JoshebB
Active member
I meant what I said Peter. First correct your own mistakes if you want to trade posts with me.
The Unitarian belief that Jesus is not God causes those who offer worship to the Father's Throne (where Jesus sits) to be guilty of idolatry.
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
Peter he did not attack you at all but challenged your argument- do you know what an ad hominem is ?
BTW- I have known @JoshebB for a long time and I have yet to see make an ad hominem attack. It's not his style nor within his character to stoop that low. I on the other hand have been guilty of making that argument and stooping that low to my own shame.
ad hominem, type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter.
Ad hominem arguments are often taught to be a type of fallacy, an erroneous form of argumentation, although this is not necessarily the case. A number of scholars have noted that questioning a person’s character is a fallacy only insofar as the person’s character is not logically relevant to the debate. Indeed, philosophy textbooks often list ad hominem arguments as a type of informal fallacy but add the important proviso that the person must be attacked “irrelevantly.” For example, a scientist may reject a colleague’s argument because of the latter’s taste in music or hairstyle. These idiosyncratic and subjective traits are in no way related to the truthfulness of the colleague’s argument, and attacking the person rather than the substance of their argument would be a clear instance of the ad hominem fallacy. However, courts do commonly take into account the character of a witness, and questioning the statements of a chronic liar would not be fallacious since it logically relates to the possibility of their speech being itself a lie.
Scholars generally recognize five subcategories of ad hominem arguments:
- abusive
- The abusive type refers to a direct attack on a person, in which one calls for an argument to be rejected because the person making it is dishonest, immoral, or compromised in some other respect.
- circumstantial
- The circumstantial type involves questioning some inconsistency between the person making the argument and the argument itself. Often, a circumstantial ad hominem argument is intended to criticize the apparent hypocrisy of the person making the argument. For example, a child might reject their parents’ argument that tobacco consumption is unhealthy on the grounds that they are tobacco smokers.
- bias
- The bias type involves questioning the validity of someone’s argument on the basis of some perceived bias, whether it is purely ideological or materially motivated. For example, someone may claim that a speech made by a CEO against indexing the minimum wage to the cost of living should be rejected since the former is biased as a result of their wealth and the interests inherentto their social position.
- “poisoning the well”
- Closely related to the bias type, the “poisoning the well” type involves arguing that the person is so partisan or dogmatically inclined to hold certain positions that they can never be trusted to reason impartially on the basis on facts and logic.
- tu quoque (“you too”)
- The tu quoque type involves responding in kind to an accusation of wrongdoing. For instance, someone caught in a lie might respond by uncovering some previous lie by the accuser in an attempt to discredit them, thereby sidestepping the merits of the accusation.
The idea that ad hominem arguments can be legitimately raised in the case of testimonies is generally recognized. Some scholars argue that ad hominem arguments can also be legitimate when they challenge someone’s argument as being self-interested or driven by a dogmatic bias (such as in the bias and “poisoning the well” types), but this view is contested since it relies on a subjective assessment of inner motives. For instance, an environmentalist might argue in favour of reducing the use of carbon-emitting energy sources. Insofar as the environmentalist is grounding their position in facts and logic, it would be fallacious to dismiss such an argument on the sole basis of the person’s deep preexisting commitment to environmental protection. In some respect, scholarly debates about the possibility of non-fallacious use of ad hominem arguments revolve around the tension between formal logic, which is primarily concerned with the validity of statements, and rhetoric, which is primarily concerned with persuasion. Since Aristotle, scholars of rhetoric have been interested not only in the logical and substantive soundness of an argument (its logos) but also in the passions raised by the speech or text (the pathos) as well as the character of the person making the argument (their ethos).britanica
hope the helps !!!
JoshebB
Active member
Other problems ensue. Where is Jesus mentioned in the Genesis creation account? Is Gen. 1:3 allegorical? Is Jesus the light that God made on the first day (he is, after all, called the light many times in the NT)
? Are we to allegorize the creation account anthropomorphically? If Jesus is the firstborn, and firstborn means the first creature, then how can he be an ordinary man who was born multiple millennia after creation was created? The very first verse of the Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and John 1 states Jesus is the logos of God that is God who was with God in the beginning. If Jesus was with God in the beginning and the first thing created was the light, then Jesus was there in the beginning with God when God made the first thing = the light. Then there's the problem of the tree of life. Jesus is the tree of life, and the vegetation of the planet was not created until the third day. How can Jesus be the first created creature if he's the tree of life and the tree wasn't made until the third day? A host of contradictions like this ensue as the whole of scripture is consulted. 1 Corinthians 10:4 states Jesus was the rock at Meribah (Ex. 17). How can Jesus be that rock if he's just an ordinary creature made either at the beginning of the beginning or made centuries later with the ovum of a woman? What happens with passages like when Jesus made himself equal with God? Either the Jews were correct and justified in their effort to kill the man (and he cannot save anyone), or his (implied) equality is true and correct. Philippians 2 plainly states Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped..... before he took on the role of bond service and was made in human likeness. How can he do anything prior to being made if he was the first created creature? If he's not God and decided not to be equal with God without legitimate justification to do so, then he is a self-idolizing sinner and there is no salvation found in him - it would not matter when he was created. The exposition of the list of contradictions that ensue from asserting Jesus is a created creature would fill pages of posts.I would say he is mentioned hereOther problems ensue. Where is Jesus mentioned in the Genesis creation account? Is Gen. 1:3 allegorical? Is Jesus the light that God made on the first day (he is, after all, called the light many times in the NT)
Genesis 1:26 (KJV 1900) — 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
civic
Well-known member
Amen !!!Other problems ensue. Where is Jesus mentioned in the Genesis creation account? Is Gen. 1:3 allegorical? Is Jesus the light that God made on the first day (he is, after all, called the light many times in the NT)
That unitarian however does not believe scripture
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
"ad hominem" claims are 99 percent of the time just excuses to avoid recognizing personal sinfulness. Words define us. Words condemn us. Words justify us. "Words" are fruit of our lips.......
Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
A person can not remove themselves from any and all context of any argument. Our words justify or condemn us. There is no reason to believe otherwise. We are right or we are wrong.
People "love" to try and distance themselves from their own words. It is how Satan has sold lies from the beginning.
"Accusing the brethren" always revolves around lies. Never Truth. Truth is an absolute defense against "Accusations".
There is no doubt that there is not a single Unitarian in this forum that properly praises Jesus Christ. Not one.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
God did not take dirt and form the body of Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve were first created. Everyone else is born. Offspring.
The way the average person loosely applies "words" in their speech is atrocious.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
No he did not. Jesus was one of the US who was to make man
JoshebB
Active member
Let's clarify this for him. The statement, "You attack and accuse the way they did to Jesus," is a personal attack.
Furthermore,
"the trinity folks open a door to the devil spirits who block their understanding from seeing the truth"
"the trinity folks do not believe Jesus came in the flesh because they think he's God. The other side says we must believe God came in the flesh"
"You think we are in idolatry and we think the same of you"
"...you jump into that you must be right because I did not answer."
"I do get to define your beliefs because I can judge."
"One moment you think you have a brilliant idea and then it cannot stand to Biblical scrutiny."
"I'm limited on how much I say to you because you like to attack others personally."
""You need to stop drinking."
The word "you" is the giveaway. Every single one of those statements is ad hominem. Every single one of them is also off -topic. We all know the general rule: keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. Every single post in which statements like that exist violates rules 1b, 1c, 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. As far as the evidence goes, there exist repeated violations of the forum's tou. It's the least of the problems here in this thread, though. The simplest of questions will not be answered. Numerous fallacies are employed (argumentum ad populum, appeals to ridicule, appeals to authority, straw men, red herring and more), and scripture is blatantly abused (it's not okay to insinuate 1 John 3:4 applies to everyone who disagrees with him). Appeals to "You do it, too" (tu quoque) and then playing the victim after so much abuse of others is called gaslighting. Perhaps what is worst, however, is the fact that any of the underlying concerns insinuated in the ad hominems could have been worded without ever mentioning another poster.
Count how many times I mentioned Peter or used the word "you," in the comments above.
Yep.
Under any other normal, ordinary circumstances this would readily and easily qualify as trolling.
JoshebB
Active member
Yep.
That can certainly be included in the list of inescapable conflicts the non-trin pov creates. It cannot be said Jesus is an angel or any other created creature because created creatures cannot create heavens and earths.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Lust conceived.
In James 1:15 we read
James 1:15 ειτα η επιθυμια συλλαβουσα τικτει αμαρτιαν η δε αμαρτια αποτελεσθεισα αποκυει θανατον
συλλαμβάνω
Literally references conception. It is used throughout the Greek OT in most every reference to identify when life began. It is also used specifically in referencing when Jesus was conceived in Mary.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt συλλαμβάνω in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
If anyone declares that Jesus "lusted" you are declaring Jesus sinful. No one can separate lust from sin. To say that someone lusted is to recognize their sinfulness.
It is why Jesus declared.....
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
In James 1:15 we read
James 1:15 ειτα η επιθυμια συλλαβουσα τικτει αμαρτιαν η δε αμαρτια αποτελεσθεισα αποκυει θανατον
συλλαμβάνω
Literally references conception. It is used throughout the Greek OT in most every reference to identify when life began. It is also used specifically in referencing when Jesus was conceived in Mary.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt συλλαμβάνω in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
If anyone declares that Jesus "lusted" you are declaring Jesus sinful. No one can separate lust from sin. To say that someone lusted is to recognize their sinfulness.
It is why Jesus declared.....
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
You continue to run away from the fact that the Greek Language destroys the Judaizing Unitarian view that the Word of God is "thing":
To show that Trinitarians do not run away from anything, here is how 1 John 1:1 supports the Trinitarian view that the Word of God is a Person and not a thing:All pronouns of the Word ("He", "Him") are Personal!
The Word is grammatically being treated as a Person.
Where do you see the word "it"? You need new glasses.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Click to expand...
Let's start by looking at the Greek version of 1 John 1:1. In particular, lets look at the first 2 Greek words ῞Ο ἦν that you claim refer to a “thing”.
1Jn 1:1 ῞Ο ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς·
The phrase “ὁ ἦν” is found in multiple other locations (see below) and never once is it considered a neuter pronoun:
Rev_1:4 ᾿Ιωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων, ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ,
Rev_1:8 ᾿Εγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.
Rev_4:8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾿ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες· ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
Rev_11:17 λέγοντες· εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐβασίλευσας,
Rev_16:5 καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας·
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia. Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is coming; and from the seven spirits which are before His throne;
Rev 1:8 I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
Rev 4:8 And each one of the four living creatures had six wings about him, and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God, the Almighty, who was and is and is to come.
Rev 11:17 saying, We thank You, O Lord God Almighty, who are, and who was, and who is coming, because You took Your great power and reigned.
Rev 16:15 Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is the one who watches and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.
Listen, John’s understanding of The Word didn’t go from being a Person (ουτος in John 1:2) to a “thing”. Such an outlandish view can only come from a Judaizing Unitarian that has a dirt poor understanding of Greek.
Right here
John 1:1 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Runningman
Well-known member
The Word of life in 1 John 1:1-3 is eternal life. Eternal life is a thing, not a person, therefore the Word is a thing in about a dozen translations rendered by experts, all directly stating this. Hence, a that, which, this, what and it is not a person.
Let's break down the flaws in your logic. For starters, if eternal life is not a thing then that would be a Quadrinity of persons. Two, this passage says that what was from the beginning is something they could hear, see, and touch. For your theory to hold any water then from the beginning of time Jesus would have had to be a physical being. In other words, Jesus would have had to pre-exist as a human descended of Adam, born of the virgin Mary. Therefore, what you're proposing is demonstrably, and heinously, false.
Therefore, the Word is a thing. The Word in John 1 is what created Jesus and what was in him. Thus, it was revealed to the disciples. John 1 is all about personification of God's words. There really isn't any other viable options.
1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
You offer only denial and contradictory claims
JoshebB
Active member
I prefer not to make personal statements about fellow forum members. I choose to refrain from doing so because it violates the tou and risks bringing sanction upon myself, compromising my personal integrity due to hypocrisy, it's always off-topic, prompts defensiveness (if not increased adversarialness). Both of you know this because we've had disagreements on other topics. That being said, there's a huge difference between the occasional lapse and the chronic use of godless, fleshly devices like ad hominem, especially when accompanied by an abject refusal to self-correct. Whether stated in a forum's tou or not, the basic rules are simple and well known.
- Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
- Do not feed trolls.
The best case any poster can make is...
a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.
That is the goal to which we should each and all aspire. Yes? That is what persuades. That is what I find interesting. That is what I will engage. There's room for improvement, but I'm fairly good at ignoring trolling once recognized.
Now, how about we all return to the op-specific topic... the Unitarian belief Jesus is not God causing those who offer worship to the Father's throne to be guilty of idolatry? Not all non-Trins are Unitarian. Logically, that means those non-Trins who are Unitarian should be siding with the Trins
. Wouldn't that be something 
. Logically, that means all the non-Unitarian non-Trins who bring their non-Trin views into the thread for discussion are all off-topic, as are all the Trin comments that have nothing specifically to do with the Unitarian belief specified in the op's title 
.But maybe I'm just being to exacting
.I'm having a difficult enough time to get direct, immediate, succinct answers to the simplest of questions so I trust you all will understand when I bow out of the thread because there's very little actual discussion of the op (which, imo, is overall correct but may have a few minor problems of its own). The logic of the op has nothing to do with Trinitarianism or non-trinitarianism. ANYONE claiming Jesus is not God while worshipping him who sits on the throne has an inherent contradiction. One needn't be Trinitarian to see the problem with Rev. 3:21 and understand we, the redeemed and regenerate resurrected humans, don't sit on God's throne with Jesus as Gods (plural Gods is an oxymoron). It would be abject hubris for Jesus to invite others onto God's throne were he not also God.
Eternal life is an attribute of Christ not Christ himself
Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
d
Exactly
Runningman
Well-known member
Says the man who can't even find the Trinity in the bible. Laughable.
Similar threads
