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

Truther

Well-known member
Another thing. God is not "Jesus", but Jesus is God.

God is not human, but Jesus as a human has every bit of his God inside him, qualifying him as His God.


For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Not...


For there is one God, AS one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
 

Andreas

Active member
Acts 12:4 is about a pascha feast of the church. It was specifically called 'Easter" in 1611 , referring to the church's pascha feast of 1 Cor 11.

It had nothing to do with paganism. They duped you.


4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people....

The Easter feast...
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

You've got to be kidding? The word should be "PASSOVER" and this fits as far as when the last supper was. I thought you would at least make the case that the church just changed the meaning of the pagan goddess festival. That maybe true in some sense, but the fact of the matter is that it should have been translated "Passover". This fits the Biblical timing of the Lord's supper in connection with the Jewish holiday. It doesn't fit using a pagan goddess name. Anyways, KJV translates the SAME word as Passover 28 times, so the internal consistency is not 100%.

Just admit it was a bad translation and let's move on.
 

Truther

Well-known member
You've got to be kidding? The word should be "PASSOVER" and this fits as far as when the last supper was. I thought you would at least make the case that the church just changed the meaning of the pagan goddess festival. That maybe true in some sense, but the fact of the matter is that it should have been translated "Passover". This fits the Biblical timing of the Lord's supper in connection with the Jewish holiday. It doesn't fit using a pagan goddess name. Anyways, KJV translates the SAME word as Passover 28 times, so the internal consistency is not 100%.

Just admit it was a bad translation and let's move on.
No, the Jews had a pascha feast.

The Christians simultaneously had a pascha feast.

Herod wanted to slay Peter on the Christians' pascha feast to insult them and please the Jews.

The KJV translators knew that, but identified the Christian version of the feast(pascha) as "Easter", as an English translational word to describe the specific Christian version of the feast.

You did not.

Fix it.
 

Truther

Well-known member
In 1611, "east-er" meant "sunrise", not "ASTARTIS"...LOL.

You bought that silly book too, huh(Hislop)?
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
You really, really need to stop jumping to conclusions about my position I did not say: "the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG or Thayer source". Strongs is an abridged lexicon for lay people written at the turn of the 20th century. BDAG is a modern(2001), exhaustive lexicon that not only includes all Greek words used in the NT, but under each word it includes all uses in the NT. The difference between the two are night and day. It's like the difference between using a picture Bible designed for 4 year olds and stepping up to the full KJV, or whatever translation you like.
I quoted you from Thayers word study. I quoted from Strongs for the definition, but Thayers for PROS in John 1:1. It appears you are just looking to find whatever agrees with you. Can you provide the complete word study of PROS from John 1:1 from BDAG? I suspect you are probably exaggerating things.

Did I attack you for quoting Thayer, or Strongs? No, I simply informed you that Strongs is no longer a relevant resource. In response, you accused me of saying "the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG..." Perhaps, you should lay off on the attacks, and jumping to conclusions.

According to Wallaces' Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pg. 380), the basic uses of
πρὸς are :
  1. Purpose: for, for the purpose of
  2. Spatial: towards
  3. Temporal: towards, for (duration)
  4. Result: so that, with the result that
  5. Association: with, in company with (with stative verbs)
So, which use do you think applies to John 1:1b? Which use implies the Father has something with him? Notice, when πρὸς means with, it refers to the result of some event or in company with someone else. Notice still, when πρὸς is used with a stative verb, it talking about being in company with someone else, and in John 1:1b, πρὸς is used with a stative verb.

Besides, reading "the Word" as a title for Jesus is 100% natural to how John wrote his Gospel. Jesus is the Door, the Resurrection, the Way, the Truth, the Life, etc. etc. etc. Why would anyone doubt that "the Word" is another title used by John for Jesus. Especially when, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." Therefore, when Scripture says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.", Trinitarians naturally take this to mean that Jesus, being the Word, always existed, was with the Father, aka not the Father, and was God. That's a perfectly straightforward reading of the text, as compared to the fanciful storytelling you love to employ as to ignore the declaration of John 1:1b.
Except John 1:1 doesn't mention "the Father" or "the Son". The Logos is God. John and the rest of the early church didn't view God as Trinitarian or Bitinarian. John simply says God, because in his view God is not divided into persons. Does He mean the Father? Certainly. John could not conceive of God as someone other than the Father. The Logos he is talking about here is the Father's Logos. His Word. John 1:1 is not making a distinction of persons otherwise we would clearly see the terms "Son" and "Father" in that verse. Trinitarians are reading into it. The onus really is on you then. The Logos is God's self-expression in distinction to God's transcendence. Have you bothered to do a word study from BDAG on what the term LOGOS means, or is Logos just a name like Bob and Sam to you? Do you suppose that the term LOGOS was used for a reason, or John just like the sound of word? This is how you view the name "Holy Spirit", wherein you've expressed before in that is it just a name and not really descriptive. You'll do anything to stick to your narrative.

You do realize, I'm not just reading John 1:1 as a sentence in the ether. I'm reading the book of John. The pericope is John 1:1-18, the prolog of John. And, the Word is named Jesus and contrasted with/distinguished from the Father in this pericope. Everything you say John must do to prove the Trinitarian perspective is done if you keep on reading.

Again, the natural way to understand all of this is the person of the Word was with the person of the Father. But, you are running as fast as you can away from what John actually wrote in his prolog as to assert your story. How does "The Word was with God" imply "he is talking about here is the Father's Logos. His Word" and that means "John 1:1 is not making a distinction of persons"? Beyond that, You say "he is talking about here is the Father's Logos.", so what is John saying about this Word in John 1:1b "The Word was with God"?


There is nothing but storytelling above. No evidence, no Scripture, nothing but the opinion, the narrative, the story, Andreas likes to tell himself, and others. He does this to shield himself from the arguments of Trinitarians, and Scripture itself.
I assumed you knew the scriptures. We can begin with 1 Timothy 3:16. Who was manifested in the flesh?

If you have to jump to 1 Timothy 3:16 to explain what John 1:1b says, you are likely twisting Scripture to deceive yourself and others.

Who was manifested in the flesh? The Second person of the Trinity, the Word, the Son, Jesus Christ, who contains all the fullness of Godhead being fully God.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Yes, the Messianic Jews are about 1-2% of the Jewish population. Unitarians of all sorts, are far less than 1% of Christians. That's my point.
And my point, going back to the beginning of your uneducated comment about me, is that I'm not alone in my thinking. You really need to man up and admit your dishonesty.

And, if you think it's okay to blow off the opinions of the Messianic Jews in light of their relative obscurity, how much more should I blow off your claim of "not being alone" in your thinking in light of the obscurity of your Unitarian positions.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Really, I've remember countless times where I told you your 'interpretations" don't line up with most Jews.
Rotfl... and it was shown you don't know most Jews. It's best for you to be quiet about what you don't know. ;)

Except previously, you agreed with me that these opinions were not shared by most Jews.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You are mixing up all sorts of positions in your polemic against Trinitarianism, and they don't all match. By the standard you are using for "not isolated" in thinking, no one could be isolated in their thinking. As long as someone somewhere agreed with each one of your positions, no matter the mixture of desperate opinions, your not isolated. Take a little bit of Arianism, Socinian Unitarianism, Greek polytheism, and a bunch of Judaism. How does this not make you an odd duck?
98% of Jews don't think like you based on your own numbers above. ;)

Of course, they are in open rebellion against God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yeah, the carbon dating that was thrown off due to them testing a patch instead of a section from the original Shroud only.
Most dating shows the 1200s?

Based upon samples of taken from patches woven into the Shroud in to repair fire damage.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Seriously, the Shroud of Turin has 100x the evidence backing up it's Authenticity as compared to Talpiot.
See above. The ossuaries are much older. ;)
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, I don't think that's compelling. Why should anyone think Talpoit is authentic given its pedigree?
Well of course Christians won't because it's in contrast to Paul's statement that if Jesus isn't risen your faith is dead.
But, the statistics are clusters of names are too good to ignore.

In reality, they prove nothing, and anyone who seriously looks at the prevalence of the name Joshua and Joseph in first century Jerusalem knows how silly this discussion is.

Let's say only 1% of the male population of 1st century Israel had the name Joshua and 1% Joseph. That's 1/10,000 chance of getting a Joseph followed by a Joshua. Josephus said that there were as many as 1,100,000 slain in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, along with 97,000 who were sold as slaves. So, lets low ball it and say in the area around Jerusalem there 250,000 people. 1/2 are women. That leaves us with 125,000 men. Divide by 10,000, and that gives us 12.5 men in first century Jerusalem with the name Joshua who's father name was Joseph. So at best, you have a 1/12 chance of this being the right Joshua. But don't forget, I'm low balling all these numbers. You should probably multiple that number by 25 or more times.

#math


"That's laughable" proves that you haven't seriously interacted with anything I've ever said. To bad that implies all of your arguments are likewise not serious.
No, it's just that your dual nature god is laughable and contradictory. Again, you've admitted God isn't physical. Follow that train 🚆.

I don't have a duel nature god. I told you none of your critiques are serious, so you add wood to the fire.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
And, if you think it's okay to blow off the opinions of the Messianic Jews in light of their relative obscurity, how much more should I blow off your claim of "not being alone" in your thinking in light of the obscurity of your Unitarian positions.
Ok. That's fair. So we can ignore each other.

Except previously, you agreed with me that these opinions were not shared by most Jews.
You'd have to tell which specific point. The majority of Jews don't agree with Hebrew Christians.

Of course, they are in open rebellion against God.
No, we just know our own Tanakh better than you.

Based upon samples of taken from patches woven into the Shroud in to repair fire damage.
So how old is the Shroud? Most think it's a forgery. What has DNA testing shown regarding the person being born of a virgin?

In reality, they prove nothing, and anyone who seriously looks at the prevalence of the name Joshua and Joseph in first century Jerusalem knows how silly this discussion is.
Actually, it shows the group of names isn't frequent, and aligns with the reburial discussed in the NT.

Let's say only 1% of the male population of 1st century Israel had the name Joshua and 1% Joseph. That's 1/10,000 chance of getting a Joseph followed by a Joshua. Josephus said that there were as many as 1,100,000 slain in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, along with 97,000 who were sold as slaves. So, lets low ball it and say in the area around Jerusalem there 250,000 people. 1/2 are women. That leaves us with 125,000 men. Divide by 10,000, and that gives us 12.5 men in first century Jerusalem with the name Joshua who's father name was Joseph. So at best, you have a 1/12 chance of this being the right Joshua. But don't forget, I'm low balling all these numbers. You should probably multiple that number by 25 or more times.
But how many were married to Mary which the gnostic gospels mention was married to Jesus?

Yes.

I don't have a duel nature god.
Again, I think you mean dual.

I told you none of your critiques are serious, so you add wood to the fire.
You're being dishonest here. You've admitted Jesus has two natures.

God Bless
Yes, He does
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Except previously, you agreed with me that these opinions were not shared by most Jews.
You'd have to tell which specific point. The majority of Jews don't agree with Hebrew Christians.

Do you not see that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth constantly as press any attack you can on Trinitarian Christianity? How can you think this is upright, honest, and good? Inconsistency is a signed of a failed argument, and wow, you have been inconsistent.

For example, most Jews just say Jacob just wrested an angel, but you insist that Jacob just wrestled a man. According to
The Contemporary Torah, JPS, 2006 on Exodus 7:1, "made Moses God" should be taken to mean "I place you in the role of God to Pharaoh, with your brother Aaron as your prophet.", not that God is a run of the mill title for a man and this is an example of such. There is no way I can count all the ways you've disagreed with majority Jewish perspective as to strengthen your polemic against Trinitarian Christianity. This is your MO.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Of course, they are in open rebellion against God.
No, we just know our own Tanakh better than you.

Hardly. You know your rules while you ignore all the narrative and theological instruction found in such.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Based upon samples of taken from patches woven into the Shroud in to repair fire damage.
So how old is the Shroud? Most think it's a forgery. What has DNA testing shown regarding the person being born of a virgin?

Yes, most think it's a forgery based upon faulty C14 tests. I'm not even saying I think the Shroud is legit; but, when comparing evidence, the Shroud outclasses Talpiot 100 to 1. We have manuscripts following its discovery by Helena of Constantinople, its shipment to Asia minor, its transferal to France, the fire it was involved in etc. It's made with the correct type of linen for the time and region of the world, with the correct type of weave, with seeds and yeast strains from Israel. If it was a forgery, it's the best forgery in history. But, let's go with a casket with two names on it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
In reality, they prove nothing, and anyone who seriously looks at the prevalence of the name Joshua and Joseph in first century Jerusalem knows how silly this discussion is.
Actually, it shows the group of names isn't frequent, and aligns with the reburial discussed in the NT.

Those names were quite frequent.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Let's say only 1% of the male population of 1st century Israel had the name Joshua and 1% Joseph. That's 1/10,000 chance of getting a Joseph followed by a Joshua. Josephus said that there were as many as 1,100,000 slain in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, along with 97,000 who were sold as slaves. So, lets low ball it and say in the area around Jerusalem there 250,000 people. 1/2 are women. That leaves us with 125,000 men. Divide by 10,000, and that gives us 12.5 men in first century Jerusalem with the name Joshua who's father name was Joseph. So at best, you have a 1/12 chance of this being the right Joshua. But don't forget, I'm low balling all these numbers. You should probably multiple that number by 25 or more times.
But how many were married to Mary which the gnostic gospels mention was married to Jesus?

Literally, 25-40% of women at the time were named Mary. That's between 4 and 6 Joshua, Mary, Joseph combinations.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I told you none of your critiques are serious, so you add wood to the fire.
You're being dishonest here. You've admitted Jesus has two natures.

Yes, Jesus had two natures: God and man. Only the God nature is God. So, we don't say God had two natures because one of those two natures isn't God. Stop purposefully twisting our words. It only condemns you.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Do you not see that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth constantly as press any attack you can on Trinitarian Christianity? How can you think this is upright, honest, and good? Inconsistency is a signed of a failed argument, and wow, you have been inconsistent.
How so? Please give me an example?

For example, most Jews just say Jacob just wrested an angel, but you insist that Jacob just wrestled a man.
And I've said men can be angels, so what's the problem? The term in Hebrew, malach, angel, just means messenger.

According to The Contemporary Torah, JPS, 2006 on Exodus 7:1, "made Moses God" should be taken to mean "I place you in the role of God to Pharaoh, with your brother Aaron as your prophet.", not that God is a run of the mill title for a man and this is an example of such.
The term God isn't always used as a title, but sometimes role. So, why are you fussing? YHWH is God, that's His role. Men act in God's role.

There is no way I can count all the ways you've disagreed with majority Jewish perspective as to strengthen your polemic against Trinitarian Christianity. This is your MO.
You don't know the majority of Jews nor our perspectives. Nor does one Jewish perspective negate mine, and that's all that matters. ;)

Hardly. You know your rules while you ignore all the narrative and theological instruction found in such.
Rotfl... no, I ignore Christian theological instructions found in such, or by you.

Yes, most think it's a forgery based upon faulty C14 tests. I'm not even saying I think the Shroud is legit; but, when comparing evidence, the Shroud outclasses Talpiot 100 to 1. We have manuscripts following its discovery by Helena of Constantinople, its shipment to Asia minor, its transferal to France, the fire it was involved in etc. It's made with the correct type of linen for the time and region of the world, with the correct type of weave, with seeds and yeast strains from Israel. If it was a forgery, it's the best forgery in history. But, let's go with a casket with two names on it.
Give me a date and DNA test for Jesus' blood.

Those names were quite frequent.
And?

Literally, 25-40% of women at the time were named Mary. That's between 4 and 6 Joshua, Mary, Joseph combinations.
And?

Yes, Jesus had two natures: God and man. Only the God nature is God. So, we don't say God had two natures because one of those two natures isn't God. Stop purposefully twisting our words. It only condemns you.
Then God never took on flesh. You've got a dilemma on your hands. ;)

God Bless
Absolutely.
 

Andreas

Active member
Did I attack you for quoting Thayer, or Strongs? No, I simply informed you that Strongs is no longer a relevant resource. In response, you accused me of saying "the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG..." Perhaps, you should lay off on the attacks, and jumping to conclusions.

According to Wallaces' Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pg. 380), the basic uses of
πρὸς are :
  1. Purpose: for, for the purpose of
  2. Spatial: towards
  3. Temporal: towards, for (duration)
  4. Result: so that, with the result that
  5. Association: with, in company with (with stative verbs)
So, which use do you think applies to John 1:1b? Which use implies the Father has something with him? Notice, when πρὸς means with, it refers to the result of some event or in company with someone else. Notice still, when πρὸς is used with a stative verb, it talking about being in company with someone else, and in John 1:1b, πρὸς is used with a stative verb.



You do realize, I'm not just reading John 1:1 as a sentence in the ether. I'm reading the book of John. The pericope is John 1:1-18, the prolog of John. And, the Word is named Jesus and contrasted with/distinguished from the Father in this pericope. Everything you say John must do to prove the Trinitarian perspective is done if you keep on reading.

Again, the natural way to understand all of this is the person of the Word was with the person of the Father. But, you are running as fast as you can away from what John actually wrote in his prolog as to assert your story. How does "The Word was with God" imply "he is talking about here is the Father's Logos. His Word" and that means "John 1:1 is not making a distinction of persons"? Beyond that, You say "he is talking about here is the Father's Logos.", so what is John saying about this Word in John 1:1b "The Word was with God"?




If you have to jump to 1 Timothy 3:16 to explain what John 1:1b says, you are likely twisting Scripture to deceive yourself and others.

Who was manifested in the flesh? The Second person of the Trinity, the Word, the Son, Jesus Christ, who contains all the fullness of Godhead being fully God.

God Bless
The concept of an eternal God the Son was a development in the evolution of Trinitarian doctrine that took several centuries. The Greek apologists before the Trinitarians began to teach about the Logos doctrine. They saw the Logos as a created being before the world. Later the "Son" became equated as the Logos before the world was created. Then later, with further evolution of the Trinity, the Son became thought of as a co-equal person who was eternal along with the other two persons. The full development took about as long as it took from the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 to now.

You should consider that the word PROS in John 1:1 actually means "with". There is nothing in any of the word studies you provided to demand "face-to-face" persons. If you did a word study on "Logos" you would find it instructive in seeing how the word PROS is used in context with what the definition of Logos is. Why do you suppose John 1:1 says the "Logos was with God", rather than "Bob was with God"? Did Logos sound cute or do you suppose maybe the meaning of the Greek "logos" actually had a purpose here? What is the definition of LOGOS?
 
Last edited:

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Do you not see that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth constantly as press any attack you can on Trinitarian Christianity? How can you think this is upright, honest, and good? Inconsistency is a signed of a failed argument, and wow, you have been inconsistent.
How so? Please give me an example?

Dude, I caught you multiple times asserting two different interpretations for the same verse as to create two different arguments against the Trinity. A cursory examination of our Genesis 32 and 18 debate fully justifies this statement. Even your name expresses this rhetorical strategy. This isn't a presentation of material for you where the one with the best evidence, no matter the presentation, is successful. This is all about figuring out the best strategy to win, jitsu.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
For example, most Jews just say Jacob just wrested an angel, but you insist that Jacob just wrestled a man.
And I've said men can be angels, so what's the problem? The term in Hebrew, malach, angel, just means messenger.

Do most Jews say Jacob wrestled with just a man? Nope, you have a different presentation where the words "god", "angel", and the like have no inherent meaning. You think Jacob wrestling with a human was significant enough for Jacob to name the area the face of God? Most Jews see this "man" as an angel enfleshed at the very least. Because, anything less would be a mockery of Scripture: he called the place, "the Face of God" because "he saw God face to face and yet lived." The average Jew recognizes that you don't name a place "the Face of God" unless something significant happened there, and wrestling with a human who had the title god, or angel, doesn't cut it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
According to The Contemporary Torah, JPS, 2006 on Exodus 7:1, "made Moses God" should be taken to mean "I place you in the role of God to Pharaoh, with your brother Aaron as your prophet.", not that God is a run of the mill title for a man and this is an example of such.
The term God isn't always used as a title, but sometimes role. So, why are you fussing? YHWH is God, that's His role. Men act in God's role.

You asked for an example of where you left the Jewish persecutive. God can be used as a title for a human, but most Jews don't read Exodus 7:1 as evidence of this. These Jews see it as Moses' role. I agree with them against your position that this verse is giving Moses the title god.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
There is no way I can count all the ways you've disagreed with majority Jewish perspective as to strengthen your polemic against Trinitarian Christianity. This is your MO.
You don't know the majority of Jews nor our perspectives. Nor does one Jewish perspective negate mine, and that's all that matters. ;)

You're right; if I knew Jews better, I would like fine countless more ways you rejected Judaism in your attempt to attack Trinitarian Christians. BTW, they do negate your perspective, you just pretend otherwise.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, most think it's a forgery based upon faulty C14 tests. I'm not even saying I think the Shroud is legit; but, when comparing evidence, the Shroud outclasses Talpiot 100 to 1. We have manuscripts following its discovery by Helena of Constantinople, its shipment to Asia minor, its transferal to France, the fire it was involved in etc. It's made with the correct type of linen for the time and region of the world, with the correct type of weave, with seeds and yeast strains from Israel. If it was a forgery, it's the best forgery in history. But, let's go with a casket with two names on it.
Give me a date and DNA test for Jesus' blood.

Desperate much, I don't think you should be looking at the Shroud at all. My point is your argument for the Talpiot casket is 100 times worse. Both pursuits are pointless, your's is just more so.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Those names were quite frequent.
And?
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Literally, 25-40% of women at the time were named Mary. That's between 4 and 6 Joshua, Mary, Joseph combinations.
And?

Therefore, there were likely 100-200 people in Jerusalem in Jesus day, that that grave could have been made for based upon the evidence we have. Why should anyone think that this is the particular Joshua son of Joseph that the NT writes about?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, Jesus had two natures: God and man. Only the God nature is God. So, we don't say God had two natures because one of those two natures isn't God. Stop purposefully twisting our words. It only condemns you.
Then God never took on flesh. You've got a dilemma on your hands. ;)

I never said every person who is God took on flesh. Frankly the conundrum only exist in how you read our comments. If you stop twisting my words, maybe you can grow to be less ignorant.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Did I attack you for quoting Thayer, or Strongs? No, I simply informed you that Strongs is no longer a relevant resource. In response, you accused me of saying "the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG..." Perhaps, you should lay off on the attacks, and jumping to conclusions.
According to Wallaces' Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pg. 380), the basic uses of πρὸς are :

  1. Purpose: for, for the purpose of
  2. Spatial: towards
  3. Temporal: towards, for (duration)
  4. Result: so that, with the result that
  5. Association: with, in company with (with stative verbs)
So, which use do you think applies to John 1:1b? Which use implies the Father has something with him? Notice, when πρὸς means with, it refers to the result of some event or in company with someone else. Notice still, when πρὸς is used with a stative verb, it talking about being in company with someone else, and in John 1:1b, πρὸςis used with a stative verb.

You do realize, I'm not just reading John 1:1 as a sentence in the ether. I'm reading the book of John. The pericope is John 1:1-18, the prolog of John. And, the Word is named Jesus and contrasted with/distinguished from the Father in this pericope. Everything you say John must do to prove the Trinitarian perspective is done if you keep on reading.
Again, the natural way to understand all of this is the person of the Word was with the person of the Father. But, you are running as fast as you can away from what John actually wrote in his prolog as to assert your story. How does "The Word was with God" imply "he is talking about here is the Father's Logos. His Word" and that means"John 1:1 is not making a distinction of persons"? Beyond that, You say "he is talking about here is the Father's Logos.", so what is John saying about this Word in John 1:1b "The Word was with God"?

If you have to jump to 1 Timothy 3:16 to explain what John 1:1b says, you are likely twisting Scripture to deceive yourself and others.

Who was manifested in the flesh? The Second person of the Trinity, the Word, the Son, Jesus Christ, who contains all the fullness of Godhead being fully God.
The concept of an eternal God the Son was a development in the evolution of Trinitarian doctrine that took several centuries. The Greek apologists before the Trinitarians began to teach about the Logos doctrine. They saw the Logos as a created being before the world. Later the "Son" became equated as the Logos before the world was created. Then later, with further evolution of the Trinity, the Son became thought of as a co-equal person who was eternal along with the other two persons. The full development took about as long as it took from the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 to now.

So in response to an argument from Scripture, you start telling a story? Hello? I don't care about your story. I only care what Scripture says, and that you reply with story first, shows me that you don't care what Scripture says.

You should consider that the word PROS in John 1:1 actually means "with". There is nothing in any of the word studies you provided to demand "face-to-face" persons.

What kind of with? With can be used in all sorts of ways. You do realize, you shouldn't be interacting with the uses of "with" in English if you cared what John wrote in John 1:1b. You need to look at the various opinion in Greek.

I gave you the opinions. According to Wallaces' Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pg. 380), the basic uses of πρὸς are :
  1. Purpose: for, for the purpose of
  2. Spatial: towards
  3. Temporal: towards, for (duration)
  4. Result: so that, with the result that
  5. Association: with, in company with (with stative verbs)
So, does John 1:1 mean
The Word was for the purpose of God.
The Word was directionally towards God.
The Word was for the duration of God.
The Word was with the result of God.
or
The Word was in company with God.

FYI, was/
ἦν is a stative verb.

Hint hint hint hint...
ἦν πρὸς means "was in company with" in Greek.

BTW, you are correct: There is nothing in any of the word studies you provided to demand "face-to-face" persons. But, you missed my point: THE GRAMMAR/SYNTAX of John 1:1b demands ἦν πρὸς means "was in company with" in Greek.

If you did a word study on "Logos" you would find it instructive in seeing how the word PROS is used in context with what the definition of Logos is. Why do you suppose John 1:1 says the "Logos was with God", rather than "Bob was with God"? Did Logos sound cute or do you suppose maybe the meaning of the Greek "logos" actually had a purpose here? What is the definition of LOGOS?

Have you done a word study on ὁ λόγος? If you did, you would find all sorts of connections to the Memra of God, one who spoke for God throughout the OT. That alone makes ὁ λόγος a great title for Jesus, i.e. "the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John 1:18. One would also find Philo's understanding of ὁ λόγος as the ordering principle of the Universe, i.e. the Aristotelian God, that which brings order out of chaos, the creator. Either way, ὁ λόγος is a great title for one who is God and in company with God, and that's exactly what John wrote about this Word.

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
So in response to an argument from Scripture, you start telling a story? Hello? I don't care about your story. I only care what Scripture says, and that you reply with story first, shows me that you don't care what Scripture says.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

What kind of with? With can be used in all sorts of ways. You do realize, you shouldn't be interacting with the uses of "with" in English if you cared what John wrote in John 1:1b. You need to look at the various opinion in Greek.

I gave you the opinions. According to Wallaces' Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pg. 380), the basic uses of πρὸς are :
  1. Purpose: for, for the purpose of
  2. Spatial: towards
  3. Temporal: towards, for (duration)
  4. Result: so that, with the result that
  5. Association: with, in company with (with stative verbs)
So, does John 1:1 mean
The Word was for the purpose of God.
The Word was directionally towards God.
The Word was for the duration of God.
The Word was with the result of God.
or
The Word was in company with God.

FYI, was/
ἦν is a stative verb.

Hint hint hint hint...
ἦν πρὸς means "was in company with" in Greek.

I'm glad to see you've dropped the "face-to-face" polytheistic implications. I suspect you want to make "was in company with" something that demands two people? Not so fast. There is an article titled "His Thoughts Were His Only Companions". This or things like this are common. Another example was, "His dog was his only company", or "Books were his only company".

What I've said regarding Logos is 1. Take the definition of Logos seriously and study it and then from that understanding... 2. View that definition in the context of the omnipotent and eternal God who created space and time and all things, and 3. We get that Logos is God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self. As I've said, it is comparable to you and your logos. Your logos being you expressing yourself in distinction to your inner man/spirit. Your expressions begin in the depths of yourself, your mind, your heart, your emotions and then your words and body and actions expressed.


Have you done a word study on ὁ λόγος? If you did, you would find all sorts of connections to the Memra of God, one who spoke for God throughout the OT. That alone makes ὁ λόγος a great title for Jesus, i.e. "the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John 1:18. One would also find Philo's understanding of ὁ λόγος as the ordering principle of the Universe, i.e. the Aristotelian God, that which brings order out of chaos, the creator. Either way, ὁ λόγος is a great title for one who is God and in company with God, and that's exactly what John wrote about this Word.

As I've shown you above, Logos need not be interpreted as a polytheistic concept. You are doing what the early Christian apologists began to do. There is no credible evidence for a two persons theology in mainstream second Temple Judaism or in the OT. When Ezekiel said, "the word of the LORD came to me" he did not say or mean he thought a second person of God was showing up.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
So in response to an argument from Scripture, you start telling a story? Hello? I don't care about your story. I only care what Scripture says, and that you reply with story first, shows me that you don't care what Scripture says.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Fair, but not relevant at all. Even if it took time for people to recognize what Scripture teaches, Jesus' eternality as the distinct 2nd person of the Trinity is firmly established by Scripture. If you disagree, the only, only response is to deal with Scripture.

What kind of with? With can be used in all sorts of ways. You do realize, you shouldn't be interacting with the uses of "with" in English if you cared what John wrote in John 1:1b. You need to look at the various opinion in Greek.

I gave you the opinions. According to Wallaces' Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pg. 380), the basic uses of
πρὸς are :
  1. Purpose: for, for the purpose of
  2. Spatial: towards
  3. Temporal: towards, for (duration)
  4. Result: so that, with the result that
  5. Association: with, in company with (with stative verbs)
So, does John 1:1 mean
The Word was for the purpose of God.
The Word was directionally towards God.
The Word was for the duration of God.
The Word was with the result of God.
or
The Word was in company with God.

FYI, was/
ἦν is a stative verb.

Hint hint hint hint...
ἦν πρὸς means "was in company with" in Greek.
I'm glad to see you've dropped the "face-to-face" polytheistic implications. I suspect you want to make "was in company with" something that demands two people? Not so fast. There is an article titled "His Thoughts Were His Only Companions". This or things like this are common. Another example was, "His dog was his only company", or "Books were his only company".

Given that I never implied anything close to polytheism, this response is utterly vacuous. You are doing your best not to interact with what ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν means in English. And, that's very, very telling.

What I've said regarding Logos is 1. Take the definition of Logos seriously and study it and then from that understanding... 2. View that definition in the context of the omnipotent and eternal God who created space and time and all things, and 3. We get that Logos is God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self. As I've said, it is comparable to you and your logos. Your logos being you expressing yourself in distinction to your inner man/spirit. Your expressions begin in the depths of yourself, your mind, your heart, your emotions and then your words and body and actions expressed.

In other words, you like to use your theology to impose onto Scripture what it must mean. Does ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν mean the "Logos is God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self"? Nope, there is no connection between these concepts at all. You just love your doctrines so much it doesn't matter what Scripture says, they are all you see.

"Your logos being you expressing yourself in distinction to your inner man/spirit. Your expressions begin in the depths of yourself, your mind, your heart, your emotions and then your words and body and actions expressed." What is your justification for seeing ὁ λόγος in John 1:1-18 as one expressing themselves. I'll give you a hint, you made it up, or you got if from someone who made it up as an excuse for John 1:1. There is no reason whatsoever to read it that way in light of how λόγος was used in Jewish circles in the first century. ὁ λόγος of God was God's mouthpiece, the voice of God, not "God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self." The other way λόγος was used was as God's way to order the known world. Your position has no historicity, and it exists only among those who share your theological ideocracies, i.e. it's an excuse used by Oneness to reject what Scripture teaches in John 1:1-18.. The sad thing is that you think you're in the know with this "insight" when it is all a lie.

Have you done a word study on ὁ λόγος? If you did, you would find all sorts of connections to the Memra of God, one who spoke for God throughout the OT. That alone makes ὁ λόγος a great title for Jesus, i.e. "the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John 1:18. One would also find Philo's understanding of ὁ λόγος as the ordering principle of the Universe, i.e. the Aristotelian God, that which brings order out of chaos, the creator. Either way, ὁ λόγος is a great title for one who is God and in company with God, and that's exactly what John wrote about this Word.
As I've shown you above, Logos need not be interpreted as a polytheistic concept. You are doing what the early Christian apologists began to do. There is no credible evidence for a two persons theology in mainstream second Temple Judaism or in the OT. When Ezekiel said, "the word of the LORD came to me" he did not say or mean he thought a second person of God was showing up.

No one is interpreting it polytheistically here. So again, your entire argument against my position is that you think it's polytheistic when it is not. That's not a good argument. Besides, I answered your question about why John would employed ὁ λόγος in John 1:1-18 in a meaningful way. So, what about John 1:1-18 tells you that this ὁ λόγος is "God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self."? Frankly, I don't expect any answer from this because you haven't shown me any Biblical reason to believe your definition for ὁ λόγος.

With respect to 2nd Temple Judaism, Benjamin Sommer a Conservative Jew, not a Christian or Trinitarian, and professor of JTS said that no Jew faithful to Scripture and Tradition should have any problem with the Trinity because he found evidence in Jewish sources that some Jews in the 1st century did believe in YHWH, the Memra of YHWH, and the Spirit of YHWH in ways that are analogous to Trinitarianism.

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
"Your logos being you expressing yourself in distinction to your inner man/spirit. Your expressions begin in the depths of yourself, your mind, your heart, your emotions and then your words and body and actions expressed." What is your justification for seeing ὁ λόγος in John 1:1-18 as one expressing themselves. I'll give you a hint, you made it up, or you got if from someone who made it up as an excuse for John 1:1. There is no reason whatsoever to read it that way in light of how λόγος was used in Jewish circles in the first century. ὁ λόγος of God was God's mouthpiece, the voice of God, not "God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self." The other way λόγος was used was as God's way to order the known world. Your position has no historicity, and it exists only among those who share your theological ideocracies, i.e. it's an excuse used by Oneness to reject what Scripture teaches in John 1:1-18.. The sad thing is that you think you're in the know with this "insight" when it is all a lie.

Not true. You don't find Jewish circles in the first century teaching that the memra was another person or a second person of God, just as you don't today. Perhaps there is a rogue teacher here or there but this was not in Jewish circles. We live in a big world with lots of people, so if you look hard enough, you'll find someone who agrees with you, but Jews teaching that the memra is a second person is far from mainstream.

Why do you need to make "the voice of God" another person of God? When someone hears your voice on the phone, do they think that it is coming from another person of you, or just you? The Logos is a functional distinction, not a literal second person. It has to do with the distinction between invisible Spirit and visible manifestation, transcendent and immanent. This is why the term was used in the first place. John didn't need Aristotle or Plato to help him write John 1:1.

No one is interpreting it polytheistically here. So again, your entire argument against my position is that you think it's polytheistic when it is not. That's not a good argument. Besides, I answered your question about why John would employed ὁ λόγος in John 1:1-18 in a meaningful way. So, what about John 1:1-18 tells you that this ὁ λόγος is "God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self."? Frankly, I don't expect any answer from this because you haven't shown me any Biblical reason to believe your definition for ὁ λόγος.

My bible study method is to take the term Logos by definition and look to harmonize that with the rest of scripture, particularly the fact that the LORD says, I am God and beside me there is no God. Before one takes off with a radical new definition of God as a plurality of persons you better have strong and plain scriptures and not bizarre shadows of meaning that contradict the scriptures (echad, elohim, memra, logos). Jesus is THE FIRST (Rev 1:17) and the I AM (John 8:58) and the best way to reconcile how He is God but yet prays to God and has a relationship with God is because as a genuine man God is existing in a different form and is functioning authentically within the scope of this existence. It has nothing to do with a plurality of persons within the eternal essence of God.

With respect to 2nd Temple Judaism, Benjamin Sommer a Conservative Jew, not a Christian or Trinitarian, and professor of JTS said that no Jew faithful to Scripture and Tradition should have any problem with the Trinity because he found evidence in Jewish sources that some Jews in the 1st century did believe in YHWH, the Memra of YHWH, and the Spirit of YHWH in ways that are analogous to Trinitarianism.

You found a rogue teacher. Isn't the internet something when you can always find someone who agrees with you? The only place where Jewish circles believe the memra is a second person or that the Trinity is viable is in your imagination. The doctrine of the Trinity is actually a stumbling block for Jewish people to come to the Messiah Jesus. You'll also find Trinitarian scholars who acknowledge that the OT doesn't teach anything about a Trinity.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Dude, I caught you multiple times asserting two different interpretations for the same verse as to create two different arguments against the Trinity. A cursory examination of our Genesis 32 and 18 debate fully justifies this statement. Even your name expresses this rhetorical strategy. This isn't a presentation of material for you where the one with the best evidence, no matter the presentation, is successful. This is all about figuring out the best strategy to win, jitsu.
Dude, I try to answer from multiple perspectives. If you can't handle that, that isn't my problem. Grow up.

My username is based off of a web t-shirt. You don't have to be scared over it or make excuses.

Do most Jews say Jacob wrestled with just a man? Nope, you have a different presentation where the words "god", "angel", and the like have no inherent meaning.
Many do. Many say an angel too. I haven't taken a vote amongst Jews.

Shall I get some more tissue, DOGB? I've supported my thoughts.

You think Jacob wrestling with a human was significant enough for Jacob to name the area the face of God? Most Jews see this "man" as an angel enfleshed at the very least. Because, anything less would be a mockery of Scripture: he called the place, "the Face of God" because "he saw God face to face and yet lived." The average Jew recognizes that you don't name a place "the Face of God" unless something significant happened there, and wrestling with a human who had the title god, or angel, doesn't cut it.
You're rehashing what's been discussed. I have no reason to repeat myself. Go look it up.

You asked for an example of where you left the Jewish persecutive. God can be used as a title for a human, but most Jews don't read Exodus 7:1 as evidence of this. These Jews see it as Moses' role. I agree with them against your position that this verse is giving Moses the title god.
As long as fall within Jewish opinions, that's all that matters.

You're right; if I knew Jews better, I would like fine countless more ways you rejected Judaism in your attempt to attack Trinitarian Christians.
See above. You have no idea what you're talking and sound defeated.

BTW, they do negate yourperspective, you just pretend otherwise.
Tell me when you've read and understand all opinions.

Desperate much, I don't think you should be looking at the Shroud at all. My point is your argument for the Talpiot casket is 100 times worse. Both pursuits are pointless, your's is just more so.
Rotfl... so you use the Shroud example when you can't pin point a date, don't believe it, and you want to argue against Talpiot?

Therefore, there were likely 100-200 people in Jerusalem in Jesus day, that that grave could have been made for based upon the evidence we have. Why should anyone think that this is the particular Joshua son of Joseph that the NT writes about?
Read up on James Tabor. I believe I gave you the link already.

I never said every person who is God took on flesh. Frankly the conundrum only exist in how you read our comments. If you stop twisting my words, maybe you can grow to be less ignorant.
Then more reason why it never happened as Jesus did say he only does what the Father does, etc.

I hope the beam in your eye keeps you warm for the winter, DOGB.

God Bless
He always does even without your "blessings". ;)
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
"Your logos being you expressing yourself in distinction to your inner man/spirit. Your expressions begin in the depths of yourself, your mind, your heart, your emotions and then your words and body and actions expressed." What is your justification for seeing ὁ λόγος in John 1:1-18 as one expressing themselves. I'll give you a hint, you made it up, or you got if from someone who made it up as an excuse for John 1:1. There is no reason whatsoever to read it that way in light of how ὁ λόγος was used in Jewish circles in the first century. ὁ λόγος of God was God's mouthpiece, the voice of God, not "God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self." The other way ὁ λόγος was used was as God's way to order the known world. Your position has no historicity, and it exists only among those who share your theological ideocracies, i.e. it's an excuse used by Oneness to reject what Scripture teaches in John 1:1-18.. The sad thing is that you think you're in the know with this "insight" when it is all a lie.
Not true. You don't find Jewish circles in the first century teaching that the memra was another person or a second person of God, just as you don't today. Perhaps there is a rogue teacher here or there but this was not in Jewish circles. We live in a big world with lots of people, so if you look hard enough, you'll find someone who agrees with you, but Jews teaching that the memra is a second person is far from mainstream.

Why do you need to make "the voice of God" another person of God? When someone hears your voice on the phone, do they think that it is coming from another person of you, or just you? The Logos is a functional distinction, not a literal second person. It has to do with the distinction between invisible Spirit and visible manifestation, transcendent and immanent. This is why the term was used in the first place. John didn't need Aristotle or Plato to help him write John 1:1.

"You don't find Jewish circles in the first century teaching that the memra was another person..." In fact, Benjamin Sommer, a conservative Jewish scholar, of JTS said as much. But, that's neither here nor there. My statement said nothing about the Jews seeing the memra was another person who is God. I said "ὁ λόγος of God was God's mouthpiece, the voice of God" be it spoken by a prophet, angel or whatnot.

I don't need to make the voice of God into another person. The text does that by saying
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

Question: why is your default personal analogies? We are not talking about things on the human level. We are talking about the divine. Quote a verse, or deal with a verse. That's all the ammo you've got. Human analogies automatically don't apply because God is not human.


"The Logos is a functional distinction, not a literal second person..." This is an unjustified assertion of dogma. It's use in a debate is an admission that you don't have a reason to believe what you believe. I believe ὁ λόγος is a distinct person from the Father because John wrote, ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Those words in this order demand the reader see ὁ λόγος as another person with the Father. And, this perspective is only reenforced by continuing to read: θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦπατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο or "No one has ever seen God, the unique God, who is at the side of the Father, he has made him known." The text continues by explaining how people saw God throughout the OT when no one saw the Father by saying they always saw ὁ λόγος, who is God and next to God at the same time in different ways.

BTW, Benjamin D Sommer said that no Jew faithful to Scripture and Tradition should have any problem with the Trinity citing examples of similar teachings among Jews prior to and during the life of Christ found in Jewish sources. This isn't the opinion of some guy on the internet. This is a major scholar who isn't a Trinitarian saying it's illegitimate to attack Christians for the Trinity given Jewish sources and Scripture.

No one is interpreting it polytheistically here. So again, your entire argument against my position is that you think it's polytheistic when it is not. That's not a good argument. Besides, I answered your question about why John would employed ὁ λόγος in John 1:1-18 in a meaningful way. So, what about John 1:1-18 tells you that this ὁ λόγος is "God Himself Himself expressing His plan and manifesting into space and time in distinction with His transcendent self."? Frankly, I don't expect any answer from this because you haven't shown me any Biblical reason to believe your definition for ὁ λόγος.
My bible study method is to take the term Logos by definition and look to harmonize that with the rest of scripture, particularly the fact that the LORD says, I am God and beside me there is no God. Before one takes off with a radical new definition of God as a plurality of persons you better have strong and plain scriptures and not bizarre shadows of meaning that contradict the scriptures (echad, elohim, memra, logos). Jesus is THE FIRST (Rev 1:17) and the I AM (John 8:58) and the best way to reconcile how He is God but yet prays to God and has a relationship with God is because as a genuine man God is existing in a different form and is functioning authentically within the scope of this existence. It has nothing to do with a plurality of persons within the eternal essence of God.

In other words, you bible study method is to take your theological, and fully unjustified, definition for Logos and cram it into the text to quote "harmonize" it with how you theologically read other passages. Again, no one is rejecting monotheism here, so referencing Isaiah 45:5 has no application in this discussion. You are just accusing us of rejecting Isaiah 45:5 without any justification as to present as default your unjustified theological twisting of the text.

FYI, I've presented many strong and plain scriptures with no bizarre shadows of meaning justifying the three persons of the Trinity without any contradiction to concepts of echad, elohim, memra, logos. You just refuse to even consider them in light of your theological training/blinding. There is no twisting going on in John 1:1, 14:16-17; 17:5; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 5; Genesis 1:26; etc. etc. etc. Just clear statements of facts distingishing two(or three) personally, who are God, before Jesus' birth, during Jesus' ministry, and after his resurrection.

With respect to 2nd Temple Judaism, Benjamin Sommer a Conservative Jew, not a Christian or Trinitarian, and professor of JTS said that no Jew faithful to Scripture and Tradition should have any problem with the Trinity because he found evidence in Jewish sources that some Jews in the 1st century did believe in YHWH, the Memra of YHWH, and the Spirit of YHWH in ways that are analogous to Trinitarianism.
You found a rogue teacher. Isn't the internet something when you can always find someone who agrees with you? The only place where Jewish circles believe the memra is a second person or that the Trinity is viable is in your imagination. The doctrine of the Trinity is actually a stumbling block for Jewish people to come to the Messiah Jesus. You'll also find Trinitarian scholars who acknowledge that the OT doesn't teach anything about a Trinity.

Rogue teacher? He is a well respected scholar from a well respected Jewish Seminary. You are simply expressing your hubris by dismissing him like this. It must hurt to learn one of your best excuses for rejecting the Trinity is false.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Dude, I caught you multiple times asserting two different interpretations for the same verse as to create two different arguments against the Trinity. A cursory examination of our Genesis 32 and 18 debate fully justifies this statement. Even your name expresses this rhetorical strategy. This isn't a presentation of material for you where the one with the best evidence, no matter the presentation, is successful. This is all about figuring out the best strategy to win, jitsu.
Dude, I try to answer from multiple perspectives. If you can't handle that, that isn't my problem. Grow up.
My username is based off of a web t-shirt. You don't have to be scared over it or make excuses.

Answering from multiple perspectives like this is called being dishonest. You're not answering my statements or making an argument against me, but throwing out dung all over the place hoping to encourage people to not think to deeply about why so many people believe in the Trinity.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Do most Jews say Jacob wrestled with just a man? Nope, you have a different presentation where the words "god", "angel", and the like have no inherent meaning.
Many do. Many say an angel too. I haven't taken a vote amongst Jews.
Shall I get some more tissue, DOGB? I've supported my thoughts.

My point still stands, and I've proven my case. You go for the odd, unique positions for whatever reason.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You think Jacob wrestling with a human was significant enough for Jacob to name the area the face of God? Most Jews see this "man" as an angel enfleshed at the very least. Because, anything less would be a mockery of Scripture: he called the place, "the Face of God" because "he saw God face to face and yet lived." The average Jew recognizes that you don't name a place "the Face of God" unless something significant happened there, and wrestling with a human who had the title god, or angel, doesn't cut it.
You're rehashing what's been discussed. I have no reason to repeat myself. Go look it up.

To prove a point about how your positions are unique.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You asked for an example of where you left the Jewish persecutive. God can be used as a title for a human, but most Jews don't read Exodus 7:1 as evidence of this. These Jews see it as Moses' role. I agree with them against your position that this verse is giving Moses the title god.
As long as fall within Jewish opinions, that's all that matters.

Fair, but it doesn't get you off the hook for being odd.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Desperate much, I don't think you should be looking at the Shroud at all. My point is your argument for the Talpiot casket is 100 times worse. Both pursuits are pointless, your's is just more so.
Rotfl... so you use the Shroud example when you can't pin point a date, don't believe it, and you want to argue against Talpiot
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Therefore, there were likely 100-200 people in Jerusalem in Jesus day, that that grave could have been made for based upon the evidence we have. Why should anyone think that this is the particular Joshua son of Joseph that the NT writes about?
Read up on James Tabor. I believe I gave you the link already.

My point is your argument for the Talpiot casket is 100 times worse than the argument for the Shroud. Both pursuits are pointless, your's is just more so.

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
"You don't find Jewish circles in the first century teaching that the memra was another person..." In fact, Benjamin Sommer, a conservative Jewish scholar, of JTS said as much. But, that's neither here nor there. My statement said nothing about the Jews seeing the memra was another person who is God. I said "ὁ λόγος of God was God's mouthpiece, the voice of God" be it spoken by a prophet, angel or whatnot.

I don't need to make the voice of God into another person. The text does that by saying
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

Question: why is your default personal analogies? We are not talking about things on the human level. We are talking about the divine. Quote a verse, or deal with a verse. That's all the ammo you've got. Human analogies automatically don't apply because God is not human.


"The Logos is a functional distinction, not a literal second person..." This is an unjustified assertion of dogma. It's use in a debate is an admission that you don't have a reason to believe what you believe. I believe ὁ λόγος is a distinct person from the Father because John wrote, ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Those words in this order demand the reader see ὁ λόγος as another person with the Father. And, this perspective is only reenforced by continuing to read: θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦπατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο or "No one has ever seen God, the unique God, who is at the side of the Father, he has made him known." The text continues by explaining how people saw God throughout the OT when no one saw the Father by saying they always saw ὁ λόγος, who is God and next to God at the same time in different ways.

BTW, Benjamin D Sommer said that no Jew faithful to Scripture and Tradition should have any problem with the Trinity citing examples of similar teachings among Jews prior to and during the life of Christ found in Jewish sources. This isn't the opinion of some guy on the internet. This is a major scholar who isn't a Trinitarian saying it's illegitimate to attack Christians for the Trinity given Jewish sources and Scripture.



In other words, you bible study method is to take your theological, and fully unjustified, definition for Logos and cram it into the text to quote "harmonize" it with how you theologically read other passages. Again, no one is rejecting monotheism here, so referencing Isaiah 45:5 has no application in this discussion. You are just accusing us of rejecting Isaiah 45:5 without any justification as to present as default your unjustified theological twisting of the text.

FYI, I've presented many strong and plain scriptures with no bizarre shadows of meaning justifying the three persons of the Trinity without any contradiction to concepts of echad, elohim, memra, logos. You just refuse to even consider them in light of your theological training/blinding. There is no twisting going on in John 1:1, 14:16-17; 17:5; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 5; Genesis 1:26; etc. etc. etc. Just clear statements of facts distingishing two(or three) personally, who are God, before Jesus' birth, during Jesus' ministry, and after his resurrection.



Rogue teacher? He is a well respected scholar from a well respected Jewish Seminary. You are simply expressing your hubris by dismissing him like this. It must hurt to learn one of your best excuses for rejecting the Trinity is false.

God Bless

You are making WAY too much out of Sommer's and your view of the Memra. I'm not sure if you are just begging for support for your position by grasping unto a one-off Jewish scholar or if you actually believe that mainstream Jewish scholars hold to the same position as Sommers.


Of course, you reject Isaiah 45:5 and other scriptures like it. God's name here is singular, he uses singular pronouns, and he says there is none else. The lunacy in which you handle pronouns is equivalent to the lunacy of the transgender pronoun nonsense. Check back into reality please and accept what singular pronouns mean. You're playing games with pronouns.

The pronoun ME doesn't mean three persons. This is not hard.

As the great Apostle warned in Colossians 2:8, the Trinity is high sounding nonsense.

Three eternally co-equal persons who are each God and love one another is a total contradiction to Isaiah 45:5 and other scriptures like it.

Is there Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yes. Three persons? No

There is the one true God (HE, I AM, NONE BESIDE ME), is the Father. This One God, who is transcendent, expressed His word in creation and ultimately by becoming flesh, a genuine man called the Son of God. Because the Son of God was an authentic man, He related back to God the Father as other men do. He was the I AM manifested in the flesh but due to His human existence, He related back to God from His genuine human perspective.

The Trinitarian view is you start with 3 eternal persons and each person relates to the other two persons and does his own manifesting, etc.


It is a many (WE ARE) to one (I AM ONE OF THREE BESIDES ME). Clearly unbiblical and nonsensical pronoun problems.

The Oneness view is I start with 1 eternal God and this one eternal God manifests Himself in many ways.

It is One (I AM) to many manifestations (EACH IS I AM). Clearly biblical and no pronoun problems.
 
Last edited:
Top