What is the Oneness of God as taught by Oneness Pentecostals?

And, this type of response is to be respected?
You mean your inability to answer the difference between God and gods?

You answered nothing. What is being figuratively communicated by one seraph saying to another "Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts"? Not, what does "holy" mean, but why does the vision depict seraphim as talking to one another if they are not personal?
No different than creation singing and speaking of the glory of God.

No, you're just asserting such without justification. It's almost like an axiom that is overriding any rational thought.
Then align your rational thought with what the grammar shows.

But, the grammar doesn't tell us God is singular in person.
But it does. God is singularly speaking.

So, to go from "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person" requires an axiom. Grammar alone can not tell you this.
Grammar does. What's the difference between God and gods?

You only say "of course" because you axiomatically assume such.
So does the grammar.

I ask how do I contradict the grammar and you respond with asserting I ignore it. Can you be more circular in your reasoning? How do I contradict the grammar; how am I ignoring the grammar? This grammar literally cannot teach only one person is that God. And, asserting otherwise isn't an argument; it's just an axiomatic assumption.
Tell us the difference between God and gods.

I never said "It's 3 gods." I never said "one God person is 3." They only way anyone could come to these conclusions is by twisting my words.
Tell us the difference between God and gods.

God Bless
As only a singular God can.
 
You answered nothing. What is being figuratively communicated by one seraph saying to another "Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts"? Not, what does "holy" mean, but why does the vision depict seraphim as talking to one another if they are not personal?
No different than creation singing and speaking of the glory of God.

I can't express how foolish this response is.

No, you're just asserting such without justification. It's almost like an axiom that is overriding any rational thought.
Then align your rational thought with what the grammar shows.

Oh, you think I should just accept your axiom without any rational justification because we both know it has nothing to do with the grammar of Genesis 1:26. I'm going to say no; I'm not that irrational.

But, the grammar doesn't tell us God is singular in person.
But it does. God is singularly speaking.

But, it doesn't express that God is singular in person because God singularly speaking doesn't express that only one person is that God.

So, to go from "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person" requires an axiom. Grammar alone can not tell you this.
Grammar does. What's the difference between God and gods?

The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.

I ask how do I contradict the grammar and you respond with asserting I ignore it. Can you be more circular in your reasoning? How do I contradict the grammar; how am I ignoring the grammar? This grammar literally cannot teach only one person is that God. And, asserting otherwise isn't an argument; it's just an axiomatic assumption.
Tell us the difference between God and gods.

I refuse to be insulted into expressing what I already expressed countless times.

God Bless
 
I can't express how foolish this response is.
Yours is truly whiny.

Oh, you think I should just accept your axiom without any rational justification because we both know it has nothing to do with the grammar of Genesis 1:26. I'm going to say no; I'm not that irrational.
Of course you are irrational. Tell us the difference between the terms God and gods.

Let me know if you need help determining how the English language distinguishes, accounts for plurality in the terms above.

But, it doesn't express that God is singular in person because God singularly speaking doesn't express that only one person is that God.
It expresses that person, God, is only one person. Why don't you accept the grammar?

This is how ridiculous your argument is. "Bob said, let us get pizza 🍕". Now using your own 3rd person plural rules that you say you espouse, no one in their right mind would think Bob is 3 persons. But, the reality is, you neither follow your own rules, nor any rational thought in your argument 🤔.

The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
See above. Tell us the difference between the terms God and gods.

I refuse to be insulted into expressing what I already expressed countless times.
Rotfl... Tell us the difference between the terms God and gods.

Your tolerance for being insulted is very low. Looks like other issues are at hand ✋ 🙄.

God Bless
Only the absolutely singular God does.
 
Last edited:
Oh, you think I should just accept your axiom without any rational justification because we both know it has nothing to do with the grammar of Genesis 1:26. I'm going to say no; I'm not that irrational.
Of course you are irrational. Tell us the difference between the terms God and gods.
Let me know if you need help determining how the English language distinguishes, accounts for plurality in the terms above.

Do you like insulting others?

But, it doesn't express that God is singular in person because God singularly speaking doesn't express that only one person is that God.
It expresses that person, God, is only one person. Why don't you accept the grammar?

I do accept that person is only one person. But, that's still not the same as saying only one person is that God.

This is how ridiculous your argument is. "Bob said, let us get pizza 🍕". Now using your own 3rd person plural rules that you say you espouse, no one in their right mind would think Bob is 3 persons. But, the reality is, you neither follow your own rules, nor any rational thought in your argument 🤔.

That's not my argument. As you pointed out countless times: God is not man. Why do you think making human analogies and applying such to God is meaningful?

The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
See above. Tell us the difference between the terms God and gods.

Nothing to see above accept you trying to insult your way into winning an argument. Let's try this again:

The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.


I refuse to be insulted into expressing what I already expressed countless times.
Rotfl... Tell us the difference between the terms God and gods.
Your tolerance for being insulted is very low. Looks like other issues are at hand ✋ 🙄.

I refuse to be insulted into expressing what I already expressed countless times.

God Bless
 
Do you like insulting others?
Why are avoiding telling us the difference between the terms God and gods?

I do accept that person is only one person. But, that's still not the same as saying only one person is that God.
The only person speaking is that God. He is a singular person.

That's not my argument. As you pointed out countless times: God is not man.
Then don't argue that Jesus is God ever again in the forums. Be consistent and honest.

Why do you think making human analogies and applying such to God is meaningful?
3rd personal plural rules apply in both cases. Same results.

Do you understand anthropomorphisms?

Nothing to see above accept you trying to insult your way into winning an argument. Let's try this again:
What does adding an "s" at the end of a singular noun in English mean?

The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
Sorry, DOGB. The grammar rules provide the axioms you're crying about. Either 3rd personal plural rules are the way to interpret here as you claim, or just throw away the rules and be hypocritical about your stance.

I refuse to be insulted into expressing what I already expressed countless times.
You're crying over nothing. What this shows is the corner you've put yourself in. Just answer the simple question. What is the difference between the terms God and gods?

God Bless
He, singular, does.
 
Do you like insulting others?



I do accept that person is only one person. But, that's still not the same as saying only one person is that God.



That's not my argument. As you pointed out countless times: God is not man. Why do you think making human analogies and applying such to God is
meaningful?



Nothing to see above accept you trying to insult your way into winning an argument. Let's try this again:

The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.



I refuse to be insulted into expressing what I already expressed countless times.


God Bless

There is really no context in Genesis 1:26 to think of a Trinity or plurality of persons in the Godhead talking to one another about creation. The normal understanding of Genesis 1:26 is that the singular God "He" is talking to someone else. The problem we face is two-fold in that the text does not say who God is talking to and secondly God is considered to be alone the sole creator of man.

Trinitarians shouldn't be confident in this as a proof text because there is not enough information in the verse to support a Trinity. It is not a problem to think angels are involved in a secondary manner in the support of God's creation. It is the most natural understanding unless one is presuppposed to support a Trinity.
 
I do accept that person is only one person. But, that's still not the same as saying only one person is that God.
The only person speaking is that God. He is a singular person

"only person speaking...is a singular person" Obviously. Still wondering when you are going to make a meaningful comment?

That's not my argument. As you pointed out countless times: God is not man.
Then don't argue that Jesus is God ever again in the forums. Be consistent and honest.

Silly person who can't tell the difference between God being a man and one person who is God becoming a man.

Why do you think making human analogies and applying such to God is meaningful?
3rd personal plural rules apply in both cases. Same results.

3rd person plural apply to the number of persons, not to the number of persons who are distinct beings.

The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
Sorry, DOGB. The grammar rules provide the axioms you're crying about. Either 3rd personal plural rules are the way to interpret here as you claim, or just throw away the rules and be hypocritical about your stance.

Nice job not listening. The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.

I refuse to be insulted into expressing what I already expressed countless times.
You're crying over nothing. What this shows is the corner you've put yourself in. Just answer the simple question. What is the difference between the terms God and gods?

In reality, I'm just calling out your wickedness.

God Bless
 
There is really no context in Genesis 1:26 to think of a Trinity or plurality of persons in the Godhead talking to one another about creation. The normal understanding of Genesis 1:26 is that the singular God "He" is talking to someone else. The problem we face is two-fold in that the text does not say who God is talking to and secondly God is considered to be alone the sole creator of man.

Trinitarians shouldn't be confident in this as a proof text because there is not enough information in the verse to support a Trinity. It is not a problem to think angels are involved in a secondary manner in the support of God's creation. It is the most natural understanding unless one is presuppposed to support a Trinity.

I never presented it as a text that proves the Trinity. I presented it as a verse that Jews have no answer to, and they clearly don't given Jewjitzu's flights of fancy. You are right to say "the text does not say who God is talking to", but it does give clues. He say "Let us make man" meaning the speaker and the one he is speaking to together are making man, God says "in our image" which means this person(s) have the image of God in which man was made before the creation of man, and v27 says God is the sole creator of man. That's what the text says, and if that's all the scripture we got, I would be just as confused as Jewjitzu. Now, the Trinity fits perfectly well in this structure: one God providing for the singularity in v27 with the plurality of persons v26 requires. That doesn't make it true; it just means it passed this theological test. Have you tested your own theology in the same way? That was my point with Jewjitzu, and we saw him face-plant. You see the issue with angels: "involved in a secondary manner in the support of God's creation" vs "the sole creator of man." So Andreas, how do you answer this question?

God Bless
 
I never presented it as a text that proves the Trinity. I presented it as a verse that Jews have no answer to, and they clearly don't given Jewjitzu's flights of fancy. You are right to say "the text does not say who God is talking to", but it does give clues. He say "Let us make man" meaning the speaker and the one he is speaking to together are making man, God says "in our image" which means this person(s) have the image of God in which man was made before the creation of man, and v27 says God is the sole creator of man. That's what the text says, and if that's all the scripture we got, I would be just as confused as Jewjitzu. Now, the Trinity fits perfectly well in this structure: one God providing for the singularity in v27 with the plurality of persons v26 requires. That doesn't make it true; it just means it passed this theological test. Have you tested your own theology in the same way? That was my point with Jewjitzu, and we saw him face-plant. You see the issue with angels: "involved in a secondary manner in the support of God's creation" vs "the sole creator of man." So Andreas, how do you answer this question?

God Bless
Your other scripture data in the OT must be poverty stricken if you have to resort to Genesis 1:26 as your best example of the Trinity in the OT. Why not go with most Trinitarian scholars and admit that the OT says nothing about a Trinity.
 
"only person speaking...is a singular person" Obviously. Still wondering when you are going to make a meaningful comment?
Then God is only a singular person. Did bible college tell you the difference between the terms God and gods?

Silly person who can't tell the difference between God being a man and one person who is God becoming a man.
Yep, you're silly in both cases.

3rd person plural apply to the number of persons, not to the number of persons who are distinct beings.
Tell us the difference between God and gods? In Hebrew, nephesh is used for both being and person. No difference.

Nice job not listening. The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
It sure does. See above Sherlock.

In reality, I'm just calling out your wickedness.
That's ironic given your idolatrous dogma.

So what's the difference between God and gods?

God Bless
He always does.
 
I never presented it as a text that proves the Trinity. I presented it as a verse that Jews have no answer to, and they clearly don't given Jewjitzu's flights of fancy. You are right to say "the text does not say who God is talking to", but it does give clues. He say "Let us make man" meaning the speaker and the one he is speaking to together are making man, God says "in our image" which means this person(s) have the image of God in which man was made before the creation of man, and v27 says God is the sole creator of man. That's what the text says, and if that's all the scripture we got, I would be just as confused as Jewjitzu. Now, the Trinity fits perfectly well in this structure: one God providing for the singularity in v27 with the plurality of persons v26 requires. That doesn't make it true; it just means it passed this theological test. Have you tested your own theology in the same way? That was my point with Jewjitzu, and we saw him face-plant. You see the issue with angels: "involved in a secondary manner in the support of God's creation" vs "the sole creator of man." So Andreas, how do you answer this question?
Your other scripture data in the OT must be poverty stricken if you have to resort to Genesis 1:26 as your best example of the Trinity in the OT. Why not go with most Trinitarian scholars and admit that the OT says nothing about a Trinity.

Who said anything about "Genesis 1:26 as your best example of the Trinity in the OT"? Also, why must I stricken Scriptural data in the OT? More evidence for the Trinity doesn't require I eliminate other data. BTW, I don't know of any Trinitarian scholars that says the OT says nothing about a Trinity. I admit that such wasn't fully revealed until the NT, but such doesn't deny types and shadows of the Trinity being present in the OT: YHWH meeting with Abraham and calling down fire in Genesis 18-19, Jacob wresting with God in Genesis 32, the commander of the armies of YHWH in Joshua 5, etc. The interchange in Genesis 1:26-27 is a mysterious passage that has only been explained by multiple persons who are the same God.

God Bless
 
"only person speaking...is a singular person" Obviously. Still wondering when you are going to make a meaningful comment?
Then God is only a singular person.

So, we are back to you asserting your way through Scripture. Sad.

3rd person plural apply to the number of persons, not to the number of persons who are distinct beings.
Tell us the difference between God and gods?

Explain to me why you're so blind as to not know my position after this lengthy talk?

In Hebrew, nephesh is used for both being and person. No difference.

And? That nephesh is used for both being and person doesn't imply one can rightly distinguish between the two.

Nice job not listening. The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
It sure does. See above Sherlock.

Given that you haven't actually interacted with my previous statement, I'll repeat myself: The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.

In reality, I'm just calling out your wickedness.
That's ironic given your idolatrous dogma.

How is it ironic given how you choose to act?

God Bless
 
So, we are back to you asserting your way through Scripture. Sad.
So you're back to ignoring grammar rules that you say you follow but don't. What a pity.

Explain to me why you're so blind as to not know my position after this lengthy talk?
Because you talk out of both sides of it. So, tell us per grammar, what's the difference between God and gods?

And? That nephesh is used for both being and person doesn't imply one can rightly distinguish between the two.
Rotfl... Nephesh is used singular of God, meaning He is one being and one person. If His being was a plural of persons, it would say so. It doesn't.

Given that you haven't actually interacted with my previous statement, I'll repeat myself: The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
I'll repeat myself again because you don't follow the grammar rules you claim to follow. There is no assuming that a singular God speaks, otherwise the translation would say gods with reference to "us". It doesn't.

How is it ironic given how you choose to act?
Pointing out the holes in your arguments and the idolatry that is the trinity isn't wickedness.

God Bless
He sure does.
 
I never presented it as a text that proves the Trinity. I presented it as a verse that Jews have no answer to, and they clearly don't given Jewjitzu's flights of fancy. You are right to say "the text does not say who God is talking to", but it does give clues. He say "Let us make man" meaning the speaker and the one he is speaking to together are making man, God says "in our image" which means this person(s) have the image of God in which man was made before the creation of man, and v27 says God is the sole creator of man. That's what the text says, and if that's all the scripture we got, I would be just as confused as Jewjitzu. Now, the Trinity fits perfectly well in this structure: one God providing for the singularity in v27 with the plurality of persons v26 requires. That doesn't make it true; it just means it passed this theological test. Have you tested your own theology in the same way? That was my point with Jewjitzu, and we saw him face-plant. You see the issue with angels: "involved in a secondary manner in the support of God's creation" vs "the sole creator of man." So Andreas, how do you answer this question?

God Bless
Rotfl... it only passes theological tests based on Trinitarian bias. When pressed if you follow the grammar rules for the verses, you hop, skip, and jump around it. It's quite amusing.
 
So, we are back to you asserting your way through Scripture. Sad.
So you're back to ignoring grammar rules that you say you follow but don't. What a pity.

Still not ignoring any grammar rules; you're just reading into the grammar unjustified, philosophical axioms.

Explain to me why you're so blind as to not know my position after this lengthy talk?
Because you talk out of both sides of it. So, tell us per grammar, what's the difference between God and gods?

Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, or am I talking from a different axiomatic framework?

And? That nephesh is used for both being and person doesn't imply one can rightly distinguish between the two.
Rotfl... Nephesh is used singular of God, meaning He is one being and one person.

Yep, Nephesh is used singular of God. And? Why would that mean he is "one being and one person"? You said "In Hebrew, nephesh is used for both being and person." Which means Nephesh can be used singular of God designating one being while not designating one person.

If His being was a plural of persons, it would say so. It doesn't.

He did, in his new covenant.

Given that you haven't actually interacted with my previous statement, I'll repeat myself: The grammar of Genesis 1:26 doesn't take "one person, recognized as God, said something." to "this particular God is only one person." Actually, it's mindnumpingly irrational to say such. The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
I'll repeat myself again because you don't follow the grammar rules you claim to follow. There is no assuming that a singular God speaks, otherwise the translation would say gods with reference to "us". It doesn't.

I'm following the grammar rules: the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person." The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.

How is it ironic given how you choose to act?
Pointing out the holes in your arguments and the idolatry that is the trinity isn't wickedness.

EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12 VIOLATIONS

I never presented it as a text that proves the Trinity. I presented it as a verse that Jews have no answer to, and they clearly don't given Jewjitzu's flights of fancy. You are right to say "the text does not say who God is talking to", but it does give clues. He say "Let us make man" meaning the speaker and the one he is speaking to together are making man, God says "in our image" which means this person(s) have the image of God in which man was made before the creation of man, and v27 says God is the sole creator of man. That's what the text says, and if that's all the scripture we got, I would be just as confused as Jewjitzu. Now, the Trinity fits perfectly well in this structure: one God providing for the singularity in v27 with the plurality of persons v26 requires. That doesn't make it true; it just means it passed this theological test. Have you tested your own theology in the same way? That was my point with Jewjitzu, and we saw him face-plant. You see the issue with angels: "involved in a secondary manner in the support of God's creation" vs "the sole creator of man." So Andreas, how do you answer this question?
Rotfl... it only passes theological tests based on Trinitarian bias. When pressed if you follow the grammar rules for the verses, you hop, skip, and jump around it. It's quite amusing.

Oh don't worry, we aced the grammar rules part. You just haven't realized that yet thinking your score of 9 is out of 10 when it is out of 100.

God Bless
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still not ignoring any grammar rules; you're just reading into the grammar unjustified, philosophical axioms.
Of course you are.

And the single God speaking said to the other gods, Let us make man in our image...

The God speaking is different than the others.

Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, or am I talking from a different axiomatic framework?
Both sides.

Yep, Nephesh is used singular of God. And? Why would that mean he is "one being and one person"? You said "In Hebrew, nephesh is used for both being and person." Which means Nephesh can be used singular of God designating one being while not designating one person.
If God's being consisted of 3 persons, nephesh would be plural. It's not.

He did, in his new covenant.
Sorry, but Jeremiah 31:31-34 doesn't mention it.

I'm following the grammar rules: the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person." The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
It says that God is one person who spoke, different than the others.

Why isn't God translated plural since you believe each person is a god separately from the others?

You basically believe, "And the single God speaking said to the other gods, Let us make man in our image"...

As if I'm responding to you pointing out "holes". Why are you choosing to act like an atheist?
Athiest don't believe in God. I do. So, this is another slander of yours.

They are the only group of people I know who argue as sinfully as you do: vacuous mockery, uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc. etc. etc.
This is funny considering the mistakes you've made, being called on them, and you're inability to acknowledge them.

Watch you respond again with claiming I'm whining. In reality, I can't express how evil you are without getting my post taken down
Your posts are getting taken down for not following the rules.

while I've been pleading with you to act with humility and kindness. What else can I say? Grow up.
Yes, you're whining again. Why don't you tell us the difference between the terms God and gods?

You've been acting with kindness and humility? That's a joke, right?

Oh don't worry, we aced the grammar rules part. You just haven't realized that yet thinking your score of 9 is out of 10 when it is out of 100.
This is funny. You assume 3 persons though the grammar doesn't support it. You can't tell us the difference between God and gods. Each of your persons is god and yet that doesn't make them gods....

Your argument is worse than the angels being spoken to by God. At least angels makes sense with being included in us.

God Bless
He still does.
 
Last edited:
Still not ignoring any grammar rules; you're just reading into the grammar unjustified, philosophical axioms.
Of course you are.
And the single God speaking said to the other gods, Let us make man in our image...
The God speaking is different than the others.

I don't believe in other gods, so you clearly are misinterpreting my statements. Likely on purpose.

Yep, Nephesh is used singular of God. And? Why would that mean he is "one being and one person"? You said "In Hebrew, nephesh is used for both being and person." Which means Nephesh can be used singular of God designating one being while not designating one person.
If God's being consisted of 3 persons, nephesh would be plural. It's not.

I have no reason to believe such, and your assertion doesn't change anything.

He did, in his new covenant.
Sorry, but Jeremiah 31:31-34 doesn't mention it.

And? Jeremiah 31 isn't part of the New Covenant. When the New Covenant was given, this was revealed.

I'm following the grammar rules: the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person." The first is precisely what the grammar of Genesis 1:26 expresses while the second is what you assume.
It says that God is one person who spoke, different than the others.

You can assert your opinion all you like it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person."

Why isn't God translated plural since you believe each person is a god separately from the others?
You basically believe, "And the single God speaking said to the other gods, Let us make man in our image"...

I don't believe "each person is a god separately from the others" so there is no reason whatsoever to translate God in the plural. Why are you purposefully misrepresenting my position?

As if I'm responding to you pointing out "holes". Why are you choosing to act like an atheist?
Athiest don't believe in God. I do. So, this is another slander of yours.

Did I say you believe what atheists believe? Nope. I said you are acting like an atheist: full of pride, axiomatically assuming you're right without ever questioning your own axioms, misrepresenting others, treating others as trash who don't have a functional prefrontal cortex, etc.

They are the only group of people I know who argue as sinfully as you do: vacuous mockery, uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc. etc. etc.
This is funny considering the mistakes you've made, being called on them, and you're inability to acknowledge them.

You never considered the possibility that you finding this funny is part of your snobbery?

FYI, I admit my mistakes. You just like calling everytime I disagree with you a mistake. How is this not an example of you being uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc?

Watch you respond again with claiming I'm whining. In reality, I can't express how evil you are without getting my post taken down
Your posts are getting taken down for not following the rules.

I haven't had a post taken down in over a year. Perhaps, you should stop making up fairy tales.

while I've been pleading with you to act with humility and kindness. What else can I say? Grow up.
Yes, you're whining again. Why don't you tell us the difference between the terms God and gods?

See, I told you: vacuous mockery, uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc. etc. etc.

You've been acting with kindness and humility? That's a joke, right?

Calling out sin is an act of kindness. Asking for clarification is an act of humility. But when one is blinded by hubris, it's hard to see what everyone else can easily see.

Oh don't worry, we aced the grammar rules part. You just haven't realized that yet thinking your score of 9 is out of 10 when it is out of 100.
This is funny. You assume 3 persons though the grammar doesn't support it.

I don't assume 3 persons. I get that from the New Testament, and I'm reading Genesiss 1:26-27 in light of that further revelation. Here, I am asking you to explain it, and you failed miserably.

You can't tell us the difference between God and gods. Each of your persons is god and yet that doesn't make them gods....

That's nothing but slander. You know it's not true yet you say it anyway. An honest person who disagrees with me would say I'm being inconsistent or illogical. They wouldn't put words in my mouth I do not say. Each person in the Trinity is the same God. That's my position.

God Bless
 
I don't believe in other gods, so you clearly are misinterpreting my statements. Likely on purpose.
No, 3 persons that are gods is translated as gods in English, not as God. That's why you're not answering the question.

I have no reason to believe such, and your assertion doesn't change anything.
Then you haven't studied the matter much.

And? Jeremiah 31 isn't part of the New Covenant. When the New Covenant was given, this was revealed.
The houses of Judah and Israel haven't been united so it hasn't happened. And yet it does, it has nothing to do with the church.

You can assert your opinion all you like it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person."
But grammar does. 3 persons are gods not God.

I don't believe "each person is a god separately from the others" so there is no reason whatsoever to translate God in the plural. Why are you purposefully misrepresenting my position?
Jesus wasn't incarnated as 3, so you're mistaken.

Did I say you believe what atheists believe? Nope. I said you are acting like an atheist: full of pride, axiomatically assuming you're right without ever questioning your own axioms, misrepresenting others, treating others as trash who don't have a functional prefrontal cortex, etc.
Funny, you haven't looked at your own self-righteous replies to me over the course of our exchanges.

You never considered the possibility that you finding this funny is part of your snobbery?
No, it's just humor different than yours when you've used it.

FYI, I admit my mistakes. You just like calling everytime I disagree with you a mistake. How is this not an example of you being uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc?
FYI, I've called out several mistakes and you ignore them. That's snobbery.

I haven't had a post taken down in over a year. Perhaps, you should stop making up fairy tales.
Oh I'm sorry. Parts of your posts have been deleted, edited, for infractions.

See, I told you: vacuous mockery, uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc. etc. etc.
Again, more whining.

Calling out sin is an act of kindness. Asking for clarification is an act of humility. But when one is blinded by hubris, it's hard to see what everyone else can easily see.
I don't see anything you do as kindness. Again, you need to check the beam in your eye.

I don't assume 3 persons. I get that from the New Testament, and I'm reading Genesiss 1:26-27 in light of that further revelation. Here, I am asking you to explain it, and you failed miserably.
You've assumed because the Tanakh doesn't support the idea. The NT doesn't support it either. It's indoctrinated.

That's nothing but slander. You know it's not true yet you say it anyway.
Tell us the difference between God and gods.

An honest person who disagrees with me would say I'm being inconsistent or illogical. They wouldn't put words in my mouth I do not say. Each person in the Trinity is the same God. That's my position.
And your position is wrong. Different persons, different names, different reverence for each other, different places, different powers, etc.

God Bless
He always does.
 
I don't believe in other gods, so you clearly are misinterpreting my statements. Likely on purpose.
No, 3 persons that are gods is translated as gods in English, not as God. That's why you're not answering the question.

I don't believe in 3 persons that are gods. So, you clearly are misinterpreting my statements. Likely on purpose.

And? Jeremiah 31 isn't part of the New Covenant. When the New Covenant was given, this was revealed.
The houses of Judah and Israel haven't been united so it hasn't happened. And yet it does, it has nothing to do with the church.

Really? That's funny because all sorts of people from all over the world have united under Christ. That some Jews remain in rebellion, isn't that big of a deal.

You can assert your opinion all you like it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person."
But grammar does. 3 persons are gods not God.

You can assert your opinion all you like it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person."

I don't believe "each person is a god separately from the others" so there is no reason whatsoever to translate God in the plural. Why are you purposefully misrepresenting my position?
Jesus wasn't incarnated as 3, so you're mistaken.

Obviously, Jesus wasn't incarnated as 3. No trinitarian teaches this. Why are you purposefully misrepresenting my position?

Did I say you believe what atheists believe? Nope. I said you are acting like an atheist: full of pride, axiomatically assuming you're right without ever questioning your own axioms, misrepresenting others, treating others as trash who don't have a functional prefrontal cortex, etc.
Funny, you haven't looked at your own self-righteous replies to me over the course of our exchanges.

Keep on projecting. It not like God will judge the intentions of your heart. I am pleading with you to act better, and you call me self-righteous. If my charges are false, defend yourself. You know you can't, so like Joe Biden, you project your faults on others.

FYI, I admit my mistakes. You just like calling everytime I disagree with you a mistake. How is this not an example of you being uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc?
FYI, I've called out several mistakes and you ignore them. That's snobbery.

What mistakes? Outside of specifics, your statements are vacuous. And, disagreeing isn't a mistake.

I haven't had a post taken down in over a year. Perhaps, you should stop making up fairy tales.
Oh I'm sorry. Parts of your posts have been deleted, edited, for infractions.

When? Where?

See, I told you: vacuous mockery, uncharitable at any level, snobbery, purposefully twisting words, actively trying to not understand others, etc. etc. etc.
Again, more whining.

Keep on condemning yourself.

Calling out sin is an act of kindness. Asking for clarification is an act of humility. But when one is blinded by hubris, it's hard to see what everyone else can easily see.
I don't see anything you do as kindness. Again, you need to check the beam in your eye.

Again, when one is blinded by hubris, it's hard to see what everyone else can easily see.

An honest person who disagrees with me would say I'm being inconsistent or illogical. They wouldn't put words in my mouth I do not say. Each person in the Trinity is the same God. That's my position.
And your position is wrong. Different persons, different names, different reverence for each other, different places, different powers, etc.

You can believe my position is wrong, but that doesn't justify accusing me of believing in three gods.

God Bless
 
I don't believe in 3 persons that are gods. So, you clearly are misinterpreting my statements. Likely on purpose.
Nope, the trinity recognizes each person in the godhead as god, individually. You should know this basic fact.

You shall have no other gods before me. You have 2 extra persons that are god too many.

Really? That's funny because all sorts of people from all over the world have united under Christ. That some Jews remain in rebellion, isn't that big of a deal.
That's great, but it doesn't make you part of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The context is clear. ;)

You can assert your opinion all you like it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person."
You can assert your opinion too. The term God is used because He's singular and the grammar proves it. Otherwise "Gods" to agree with "us" would have been used in translation to show a plurality. It isn't.

Obviously, Jesus wasn't incarnated as 3. No trinitarian teaches this. Why are you purposefully misrepresenting my position?
Then he isn't united with God and separate. Thanks for confirming.

Keep on projecting. It not like God will judge the intentions of your heart. I am pleading with you to act better, and you call me self-righteous. If my charges are false, defend yourself. You know you can't, so like Joe Biden, you project your faults on others.
DOGB, it's evident your emotional and upset and you can't prove your case and I'm pointing out the issues.

What mistakes? Outside of specifics, your statements are vacuous. And, disagreeing isn't a mistake.
You've made plenty in our exchanges here are elsewhere.

When? Where?
Seek and you shall find.

Keep on condemning yourself.
I'm not. You're sensitive and wrong.

Again, when one is blinded by hubris, it's hard to see what everyone else can easily see.
So get some eye salve for yourself.

You can believe my position is wrong, but that doesn't justify accusing me of believing in three gods.
Each person in your godhead is god. 3 persons, 3 gods.

God Bless
He always does.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top