Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Runningman]

you lack any insight. that is a problem of hyper-literalist unitarians who cannot follow even blatant passages about the pre-existence of Jesus. That pre-existence alone testifies to Christ's incarnation. So I'm not sure where you start to make an argument for your position of denial of Christ.
You totally failed to explain John 1 and its identification of Christ as the logos that Philo only treated as a vague concept. You have too many denials to make your opinion seem worthwhile.

I'm sure in your imagination you can prove lots of stuff. The problem is that the real argument you make disregard the passages that testify against you.

I have some pity on you for having only an imaginary win instead of making a real argument for your view. A real win is where you make an argument for something true that also changes someone's mind. Still waiting . . .

You begin with a premise not stated in Scripture, i.e., your premise is God is a trinity. I begin with a premise stated in Scripture, i.e., the one and only God is the Father. Trinitarianism is grievous eisegesis. You will never be able to produce any evidence of a trinity in the Bible. You can stop trying or wear yourself out arguing. For me these debates require little to no effort. I just show what the Bible says and it does the arguing for me. You and @synergy on the other hand, do not have a single working example of God being a trinity in the Bible. Arguing from the position of silence is a tough one and it doesn't go unoticed.

Do you believe we should copy Jesus, his beliefs, and his religion?

 

[Runningman]

More Gaffes on your part.

It is true that Moses’ face radiated after he descended Mount Sinai, but the nature of that radiance is fundamentally different from that of Christ at the Transfiguration. When the encounter ended, the radiance faded (2 Cor. 3:7).

(2 Cor 3:7) But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

Instead, Christ’s radiance was HIS Intrinsic Glory as confirmed in John 1:14 (“we beheld HIS GLORY”) which is the Glory of God (Heb 1:3).

The Greek word translated “vision” in Matthew 17:9 is ὅραμα which means “something seen” or “spectacle.” In fact, its root word is the verb ὁράω which means "to see". It does not imply that the event was imaginary or unreal. Also, it is used elsewhere for further real historical experiences (e.g., Acts 7:31 for Moses seeing the burning bush).

Far from diminishing the Transfiguration, as heretics like you try to do, the use of ὅραμα underlines its prophetic significance: it was a revelation that Christ is truly God, as John 1:1c confirms.

Simpleton remarks on your part cannot undo what God has revealed no matter how much you nihistically wish it that way. You continue to produce Gaffes after Gaffes.

A dozen or so Bibles call the transfiguration a vision because that's exactly what it is. Unfortunately, it is not useful to help you. You've been refuted on that point.

Let's not forget that Jesus isn't the true Light in John 1:9,10. Remember, the true Light was stated to have been coming into the world in the present tense while Jesus was already 30 years old.

 

[mikesw]

You begin with a premise not stated in Scripture, i.e., your premise is God is a trinity. I begin with a premise stated in Scripture, i.e., the one and only God is the Father. Trinitarian is grievous eisegesis. You will never be able to produce any evidence of a trinity in the Bible. You can stop trying or wear yourself out arguing. For me these debates require little to no effort. I just show what the Bible says and it does the arguing for me. You and @synergy on the other hand, do not have a single working example of God being a trinity in the Bible. Arguing from the position of silence is a tough one and it doesn't go unoticed.

Do you believe we should copy Jesus, his beliefs, and his religion?

you are so backwards about the Triune God. We start with scriptures and let scriptures speak. You begin with a hyper-literalist narrow vision that fails to look at all scriptures. You do not have some better standing especially since you determine that God is not triune so you try to force passages into your perspective. I can see your desperation to fits the ideas to your comfort zone and conclusion but that is not a good way to approach scripture.
You keep on denying all the facts of pre-existence of Christ and you deny the context of the mention of the logos. Maybe you will realize you are messing up badly. I'm not willing to deny history, scripture, and context so I can believe your heresy.

 

[Runningman]

you are so backwards about the Triune God. We start with scriptures and let scriptures speak. You begin with a hyper-literalist narrow vision that fails to look at all scriptures. You do not have some better standing especially since you determine that God is not triune so you try to force passages into your perspective. I can see your desperation to fits the ideas to your comfort zone and conclusion but that is not a good way to approach scripture.
You keep on denying all the facts of pre-existence of Christ and you deny the context of the mention of the logos. Maybe you will realize you are messing up badly. I'm not willing to deny history, scripture, and context so I can believe your heresy.

You're foolling no one here honestly. A trinue god is not mentioned in the Bible at all, not even inferred or suggested. We don't seem to be able to get past this part because you guys aren't humble enough to be wrong and learn something. Let's see if we can get through to you guys another way. Is the word "god" used of humans in the Bible sometimes?

 

[mikesw]

You're foolling no one here honestly. A trinue god is not mentioned in the Bible at all, not even inferred or suggested. We don't seem to be able to get past this part because you guys aren't humble enough to be wrong and learn something. Let's see if we can get through to you guys another way. Is the word "gord" used of humans in the Bible sometimes?

Of course i'm not fooling anyone. I share the testimony of scripture. You deny the verses that contradict your view. You smugly think you have some advantage in interpreting scripture. However, you just show fumbling and neglect. You fail to answer evidence that testifies against your view. If something is proven wrong, hopefully I am accepting the truth even if somehow you stumble on it. Your record does not make it seem likely you will get anything right.

 

[Peterlag]

You begin with a premise not stated in Scripture, i.e., your premise is God is a trinity. I begin with a premise stated in Scripture, i.e., the one and only God is the Father. Trinitarianism is grievous eisegesis. You will never be able to produce any evidence of a trinity in the Bible. You can stop trying or wear yourself out arguing. For me these debates require little to no effort. I just show what the Bible says and it does the arguing for me. You and @synergy on the other hand, do not have a single working example of God being a trinity in the Bible. Arguing from the position of silence is a tough one and it doesn't go unoticed.

Do you believe we should copy Jesus, his beliefs, and his religion?

Not only do they begin with a trinity concept and then work backwards to find a concept to support it. But they also cannot supply Scripture to show what God would accomplish by coming to the earth as a man. So they then pretend they answered the question. Their deception is off the charts.

 

[mikesw]

Not only do they begin with a trinity concept and then work backwards to find a concept to support it. But they also cannot supply Scripture to show what God would accomplish by coming to the earth as a man. So they then pretend they answered the question. Their deception is off the charts.

So Peterlag is saying people start with a trinity concept that they have no idea about and no reason to accept it. Then they interpret the scripture based on something that they have had nothing suggesting that there is a trinity and then they interpret scripture based on that Trinity concept, which according to you does not exist.
One thing we can say about the unitarians is that they have quite the imagination to dream up something as stupid as that. I guess it makes sense when they deny the reason for John sharing the logos at all and for denying the pre-existence of the one we know as Jesus.

 

[mikesw]

You're foolling no one here honestly. A trinue god is not mentioned in the Bible at all, not even inferred or suggested. We don't seem to be able to get past this part because you guys aren't humble enough to be wrong and learn something. Let's see if we can get through to you guys another way. Is the word "god" used of humans in the Bible sometimes?

Start demonstrating that you have some modicum of ability to give an accurate explanation of simple passages. If you start passing that, then we can see if you can interpret passages with a little more complexity. Work you way up to gain a reputation before you try to challenge the divinity of Christ

 

[Runningman]

So Peterlag is saying people start with a trinity concept that they have no idea about and no reason to accept it. Then they interpret the scripture based on something that they have had nothing suggesting that there is a trinity and then they interpret scripture based on that Trinity concept, which according to you does not exist.
One thing we can say about the unitarians is that they have quite the imagination to dream up something as stupid as that. I guess it makes sense when they deny the reason for John sharing the logos at all and for denying the pre-existence of the one we know as Jesus.

Sorry, no. Trinitarianism is not the way Christianity originally started as. Jesus taught a strictly-monotheistic religion in which there is one God known as the Father. The disciples carried the concept of the only God being the Father on throughout the Roman empire until that was the dominant form of Christianity until around the 4th century. The Trinitarian church and government redefined Christainity and made a new religion called Trinitarianism. They persecuted everyone who got in their way. Trinitarianism got reinforced for centuries while the real church went underground. Eventually, it was more or less safe to come out again but it was a long time coming.

You should really do yourself a favor and learn some history. I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs, but that is no excuse to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Runningman]

Start demonstrating that you have some modicum of ability to give an accurate explanation of simple passages. If you start passing that, then we can see if you can interpret passages with a little more complexity. Work you way up to gain a reputation before you try to challenge the divinity of Christ

John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6 are the clearest examples of there being only one God known as the Father. You don't believe them, I know, since we have already covered that. No problem, they are what the truth is so they won't cease being posted. Now your turn, post an example of the trinity in the Bible. Go for it.

 

[mikesw]

Sorry, no. Trinitarianism is not the way Christianity originally started as. Jesus taught a strictly-monotheistic religion in which there is one God known as the Father. The disciples carried the concept of the only God being the Father on throughout the Roman empire until that was the dominant form of Christianity until around the 4th century. The Trinitarian church and government redefined Christainity and made a new religion called Trinitarianism. They persecuted everyone who got in their way. Trinitarianism got reinforced for centuries while the real church went underground. Eventually, it was more or less safe to come out again but it was a long time coming.

You should really do yourself a favor and learn some history. I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs, but that is no excuse to be intellectually dishonest.

You do not even know 2nd century teachings about the Triune nature of God. You like to pretend that all of a sudden in the 4th century that a doctrine popped out of thin air. Do you like living in ignorance or is it accidental?

 

[mikesw]

John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6 are the clearest examples of there being only one God known as the Father. You don't believe them, I know, since we have already covered that. No problem, they are what the truth is so they won't cease being posted. Now your turn, post an example of the trinity in the Bible. Go for it.

You are like a broken record. (Sorry if this analogy is too ancient.)
Beyond just skipping verses you do not like (such as John 17:5), You forget the pre-existence of the one we know as Jesus -- of what we find in various passages.
John 1:18 is one I have overlooked but you introduced.
John 1:18 (ESV)
18No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

This shows Jesus is God. I hope that verse is clear enough for you to repent. You are lucky I have persisted until the obvious point of this verse came into the discussion. You may not have my help forever.

 

[Peterlag]

Not only was Jesus tempted to sin. But he had to be able to sin. If he were God then there's no contest. Nothing accomplished. It's not a fair fight. You can't have a football game if one side can only win. You can't have a fight with a man and a worm and call it a contest. God does not qualify to be in the fight.

 

[Peterlag]

So Peterlag is saying people start with a trinity concept that they have no idea about and no reason to accept it. Then they interpret the scripture based on something that they have had nothing suggesting that there is a trinity and then they interpret scripture based on that Trinity concept, which according to you does not exist.
One thing we can say about the unitarians is that they have quite the imagination to dream up something as stupid as that. I guess it makes sense when they deny the reason for John sharing the logos at all and for denying the pre-existence of the one we know as Jesus.

You misquote me like you misquote the Bible. This is what you say I said...
So Peterlag is saying people start with a trinity concept that they have no idea about and no reason to accept it. Then they interpret the scripture based on something that they have had nothing suggesting that there is a trinity and then they interpret scripture based on that Trinity concept, which according to you does not exist.

This is what I said...
Not only do they begin with a trinity concept and then work backwards to find a concept to support it.

 

[mikesw]

You misquote me like you misquote the Bible. This is what you say I said...
So Peterlag is saying people start with a trinity concept that they have no idea about and no reason to accept it. Then they interpret the scripture based on something that they have had nothing suggesting that there is a trinity and then they interpret scripture based on that Trinity concept, which according to you does not exist.

I will reword the logic of what you said:
You say there is no Triune concept of God but that Christians used that non-existent concept when interpreting scripture and that that non-existent concept influenced their thinking. But Christians still came out with the Triune concept of God.

This is what I said...
Not only do they begin with a trinity concept and then work backwards to find a concept to support it.

After having completed the logic of what you said, this is where we end up...
It sounds like the actual logic of your assertion then is that the only source of inspiration about the Triune nature of God is from scripture itself. Otherwise, we have to say that the doctrine came out of nothingness.
I'm not surprised that you are confused by the logic of your own statement.

 

[synergy]

A dozen or so Bibles call the transfiguration a vision because that's exactly what it is. Unfortunately, it is not useful to help you. You've been refuted on that point.

Your despising of Greek knows no bounds. Your deliberate ignorance of the Greek word "ὅραμα" has been noted as your Gaffe #15.

Gaffe #16 is your denial of the Glory of God being Jesus' intrinsic Glory (John 1:14) proving once more that the Word was God.

Let's not forget that Jesus isn't the true Light in John 1:9,10. Remember, the true Light was stated to have been coming into the world in the present tense while Jesus was already 30 years old.

First of all, let's be clear that Jesus is the Light of the world. He never stated any starting point for him being the Light of the world.

(John 8:12) “I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Second of all, the phrase “The Light was coming (ἐρχόμενον)” highlights an active, ongoing descent of God into human history. That matches the kenotic idea: Christ who was continually pouring Himself out in the Incarnation and ministry. Christ never ceased to be eternal Light, but in His kenosis He veils His glory, such that men must be illumined to recognize Him (John 1:10–11). This has the potential of becoming your Gaffe #17 depending on your willingness to acknowledge Biblical truths

Until you stop ignoring and start addressing your List of Gaffes properly, your Gaffes will continue to convict you ad infinitum:

List of RM's Gaffes:

1. You mistake us for Modalists by falsely accusing us that we do not differentiate between the Word and the God (the Father).
2. Your ignorance of the Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν in John 1:14.
3. You have difficulty understanding the grammatical fact that pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent.
4. Your categorical mistake when you think that partaking of an item transforms your nature into that item.
5. Your ignorance of the Greek word κοινωνία,
6. Your ignorance of Greek neuter pronouns in 1 John 1.
7. You said that "the Word is not actually God" which flat out contradicts John 1:1c that says "the Word was God".
8. At no time does Jesus ever has to "partake" of divine nature. That's because he is God to begin with (John 1:1c).
9. The REV translates from God only knows which originals when they dreamt up the phrase "what God was the word was".
10. Your ignorance of the Word of God in the OT (1 Kings 12:22 and 1 Ch 17:3).
11. You ignore the prevailing Greco-Roman paganism at that time when you mistakenly present John 17:3 as being against Trinitarianism. You're also working backwards from John 17:3 to wipe out what John wrote in John 1:1.
12. Your attempt to rewrite John 1:1c from "the Word was God" to "the Word was godly" was denied.
13. You forget that God said "Let us make man in our Image". That proves that there are multiple Creator Persons.
14. You are denigrating God's Shekinah Light (το φως το αληθινον) that radiated out of the OT Tabernacle and out of Jesus at his Transfiguration. Just as God tabernacled and radiated his Shekinah in the OT, the Word now tabernacles and radiates his Shekinah Light as Jesus.
15. Your deliberate ignorance of the Greek word ὅραμα which means “something seen” or “spectacle.” and cancels the heretical idea that the Transfiguration event was imaginary or unreal.
16. Your denial of the Glory of God being Jesus' intrinsic Glory (John 1:14), proving once again that the Word was God.

 

[Peterlag]

I will reword the logic of what you said:
You say there is no Triune concept of God but that Christians used that non-existent concept when interpreting scripture and that that non-existent concept influenced their thinking. But Christians still came out with the Triune concept of God.


After having completed the logic of what you said, this is where we end up...
It sounds like the actual logic of your assertion then is that the only source of inspiration about the Triune nature of God is from scripture itself. Otherwise, we have to say that the doctrine came out of nothingness.
I'm not surprised that you are confused by the logic of your own statement.

The trinity does not come from Scripture nor out of nothingness that you ignorantly assume I mentioned. The trinity comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches taught you. And in most cases it's the first thing they teach you and then they (like you) begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. You do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.