can't prove a negative.

Person without thinking cap on: You can't prove a negative.
Person with thinking cap on: You say that one "can't prove a negative". That's a slogan very commonly parroted by persons without thinking caps on. Here are two propositions:

1. 'God is not a Trinity'
2. 'You can't prove a negative'

You seem to be calling #1, which is an unitarian proposition, a "negative". But, what about #2? Would you not also call the proposition, 'You can't prove a negative', a "negative"? If not, then why the inconsistency? If you call #1 a "negative", yet refuse to call #2 a "negative", then what about #1 makes you call it a "negative", and what about #2 makes you refuse to call it a negative? Now, would you say that you can prove your proposition, 'You can't prove a negative'?

And, consider this Trinitarian proposition:

'God is not a non-Trinity'

Now, this proposition is the contradictory of the proposition, 'God is not a Trinity'. Each of these being the contradictory of the other, one of these two propositions must be true, and the other must be false:

• 'God is not a Trinity'
• 'God is not a non-Trinity'

You have already called A a "negative". What about B, though? Would you not, also, call B a "negative"? If not, then, why the inconsistency? Why the special pleading?

At the end of the day, we have it, in the above quote, from the anti-Trinitarian horse's mouth, that "You can't prove [that God is not a Trinity]", and, in that admission, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that "You can't prove FROM THE BIBLE [that God is not a Trinity]".

If anti-Trinitarianism were true, and anti-Trinitarianism were taught in the Bible, an anti-Trinitarian shows his/her intense commitment to opposing logical thinking when he/she claims that you can't prove, from the Bible, that Trinitarianism is false. Not only that, but, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism from the Bible, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is extra-Biblical. And, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism AT ALL ("You can't prove a negative"), the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is nothing other than a PRESUPPOSITION!

Here, we find another instance of an anti-Trinitarian pretending to be neutral regarding Trinitarianism:

The Bible never teaches that there is a Triune God, so any claims that the God of the Bible is a Triune God must be met with skepticism. The Bible does teach that Jesus is the Son of God and that His Father is the God of the Old Testament scriptures, so any claim against that teaching must also be met with skepticism.

Anti-Trinitarianism is most definitely NOT skepticism.

Since everything the Bible teaches is true, then, everything that is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is, ipso facto, false. To claim, then, that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is to claim that Trinitarianism is false. To claim that Trinitarianism is false is to deny Trinitarianism.

Everyone who claims that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the Bible is, in so claiming, very decidedly NOT a skeptic regarding Trinitarianism. No skepticism would ever say:

"Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

Rather, skepticism would say:

"I cannot tell whether or not Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

Everyone who is an anti-Trinitarian is, ipso facto, a claim-maker, and is not the least bit a skeptic as regards Trinitarianism.

 

[glorydaz]

Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?

Well, John doesn't say that, does he? No, you're making that assumption.




Do you always start your books in the middle of the chapter? :think:

John started here: John 1:1, John 1:14, John 6:38, and went on.... John 16:27

The Word who was God became flesh and dwelt among us. He came out from God, down from heaven, and appeared among men as one of us. So, we reach God through God Himself...Emmanuel.

 

[7djengo7]

I had written to you:

So, by saying that "God was honorable prior to his creation ever honoring him", you're saying that God, prior to creation, had "honor by nature".

Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?

Instead of answering that question, you lie, saying that you answered it:

You're asking me questions you've already asked and I've already answered, you ask again "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?", I will copy and paste my previous answer to this questions. My answer was this "No, why would God be deserving of honor for simply existing alone? Logically, God would only become deserving of honor after he had created".

I did not ask you "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor for simply existing alone?"
I asked you "Was God, prior to creation, deserving of honor?" So far, you have stonewalled against the question I asked you.

Just because I say God was honorable prior to him creating anything doesn't imply he gained that honor by from someone honoring him.

What (if anything) do you mean by the word "honorable"? As I understand it, to be honorable is to deserve to be honored. And, to be honored is to be given honor. So, to be honorable is to deserve to be given honor. If you don't like that, then, again what (if anything) do you mean by the word "honorable"?

For example God had love prior to ever creating anything, what you're in effect asking is if God hadn't created anything what did he love to possess the attribute of love?

No. I'm not asking that at all. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit each loved one another, prior to Creation. It is false, and asinine, to say that there is love where no object is loved, and Trinitarianism doesn't assert that falsehood; Trinitarianism opposes it. You, however, as an anti-Trinitarian, assert that very falsehood. You say that, prior to Creation, there was, somehow, love sans any loved object. You say that God was love, while saying that, nevertheless, no object was loved:

The answer is nothing, God loved nothing

Here, you are saying that God did not even love God. Obviously, you think that God is not worthy to be loved by God. Yet, you, of course, will not hesitate to claim that God loves what God created: the creature. So, you make out God to love the creature more than the Creator.

, this does not negate the fact that God still had the attribute of love prior to ever displaying that love, since, only someone who possesses the attribute of love can love.

Kindly try to explain what (if anything) you mean by your phrase, "the attribute of love".

God was honorable by nature prior to ever displaying that honor

What (if anything) do you mean by the word "honor", when you say that God had honor which had never been given to God. How can anything have honor WITHOUT having been given it.

And, we notice that you have brought into the discussion the term "display". Do you mean anything by it?

, only someone who is honorable by nature can display that honor.

Here, you seem to be trying to make honorableness and honor to be one and the same thing. And, to do that is purely absurd. Tell me, then: is honorableness the same thing as honor, or not?

What (if anything) would you say honor is?
What (if anything) would you say honorableness is?

Someone who has no honor cannot display honor

I'm curious to learn why (if for some reason) you say this. Please explain. What (if anything) do you mean by "display honor"? Above, you had written:

"God was honorable by nature prior to ever displaying that honor"

So, you are saying that God has not always "displayed honor", though God has always had honor. Again, what (if anything) do you mean by "display honor"?

Again, what you are mistaking is God being honorable as a being is the same thing as him being owed honor for creating, these two different things.

I never said anything about anyone "being owed honor for creating". That's something you have so cult-member-like tried to sneak in, because you know you can't answer the questions I asked you.

In a previous post you try and school me on grammar

I'm not a fool: I don't try to school the unteachable! I wasn't at all trying to school you on grammar; I was/am mocking your hatred and dismal, persistent butchery of the English language and grammar. It is extremely repugnant to me, and I do not apologize for doing so. I've been very, very, very generous with you, what with all the slogging through your ravings I've allowed myself to endure. I consider language to be a magnificent gift from God, and to see it trampled in the mud by thoughtless oinkers who pretend to authority is quite a trial.

When I said "God needed to have created something for that creation to be duty bound to honor God" I was not inferring that God needed to create in someway out of necessity

You are correct! You, indeed, were not inferring it; you were implying it.

Let's see if your poor linguistical argument in relation to the word "need" is consistent, answer me if you will, did God need to create Angels for Angels to exist?

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by "exist", so, I don't understand what (if anything) you are asking. However, if you ask me, "Did God need to create angels for angels to be created by God?", then I would say "Yes: In order for angels to be created by God, God needed to create angels."

if you answer is yes then is this proof that God needs something according to your argument?

Since God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each, gives honor to, and receives honor from, one another--both before and since Creation--I affirm, indeed, that God has never had need, whatsoever, to create, so as to be given, and to receive, honor.

 

[Tambora]

Person without thinking cap on: You can't prove a negative.
Person with thinking cap on: You say that one "can't prove a negative". That's a slogan very commonly parroted by persons without thinking caps on. Here are two propositions:

1. 'God is not a Trinity'
2. 'You can't prove a negative'

You seem to be calling #1, which is an unitarian proposition, a "negative". But, what about #2? Would you not also call the proposition, 'You can't prove a negative', a "negative"? If not, then why the inconsistency? If you call #1 a "negative", yet refuse to call #2 a "negative", then what about #1 makes you call it a "negative", and what about #2 makes you refuse to call it a negative? Now, would you say that you can prove your proposition, 'You can't prove a negative'?

And, consider this Trinitarian proposition:

'God is not a non-Trinity'

Now, this proposition is the contradictory of the proposition, 'God is not a Trinity'. Each of these being the contradictory of the other, one of these two propositions must be true, and the other must be false:

• 'God is not a Trinity'
• 'God is not a non-Trinity'

You have already called A a "negative". What about B, though? Would you not, also, call B a "negative"? If not, then, why the inconsistency? Why the special pleading?

At the end of the day, we have it, in the above quote, from the anti-Trinitarian horse's mouth, that "You can't prove [that God is not a Trinity]", and, in that admission, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that "You can't prove FROM THE BIBLE [that God is not a Trinity]".

If anti-Trinitarianism were true, and anti-Trinitarianism were taught in the Bible, an anti-Trinitarian shows his/her intense commitment to opposing logical thinking when he/she claims that you can't prove, from the Bible, that Trinitarianism is false. Not only that, but, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism from the Bible, the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is extra-Biblical. And, in admitting that you can't prove anti-Trinitarianism AT ALL ("You can't prove a negative"), the anti-Trinitarian is admitting that his/her anti-Trinitarianism is nothing other than a PRESUPPOSITION!

Here, we find another instance of an anti-Trinitarian pretending to be neutral regarding Trinitarianism:

The Bible never teaches that there is a Triune God, so any claims that the God of the Bible is a Triune God must be met with skepticism. The Bible does teach that Jesus is the Son of God and that His Father is the God of the Old Testament scriptures, so any claim against that teaching must also be met with skepticism.

Anti-Trinitarianism is most definitely NOT skepticism.

Since everything the Bible teaches is true, then, everything that is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is, ipso facto, false. To claim, then, that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the teaching of the Bible is to claim that Trinitarianism is false. To claim that Trinitarianism is false is to deny Trinitarianism.

Everyone who claims that Trinitarianism is AGAINST the Bible is, in so claiming, very decidedly NOT a skeptic regarding Trinitarianism. No skepticism would ever say:

"Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

Rather, skepticism would say:

"I cannot tell whether or not Trinitarianism is against what the Bible teaches"

Everyone who is an anti-Trinitarian is, ipso facto, a claim-maker, and is not the least bit a skeptic as regards Trinitarianism.

I love this post!
I hope you stick around.