Worshipping The Son

[praise_yeshua]

Yes. I have a degree in civil engineering.

Good. Then you understand what I said.

You do realize that this is a famous analogy which actually teaches Modalism, don’t you?

One of the things which my trinitarian professors impressed upon me in college that I’ve never forgotten: Don’t use analogies to describe God. Ever.

Why not? Your professors were wrong. The writers of the Scriptures used them. I'll stick with their examples. Analogies are not perfect representations. They were never meant to be such. I have no fear of using them because I know what they are.

I mention it to disprove your insistence that what is different can't not be the same.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You lost me. You made a comment that I didn’t understand and I asked you for clarification. I still don’t know what your comment was about.

Whenever you fabricate a unique position of rank, you should be cautious. Often times, it is an fabricated attempt to deal with a difficult position.

 

[Matthias]

You need to study etymology. Theanthropos is a late Greek compound word not known to the author's of the Scripture. Your requirement is nonsense.

I told you who coined the phrase. Origen, in the 3rd century.

Rubbish. You can't possibly know this. It is impossible to know.

You can read it for yourself. There’s a trinitarian paper online which quotes it from the works of Origen.

Now Tyndale did "coin" (the word you're looking for) Godhead. However, we have much more confidence in later narrative than we do have for the unknowns in the time of Origen.

Don't fall into such "traps" these theologians have put in your mind. They don't know such things. This nothing more than a silly argument meant to distract.

 

[Matthias]

They are?

Yes.

From what time period?

The ones I’ve read are from the 18th century up to the 21st century. There have been reams of books and articles written about Jewish monotheism.

Do tell me what I already know. Jewish thought was destroyed after Messiah ascended and left Israel to themselves. That thought only carried on in Christianity.

See my earlier comment in this thread about gentile theologians rejecting Jewish thought. When that happened, trinitarianism was developed.

 

[Matthias]

Good. Then you understand what I said.


Why not? Your professors were wrong.

They weren’t wrong. You used an analogy which any trinitarian worth his salt knows teaches modalism, not trinitarianism.

"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements - Credo House Ministries

Alternate title: “Trinitarian Heresy 101” “The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water...

credohouse.org

The writers of the Scriptures used them. I'll stick with their examples. Analogies are not perfect representations. They were never meant to be such. I have no fear of using them because I know what they are.

I mention it to disprove your insistence that what is different can't not be the same.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I told you who coined the phrase. Origen, in the 3rd century.

You can't possibly know this. No one can. Prove it. You can't.

You can read it for yourself. There’s a trinitarian paper online which quotes it from the works of Origen.

He used it. It does not mean that he coined the phrase. I'll let you in on a little secret. We know that Origen lied about many things. You can't trust a liar. Yet, you're basing an argument on a liar.

 

[Diserner]

David is worshipped many times in scripture, as are others who aren’t God.

This is a grossly misleading and irresponsible statement.

In modern English it is obviously false, and we know you want to use some technical sense of ancient languages.

Considering that worship has a Biblical meaning to it, as one of the most central commands and concepts of the Bible, it is simply wrong to play fast and loose with the word.

King David was in no sense worshiped as the Lamb was in Revelation.

In. No. Sense.

Respected, yes, worshiped, no.

And we must be very, very clear about that, for its meaning is most important.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes.



The ones I’ve read are from the 18th century up to the 21st century. There have been reams of books and articles written about Jewish monotheism.



See my earlier comment in this thread about gentile theologians rejecting Jewish thought. When that happened, trinitarianism was developed.

I don't need to read your comments. I know the position. Trinitarianism is established by the Scriptures. Your "teachers" lied to you.

18th century? Wow. I'm impressed with late musings..... < sarcasm.

 

[Matthias]

Whenever you fabricate a unique position of rank, you should be cautious. Often times, it is an fabricated attempt to deal with a difficult position.

That still doesn’t answer my question. I don’t understand what you meant by the comment I asked you to clarify. You haven’t provided the clarification. This is the last time I’ll mention it. I would like to address whatever it was that you were asking me about but if it isn’t important enough for you to clarify then it isn’t of importance to me.

 

[Matthias]

This is a grossly misleading and irresponsible statement.

Would you like for me to treat you like that?

In modern English it is obviously false, and we know you want to use some technical sense of ancient languages.

Considering that worship has a Biblical meaning to it, as one of the most central commands and concepts of the Bible, it is simply wrong to play fast and loose with the word.

King David was in no sense worshiped as the Lamb was in Revelation.

In. No. Sense.

Respected, yes, worshiped, no.

And we must be very, very clear about that, for its meaning is most important.

See again 1Chronicles 29:20.

 

[Matthias]

You can't possibly know this. No one can. Prove it. You can't.

The trinitarian author of the paper proved it. It’s online. If I get some free time I’ll locate it and post it for you.

He used it. It does not mean that he coined the phrase. I'll let you in on a little secret. We know that Origen lied about many things. You can't trust a liar. Yet, you're basing an argument on a liar.

Origen is an indispensable figure in the post-biblical development of the doctrine of the Trinity. If he’s a liar who can’t be trusted then your doctrine is a house of cards.

 

[praise_yeshua]

They weren’t wrong. You used an analogy which any trinitarian worth his salt knows teaches modalism, not trinitarianism.

"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements - Credo House Ministries

Alternate title: “Trinitarian Heresy 101” “The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water...

credohouse.org

Why talk in such absolutes? "ANY".... again. Overstating nonsense from you.

I'm a Trinitarian and no..... appealing to the substance of water doesn't teach modalism. I simply was dealing with the representation given us from Scripture. You "TAKE THEM" to prove that Christ isn't God because He is referenced differently than The Father.

My appeal works. I can't help that you're confined to what your professors wrote. I don't need them. I learned the subject myself without carrying forward their baggage.

 

[Matthias]

I don't need to read your comments. I know the position. Trinitarianism is established by the Scriptures. Your "teachers" lied to you.

Damn trinitarian teachers.

18th century? Wow. I'm impressed with late musings..... < sarcasm.

Christian scholars didn’t start taking much of an interest in Jewish monotheism until around the 18th century.

 

[Matthias]

Why talk in such absolutes? "ANY".... again. Overstating nonsense from you.

I'm a Trinitarian and no..... appealing to the substance of water doesn't teach modalism. I simply was dealing with the representation given us from Scripture. You "TAKE THEM" to prove that Christ isn't God because He is referenced differently than The Father.

My appeal works. I can't help that you're confined to what your professors wrote. I don't need them. I learned the subject myself without carrying forward their baggage.

Damn trinitarian teachers.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The trinitarian author of the paper proved it. It’s online. If I get some free time I’ll locate it and post it for you.

How can someone prove what can't be proven given all available information. I don't need you to post it.

It is compound word. A late compound word. We know Origin lied about many things. Simple. You can't trust the information. I see zero requirement to show an early usage of the word or abandon my argument.

Origen is an indispensable figure in the post-biblical development of the doctrine of the Trinity. If he’s a liar who can’t be trusted then your doctrine is a house of cards.

That is your requirement. I have never used Origin as a source for anything other than to show he lied. See how empty your argument is?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Damn trinitarian teachers.

Christian scholars didn’t start taking much of an interest in Jewish monotheism until around the 18th century.

The authors of the NT would disagree with your statement.

I don't base my theology on another's musings. I base it upon the Scripture. It seems you know more about what your professors said than you do what the Scriptures say. You might have a different position if you knew more of the Scriptures.

 

[Matthias]

That's way too broad for us to discuss any Jewish Greek clash. Sorry.

I’ve done my homework. If it’s too broad for us to discuss then we won’t.

So why aren't you Catholic if you implicitly believe whatever they say? Critical thinking....

Where in the world did you get the idea from what I’ve written that I implicitly believe everything they say?

If I implicitly believed whatever they say then I would be a Catholic, not a Jewish monotheist.

The fact that I’m a Jewish monotheist demonstrates that I don’t implicitly believe whatever they say.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Damn trinitarian teachers.

Some know the subject better than others. I can teach you. You up for it?

 

[Matthias]

How can someone prove what can't be proven given all available information.

Origen’s work which contains it is extant.

I don't need you to post it.

I may or may not find and post it then.

It is compound word. A late compound word. We know Origin lied about many things. Simple. You can't trust the information. I see zero requirement to show an early usage of the word or abandon my argument.

It isn’t in the NT Greek manuscripts. No one in scripture identifies Jesus as Godman.

That is your requirement. I have never used Origin as a source for anything other than to show he lied. See how empty your argument is?

My argument isn’t empty to those who study how and when the doctrine of the Trinity was developed.

 

[Matthias]

The authors of the NT would disagree with your statement.

Church history supports my statement.

I don't base my theology on another's musings. I base it upon the Scripture. It seems you know more about what your professors said than you do what the Scriptures say. You might have a different position if you knew more of the Scriptures.

What I’ve learned from our conversation is that I know more about how, when and where the doctrine of the Trinity was developed than you do.