This is not fair

[Cal_Minian]

I am ganging up on all of you. I am sorry. I will start to take it easy on you all. The truth is powerful and you all must be feeling very beat up. I will try to be more gentle.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Monty Python skits belong in the Amphitheater. Next door on the right.

[Cal_Minian]

Monty Python skits belong in the Amphitheater. Next door on the right.

I did'nt want them to get discouraged.... sorry.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Weak. Very weak. Away with you.

[Aletheia]

I am ganging up on all of you. I am sorry. I will start to take it easy on you all. The truth is powerful and you all must be feeling very beat up. I will try to be more gentle.

:shifty:

[Sparko]

You are a legend in your own mind, Cal.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Why it's obvious that Cal will be able to overcome nearly 2,000 years of sound orthodoxy and will be the first to think of a new objection that hasn't been answered by the great minds of the church throughout history.

Please. I'm more intimidated trying to get past a boss on a hard video game.

[Cal_Minian]

Why it's obvious that Cal will be able to overcome nearly 2,000 years of sound orthodoxy and will be the first to think of a new objection that hasn't been answered by the great minds of the church throughout history.

Please. I'm more intimidated trying to get past a boss on a hard video game.


Dear ApologiaNick,
While you are playing video games JWs are being spiritually fed as was prophesied by Isaiah:



NWT Isaiah 65:13 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "Look! My own servants will eat, but YOU yourselves will go hungry. Look! My own servants will drink, but YOU yourselves will go thirsty. Look! My own servants will rejoice, but YOU yourselves will suffer shame. 14 Look! My own servants will cry out joyfully because of the good condition of the heart, but YOU yourselves will make outcries because of the pain of heart and YOU will howl because of sheer breakdown of spirit.



The reason you have nothing to eat in a spiritual sense is because you do not believe in or regogize the Faithful and Discreet Slave who wants to feed you.



NWT Matthew 24:45 "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.


Apologia, answer the question Jesus asks above. It is one of the most important questions you will ever answer.

Christian love,
Cal

[Sparko]

Well it sure ain't you cal. nor the watchtower. discreet is not a word I would use to describe either of you. a word that starts with "d" does come to mind though.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear ApologiaNick,
While you are playing video games JWs are being spiritually fed as was prophesied by Isaiah:

Geez Cal. I saw you in PAL last night going on about TV shows and watching Fess Parker and other "secular stuff." Why are you doing that?





The reason you have nothing to eat in a spiritual sense is because you do not believe in or regogize the Faithful and Discreet Slave who wants to feed you.

Who said I don't. I've learned more this year than I have in a long time. (By the way, usually while I game nowadays, I also have audio messages playing here so I'm educating myself at the same time.




Apologia, answer the question Jesus asks above. It is one of the most important questions you will ever answer.

Christian love,
Cal

The text tells us who. The passages are about doing the will of God in the time between the ascension and the Second Coming. Thus, who is the faithful slave? It's everyone who lives as Jesus taught.

If you think it refers to a specific person or organization, why apply it only in this parable? WHy not ask who the five faithful virgins are? Why not ask who the lady who finds the missing coin is? It's special pleading.

[Cal_Minian]

The text tells us who. The passages are about doing the will of God in the time between the ascension and the Second Coming. Thus, who is the faithful slave? It's everyone who lives as Jesus taught.

If you think it refers to a specific person or organization, why apply it only in this parable? WHy not ask who the five faithful virgins are? Why not ask who the lady who finds the missing coin is? It's special pleading.

Dear ApologiaNick,
So basically you identify the time period as sometime in the last 2000 years and as a result of that you conclude it is everyone who is a disciple of Christ during that period? Your logic escapes me because it ignores what this group is said to be doing.



NWT Matthew 24:45 "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?


In the church that you attend does everyone get up and teach, thus providing spiritual food at the proper time? Or is it a smaller group of Pastors who provide the spiritual food?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear ApologiaNick,
So basically you identify the time period as sometime in the last 2000 years and as a result of that you conclude it is everyone who is a disciple of Christ during that period? Your logic escapes me because it ignores what this group is said to be doing.



In the church that you attend does everyone get up and teach, thus providing spiritual food at the proper time? Or is it a smaller group of Pastors who provide the spiritual food?

Cal. I would say that I am not a pastor at my church, but I am definitely involved in feeding. I am teaching and discipling and working with others. If not everyone is doing that, that is not my problem. Christ tells us always to be doing that which we ought to be doing.

I also do not think the food would refer to just teaching. I think it would refer to any activity that would build up the body.

Now, my question still remains as to why this goes for just the faithful servant and not anyone else in any other parable.

[Cal_Minian]

Cal. I would say that I am not a pastor at my church, but I am definitely involved in feeding. I am teaching and discipling and working with others. If not everyone is doing that, that is not my problem. Christ tells us always to be doing that which we ought to be doing.

I also do not think the food would refer to just teaching. I think it would refer to any activity that would build up the body.

Now, my question still remains as to why this goes for just the faithful servant and not anyone else in any other parable.

Dear ApologiaNick,
What do you mean "it is not your problem?" If you are serious about building up the body then it is your problem... your responsibility. By your own admission no everyone in your Church is teaching and not everyone is building up the body.

Here is your theological dilemma.



NAS Matthew 24:48 "But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' 49 and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth.

If you continue to identify the Faithful and Discreet Slave with the entire body of Christ then by your own admission, those who are not providing the food at the proper time are evil and suffer the same punishment of all evil persons.

However if you have the proper view of this passage you will understand that not all members of the body are in the position of providing guidance to the body.

That there are some who have this responsibility and those that do not is clear from the following:



NAS Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

There are two groups here. The leaders and those who are not the leaders, agreed?

JW theology does not presume that those who are not providing the food at the proper time suffer eternal punishment with evil people. It is those who are leaders or who place themselves as leaders and who do not follow through who suffer eternal punishment.

Once again, Jesus asks a very important question.



ASV Matthew 24:45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season?


It is obvious that the faithful servant are not pagans or atheists! The are a subset of Christians. You would do well to meditate and pray for the correct answer to this question and not dismiss it.

Your eternal future is at stake. When Jesus speaks listen to him. After all the God and Father of Jesus Christ says:



NWT Matthew 17:5 While he was yet speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and, look! a voice out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Cal. I really don't care for a game of biblical hopscotch when I want to take each passage as it is within the context it was written. You are taking one and assuming what you are wanting to prove.

If other people are lazy is it my problem? No. It is theirs. I have done what I could do. When Ezekiel was told to warn the people and he did and they didn't repent, their blood was on their hands. When I tell people to study and learn and they don't, it is their problem.

Cal. I see no reason to take the slave to refer to a specific person any more than I take the 5 wise and the 5 foolish virgins to. I think they are speaking of a generality. You've given me no reason to think otherwise.

And no Cal, my eternal future is not at stake. I've trusted Christ. He holds my future and he's holding it well.

[Cal_Minian]

Cal. I really don't care for a game of biblical hopscotch when I want to take each passage as it is within the context it was written. You are taking one and assuming what you are wanting to prove.

If other people are lazy is it my problem? No. It is theirs. I have done what I could do. When Ezekiel was told to warn the people and he did and they didn't repent, their blood was on their hands. When I tell people to study and learn and they don't, it is their problem.

Cal. I see no reason to take the slave to refer to a specific person any more than I take the 5 wise and the 5 foolish virgins to. I think they are speaking of a generality. You've given me no reason to think otherwise.

And no Cal, my eternal future is not at stake. I've trusted Christ. He holds my future and he's holding it well.

Dear ApologiaNick,
I have repeated tried to make the point, to no avail, that the Trinity is not taught by any bible writer, in context, in a single passage. It is necessary for you to play bible hopskotch to formulate the Trinity, but your are not willing to follow the logic of the Son of God in Matthew 24:44-50?

BTW JWs do not teach that the Slave is a specific person. Did you even read what I posted? I compared the Slave to those who take the lead in teaching. That is not one person.

Please do not rush your answers. You are not making much sense.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear ApologiaNick,
I have repeated tried to make the point, to no avail, that the Trinity is not taught by any bible writer, in context, in a single passage. [/QU]

And who set up this criteria? It's not one I accept.

[QUOTE=Cal_Minian] It is necessary for you to play bible hopskotch to formulate the Trinity, but your are not willing to follow the logic of the Son of God in Matthew 24:44-50?

Biblical hopscotch refers to taking snippets here and there. The Trinity takes the whole of what is taught about a subject to reach its conclusion. Take all that is said about Christ and about God and about salvation and about the atonement. The Trinity is the solution.


BTW JWs do not teach that the Slave is a specific person. Did you even read what I posted? I compared the Slave to those who take the lead in teaching. That is not one person.

Yes. I know what you all take it to refer to and it's question-begging.


Please do not rush your answers. You are not making much sense.

Nope. I just don't see much of an argument here.

[Cal_Minian]

Dear ApologiaNick,
I have repeated tried to make the point, to no avail, that the Trinity is not taught by any bible writer, in context, in a single passage.

And who set up this criteria? It's not one I accept.



Biblical hopscotch refers to taking snippets here and there. The Trinity takes the whole of what is taught about a subject to reach its conclusion. Take all that is said about Christ and about God and about salvation and about the atonement. The Trinity is the solution.



Yes. I know what you all take it to refer to and it's question-begging.



Nope. I just don't see much of an argument here.


OK, then prove that bible writers teach in context that God is three persons. I double dare you :lol:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

OK, then prove that bible writers teach in context that God is three persons. I double dare you :lol:

What would you consider to be proof?

[Cal_Minian]

What would you consider to be proof?


When one looks at foundational Christian doctrine, such as eternal punishment, eternal life, resurrection, baptism, the ransom sacrifice of Christ, etc one finds that multiple bible writers teach them, in context, in a single passage in at least their basic form.

We do not agree as to the intepretation of these concepts but we do consider them Christian.

One does not need to take a dunking verse, a water verse and a repentance verse and concoct the doctrine of Christian baptism. The beginning of each gospel account puts these basic elements together for us, in context as a teaching.

However that is exactly how the Trinity is derived. The Trinity stands alone.

Your task, should you accept it, is to prove the Trinity in the same manner as legitimate foundational Christian doctrines.

The bible hopskotcher need not apply.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

When one looks at foundational Christian doctrine, such as eternal punishment, eternal life, resurrection, baptism, the ransom sacrifice of Christ, etc one finds that multiple bible writers teach them, in context, in a single passage in at least their basic form.

We do not agree as to the intepretation of these concepts but we do consider them Christian.

One does not need to take a dunking verse, a water verse and a repentance verse and concoct the doctrine of Christian baptism. The beginning of each gospel account puts these basic elements together for us, in context as a teaching.

However that is exactly how the Trinity is derived. The Trinity stands alone.

Your task, should you accept it, is to prove the Trinity in the same manner as legitimate foundational Christian doctrines.

The bible hopskotcher need not apply.

I hate to tell you this, but I am under no obligation to accept your criteria for a good systematic theology.

[Cal_Minian]

I hate to tell you this, but I am under no obligation to accept your criteria for a good systematic theology.


I understand this. But the least you could do is to explain why the Trinity stands alone. Why is it different that the way other doctrines are taught in Scripture? Why should we believe it if it is pieced together from different passages written by different bible writers each teaching yet a different subject?

After all, even you do not maintain, evidently, that a bible writer teaches that three persons are one God.

However you would have no problem at all finding a passage that teaches eternal punishment or the resurrection.

Why is that?

Please think about this before you reply.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I understand this. But the least you could do is to explain why the Trinity stands alone. Why is it different that the way other doctrines are taught in Scripture? Why should we believe it if it is pieced together from different passages written by different bible writers each teaching yet a different subject?

After all, even you do not maintain, evidently, that a bible writer teaches that three persons are one God.

However you would have no problem at all finding a passage that teaches eternal punishment or the resurrection.

Why is that?

Please think about this before you reply.

Cal. I don't approach any doctrine like that. I consider eschatology. I take a whole plethora of passages and put them together and get my doctrine. I do the same with eternal punishment and resurrection and any other doctrine. if I have one passage but it contradicts a verse elsewhere in context, then I have a problem. Scripture speaks with one voice so there's no danger in taking the whole.

Your criteria do not apply.

[Cal_Minian]

Cal. I don't approach any doctrine like that. I consider eschatology. I take a whole plethora of passages and put them together and get my doctrine. I do the same with eternal punishment and resurrection and any other doctrine. if I have one passage but it contradicts a verse elsewhere in context, then I have a problem. Scripture speaks with one voice so there's no danger in taking the whole.

Your criteria do not apply.

You make that claim but do not provide any examples. All foundational (world-view) doctrines are taught by one or more bible writers in at least their basic form.

I also take the entire Scripture to add details to these basic doctrines that a bible writer ALREADY has defined in its basic form.

What is not appropriate is to manufacture a new doctrine by pieceing together multiple passages by multiple bible writers each teaching a different context.

That is my challenge to you. Explain why you beleive the Trinity when it stands alone as a foundational doctrine which is a world-view for Trinitarians.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You make that claim but do not provide any examples. All foundational (world-view) doctrines are taught by one or more bible writers in at least their basic form.

I also take the entire Scripture to add details to these basic doctrines that a bible writer ALREADY has defined in its basic form.

What is not appropriate is to manufacture a new doctrine by pieceing together multiple passages by multiple bible writers each teaching a different context.

That is my challenge to you. Explain why you beleive the Trinity when it stands alone as a foundational doctrine which is a world-view for Trinitarians.

I do not accept your premise, criteria, or conclusion as true as I don't use that approach on any biblical doctrine.

[Cal_Minian]

I do not accept your premise, criteria, or conclusion as true as I don't use that approach on any biblical doctrine.

That is not true. I have already shown that all the other foundational biblical doctrines like baptism are taught in at least their basic form.

Are you telling me that you ignore those verses and take a dunking verse, a water verse and a reptence verse each written by a different bible writer, non of who is teaching about Christian baptism and make up you own doctrine of baptism? :lol:

After all that is how you derive the Trinity. Denial of this does not help your cause. I know where these doctrines come from.

No one else is fooled either.. not even your fellow Trinitarians who are reading this.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

That is not true. I have already shown that all the other foundational biblical doctrines like baptism are taught in at least their basic form.

Are you telling me that you ignore those verses and take a dunking verse, a water verse and a reptence verse each written by a different bible writer, non of who is teaching about Christian baptism and make up you own doctrine of baptism? :lol:

After all that is how you derive the Trinity. Denial of this does not help your cause. I know where these doctrines come from.

No one else is fooled either.. not even your fellow Trinitarians who are reading this.

Taking up mind-reading now are we Cal? You truly are a legend in your own mind.

No. I don't do that with any doctrine. When I study baptism, I take all the passages I can find on baptism. If someone says it's essential for salvation, I look up passages on salvation also.

You have shown nothing of the sort of what you claim. I do not accept your premise, criteria, or conclusion.

Now I've seen you play Dr. Phil already. Don't add playing Sylvia Browne to the mix.

[Cal_Minian]

Taking up mind-reading now are we Cal? You truly are a legend in your own mind.

No. I don't do that with any doctrine. When I study baptism, I take all the passages I can find on baptism. If someone says it's essential for salvation, I look up passages on salvation also.

You have shown nothing of the sort of what you claim. I do not accept your premise, criteria, or conclusion.

Now I've seen you play Dr. Phil already. Don't add playing Sylvia Browne to the mix.

Fine,
You take all the passages on baptism. Great. So do I!

Now please define how you determine if a bible writer is teaching about baptism.

This will illustrate the problem with the Trinity.

The Trinity teaches that three persons are one God. Take away one person and there is no Trinity. Find three persons but no mention of them being one God and you have no Trinity.

There are no passages "on the Trinity" in Scripture and THAT is exactly my point.

The Trinity is dependant upon multiple concepts. It is a house of cards. Take away one card and the whole thing falls down.


BOOM!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Fine,
You take all the passages on baptism. Great. So do I!

Now please define how you determine if a bible writer is teaching about baptism.

This will illustrate the problem with the Trinity.

The Trinity teaches that three persons are one God. Take away one person and there is no Trinity. Find three persons but no mention of them being one God and you have no Trinity.

There are no passages "on the Trinity" in Scripture and THAT is exactly my point.

The Trinity is dependant upon multiple concepts. It is a house of cards. Take away one card and the whole thing falls down.


BOOM!

Actually, the whole of Scripture is like that. In understanding the story of redemption, one starts at the beginning and keeps going until reaching the end of Revelation. This is the way all biblical doctrines are formulated.

When we look at the Scriptures, we come to conclusions about Jesus and about God that naturally lead us to the Trinity.

If you're saying the Trinity is never formulated in one passage, then I'm going to say, "So what?" That's not a problem for me.

I'd say pick up a good tome on systematic theology and learn how exegesis has been done for centuries.

[Cal_Minian]

Actually, the whole of Scripture is like that. In understanding the story of redemption, one starts at the beginning and keeps going until reaching the end of Revelation. This is the way all biblical doctrines are formulated.

When we look at the Scriptures, we come to conclusions about Jesus and about God that naturally lead us to the Trinity.

If you're saying the Trinity is never formulated in one passage, then I'm going to say, "So what?" That's not a problem for me.

I'd say pick up a good tome on systematic theology and learn how exegesis has been done for centuries.

You said that you would take all the passages on baptism in order to understand baptism, and I asked you how you would recognize they were about baptism in the first place.

You never answered this and you can't because you would have to concede my point. For we can select the passages on baptism because they bible writers are teaching or commenting on the concept of baptism, a concept that a bible writer had already articulated in at least its basic form.

They built upon a foundation of rock, not sand or a house of cards.

I claim victory.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You said that you would take all the passages on baptism in order to understand baptism, and I asked you how you would recognize they were about baptism in the first place.

You never answered this and you can't because you would have to concede my point. For we can select the passages on baptism because they bible writers are teaching or commenting on the concept of baptism, a concept that a bible writer had already articulated in at least its basic form.

They built upon a foundation of rock, not sand or a house of cards.

I claim victory.

You claim too early.

I say to get to the Trinity, you take passages on Christ, God, salvation, the atonement, etc. and see what unifies them. The Trinity is the solution.

One who puts his armor on should not boast like one who takes it off.

[Cal_Minian]

You claim too early.

I say to get to the Trinity, you take passages on Christ, God, salvation, the atonement, etc. and see what unifies them. The Trinity is the solution.

One who puts his armor on should not boast like one who takes it off.

Dear ApologiaNick,
Welcome back!

So you then admit that one must take passages from different contexts to justify the Trinity!

The question I have kept on asking is why is it that the Trinity stands alone? Why must one construct a doctrine to "solve" problems with other doctrines when no bible writer teaches that one cannot understand atonement, etc without a new revelation?

Why does the Trinity stand alone?

Why believe something like that?

Additionally, you do not make an argument but rather an excuse. You have not demonstrated why atonement and salvation need the Trinity from Scripture.

This confirms another point I have made. The Trinity is a foundational doctrine, a world-view for Trinitarians.

No other foundational is derived this way.

Why?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear ApologiaNick,
Welcome back!

So you then admit that one must take passages from different contexts to justify the Trinity!

The question I have kept on asking is why is it that the Trinity stands alone? Why must one construct a doctrine to "solve" problems with other doctrines when no bible writer teaches that one cannot understand atonement, etc without a new revelation?

Why does the Trinity stand alone?

Why believe something like that?

Additionally, you do not make an argument but rather an excuse. You have not demonstrated why atonement and salvation need the Trinity from Scripture.

This confirms another point I have made. The Trinity is a foundational doctrine, a world-view for Trinitarians.

No other foundational is derived this way.

Why?

Actually Cal, all my doctrines are derived the same way. I don't go to one passage to get the main teaching on any doctrine be it eschatology, soteriology, Christology, Theology, etc.

I take all of Scripture speaking with one voice and let it speak and show me what concepts it presents. The concept it presented throughout history has been called "The Trinity."

Kind of the same thing done with the idea of the Theocratic Kingdom.

[Cal_Minian]

I had said:


Dear ApologiaNick,
Welcome back!

So you then admit that one must take passages from different contexts to justify the Trinity!

The question I have kept on asking is why is it that the Trinity stands alone? Why must one construct a doctrine to "solve" problems with other doctrines when no bible writer teaches that one cannot understand atonement, etc without a new revelation?

Why does the Trinity stand alone?

Why believe something like that?

Additionally, you do not make an argument but rather an excuse. You have not demonstrated why atonement and salvation need the Trinity from Scripture.

This confirms another point I have made. The Trinity is a foundational doctrine, a world-view for Trinitarians.

No other foundational is derived this way.

Why?



To which you replied:


Actually Cal, all my doctrines are derived the same way. I don't go to one passage to get the main teaching on any doctrine be it eschatology, soteriology, Christology, Theology, etc.

I take all of Scripture speaking with one voice and let it speak and show me what concepts it presents. The concept it presented throughout history has been called "The Trinity."

Kind of the same thing done with the idea of the Theocratic Kingdom.


Dear ApologiaNick,
I am glad you are still thinking about this. However, you don't appear to be able to respond to this without presenting at least one straw man argument!

I have never claimed that we must only utilize one passage to derive a doctrine. I have repeatedly stated that generally more than one bible writer teaches a legitimate foundational Christian doctrine, in context, in at least its basic form. You have never supplied even one counter example.

The example I gave was Christian baptism which can be found at the beginning of the gospel accounts.

Earlier you said that to understand baptism you would go to all the passages that spoke about baptism. Great! So do I. Then I asked you, how do you know if a passage is speaking about baptism? I think you got the point but never answered back.

The fact is that there are 0, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, not even 0.0000000000001 passages in Scripture where a bible writer teaches the Trinity.

No bible writer teaches that three persons are one God. No bible writer teaches that three persons are co-eternal. No bible writer teaches even the concept of multiple persons in one being.

The Trinity stands alone. There are no foundational doctrines, doctrines that we need to build other doctrines that are derived in this way.

For example, in order to have eternal life we must appeal to the ransom sacrifice of Christ. We must understand that even if we die we will be resurrected. These three doctrines are all required and dependant upon each other.

However we do not derive these individual doctrines, even in their most basic forms, but taking a verse which says "eternal" and another verse from another bible writer teaching something else about "life" and construct a docrine of "eternal life." No, multiple bible writers have already combined these elements together for us in at least their basic form.

Does any one passage inform us as to all facets of "eternal life"? No, but it is taught in its basic form by bible writers teaching this in context.

That is how all legitimate Christian doctrine is in fact derived. We may disagree on the interpretation but we both know that the concept of "eternal life" is a basic, foundational Christian Doctrine.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I had said:



To which you replied:


Dear ApologiaNick,
I am glad you are still thinking about this. However, you don't appear to be able to respond to this without presenting at least one straw man argument!

I have never claimed that we must only utilize one passage to derive a doctrine. I have repeatedly stated that generally more than one bible writer teaches a legitimate foundational Christian doctrine, in context, in at least its basic form. You have never supplied even one counter example.

The example I gave was Christian baptism which can be found at the beginning of the gospel accounts.

Earlier you said that to understand baptism you would go to all the passages that spoke about baptism. Great! So do I. Then I asked you, how do you know if a passage is speaking about baptism? I think you got the point but never answered back.

The fact is that there are 0, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, not even 0.0000000000001 passages in Scripture where a bible writer teaches the Trinity.

No bible writer teaches that three persons are one God. No bible writer teaches that three persons are co-eternal. No bible writer teaches even the concept of multiple persons in one being.

The Trinity stands alone. There are no foundational doctrines, doctrines that we need to build other doctrines that are derived in this way.

For example, in order to have eternal life we must appeal to the ransom sacrifice of Christ. We must understand that even if we die we will be resurrected. These three doctrines are all required and dependant upon each other.

However we do not derive these individual doctrines, even in their most basic forms, but taking a verse which says "eternal" and another verse from another bible writer teaching something else about "life" and construct a docrine of "eternal life." No, multiple bible writers have already combined these elements together for us in at least their basic form.

Does any one passage inform us as to all facets of "eternal life"? No, but it is taught in its basic form by bible writers teaching this in context.

That is how all legitimate Christian doctrine is in fact derived. We may disagree on the interpretation but we both know that the concept of "eternal life" is a basic, foundational Christian Doctrine.

No. I would not go to the beginning of the gospels to understand baptism. I would go to the epistles mainly and look at various sayings to see what baptism means in the life of the new believer. You still haven't supplied an example I accept and you're still providing a criteria I don't accept.

I told you how we arrived at the Trinity. You didn't accept it. You're still pushing this straw man idea on how a doctrine must be formed and you've yet to show it.

[Cal_Minian]

No. I would not go to the beginning of the gospels to understand baptism. I would go to the epistles mainly and look at various sayings to see what baptism means in the life of the new believer. You still haven't supplied an example I accept and you're still providing a criteria I don't accept.

I told you how we arrived at the Trinity. You didn't accept it. You're still pushing this straw man idea on how a doctrine must be formed and you've yet to show it.

Dear ApologiaNick,
I merely cited the possibility that one can find baptism taught at be beginning of the gospel accounts. I point out this to prove that we do not need to manufacture a doctrine of baptism from a water verse, a dunking verse and a repentance verse.

It was not offered to infer that one must start from the first mention of a subject and study in a certain chronological order.

I have continued to ask you, to no avail, how you identify the "baptism" verses. You said earlier that you would arrive at a complete doctrine of baptism by looking at all the "baptism" verses. I have not seen you answer this.

This is important because there are no "Trinity" verses. The Trinity is built upon multiple dependecies, none of which are taught in context by bible writers like legitimate foundational doctrines such as baptism.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear ApologiaNick,
I merely cited the possibility that one can find baptism taught at be beginning of the gospel accounts. I point out this to prove that we do not need to manufacture a doctrine of baptism from a water verse, a dunking verse and a repentance verse.

Actually, we do. This passage only shows that baptism happens. Is it needed for the NT believer? We need the epistles and Acts. Is it necessary for salvation? What is the appropriate method? All of these require further study.




I have continued to ask you, to no avail, how you identify the "baptism" verses. You said earlier that you would arrive at a complete doctrine of baptism by looking at all the "baptism" verses. I have not seen you answer this.

For this one, I can look at the verses that mention baptism. I can also look at verses that refer to washing and cleansing as well.


This is important because there are no "Trinity" verses. The Trinity is built upon multiple dependecies, none of which are taught in context by bible writers like legitimate foundational doctrines such as baptism.

I would first off say that we could say the same about the doctrine of the Theocratic Kingdom.

I would also say the Trinity comes from studying the teaching on God, on Christ, on the atonement, and on the resurrection in conjunction with Jesus's claims about himself. I'm amiss as to why this is so hard to get across.

[Rayado]

I'm amiss as to why this is so hard to get across.

It was a stake! :whack:


















:hehe:

[Cal_Minian]

Actually, we do. This passage only shows that baptism happens. Is it needed for the NT believer? We need the epistles and Acts. Is it necessary for salvation? What is the appropriate method? All of these require further study.

For this one, I can look at the verses that mention baptism. I can also look at verses that refer to washing and cleansing as well.

I would first off say that we could say the same about the doctrine of the Theocratic Kingdom.

I would also say the Trinity comes from studying the teaching on God, on Christ, on the atonement, and on the resurrection in conjunction with Jesus's claims about himself. I'm amiss as to why this is so hard to get across.

You continue to say that you "can look at the verses that mention baptism" and this is an admission that there ARE verses than mention baptism. There are bible writers who TEACH about baptism.

However there are no bible writers who teach that three persons are one being, let alone the one God.

I do not know what you think the doctrine of the Theocratic Kingdom entails. Theo = God and Krasis = rule. The is the Kingdom of God rules. You mean you can't find any verses that say that God will rule the kingdom?



ASV Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

And you can find the Trinity but not the fact that God rules his Kindom? :lol:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You continue to say that you "can look at the verses that mention baptism" and this is an admission that there ARE verses than mention baptism. There are bible writers who TEACH about baptism.

However there are no bible writers who teach that three persons are one being, let alone the one God.

I do not know what you think the doctrine of the Theocratic Kingdom entails. Theo = God and Krasis = rule. The is the Kingdom of God rules. You mean you can't find any verses that say that God will rule the kingdom?



And you can find the Trinity but not the fact that God rules his Kindom? :lol:

Oh I can find that God is sovereign. I just can't find that it's called the Theocratic Kingdom and by your standard, the concept isn't enough, the writers had to use the word in order to convey the idea.

I've told you how we arrive at the Trinity. If you can't accept it, then you can't accept it.

[Cal_Minian]

Oh I can find that God is sovereign. I just can't find that it's called the Theocratic Kingdom and by your standard, the concept isn't enough, the writers had to use the word in order to convey the idea.

I've told you how we arrive at the Trinity. If you can't accept it, then you can't accept it.


This is at least the second time you have raised that old crusty straw-man argument. I have never argued and never will that the Trinity is false because that word is not found in the bible.

My argument is that no bible writer teaches that doctrine, in context, as a bible teaching.

The concept of the Theocratic Kingdom is found in the bible by your own admission but what is finally apparent is that you now agree that the concept of the Trinity is not found in the bible!
Thank you.

Case closed!

[Xavier]

Heretics are funny.

[Cal_Minian]

Heretics are funny.

I feel humor needs to accompany a sound thrashing, don't you? :lol:

[Xavier]

I feel humor needs to accompany a sound thrashing, don't you? :lol:
Laughing AT you... Not with you.

[Cal_Minian]

Laughing AT you... Not with you.

Well, then Mr. Funny-Man, would you like to contribute to this thread instead of taking pot-shots?

Do you approve of ApologiaNick's straw-man argument to the effect that I argue the Trinity is false because the word is not in the bible -- I don't.

I argue that all legitimate foundational (world-view) Christian doctrines are taught in at least their basic form by a bible writer or bible writers in context in a passage where they are teaching that subject.

Baptism, eternal life, eternal punishment, resurrection, ransom, etc are all examples of foundational doctrines which we use to inform our view of other bible topics and all of them fit this cateogry.

The Trinity stands alone.

I have explained this concept to ApologiaNick numerous times in this very thread and he vacilates between different straw-man arguments.

The Trinity is an outlier. Why believe it?

[Krusader]

This is at least the second time you have raised that old crusty straw-man argument. I have never argued and never will that the Trinity is false because that word is not found in the bible.

My argument is that no bible writer teaches that doctrine, in context, as a bible teaching.

The concept of the Theocratic Kingdom is found in the bible by your own admission but what is finally apparent is that you now agree that the concept of the Trinity is not found in the bible!
Thank you.

Case closed!

The Lord Jesus, Himself, taught the Trinity:"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Note, it is not "names of." Note: The Son and Holy Ghost are mentioned alongside of the Father, who said His glory He would not give another.

Note, He did not say "Jehovah's active force." Why add the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost is just a non-personal force of Jehovah? Doesn't make sense.

Note: Jesus did not say to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Jehovah's spirit-led organization.

[Cal_Minian]

The Lord Jesus, Himself, taught the Trinity:"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Note, it is not "names of." Note: The Son and Holy Ghost are mentioned alongside of the Father, who said His glory He would not give another.




Crusader, you make a good modalist. The Oneness Pentecostals point out that in the NT the only name one is baptized in is Jesus and therefore the Father, Son and holy spirit and the singular name are all Jesus.... hence the name Jesus only.

Of course the verse is of no use to Trinitarians either because as I posted earlier the basic concept of the Trinity needs to include more than just three mentioned together. In John 17 Jesus says his disciples are one en just as he and his Father are one. But they are not one being.

Peter, James and John are mentioned together numerous times but they are not a Trinity of three persons in one human.

What is missing from your formula is that three are one God.

Additionally what do you do with 1John 5:7 where the spriit and water and blood agree in one?



ASV 1 John 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.


By your same logic since the three are together and are on one thing then water and blood must also be persons and in fact God!





Note, He did not say "Jehovah's active force." Why add the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost is just a non-personal force of Jehovah? Doesn't make sense.



Your first comment is an argument from silence. As for the second, BDAG notes that this phrase can mean "the sense of EIS TO ONOMA=‘with mention of the name.’






Note: Jesus did not say to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Jehovah's spirit-led organization.

Argument from silence.

[Krusader]

Crusader, you make a good modalist. The Oneness Pentecostals point out that in the NT the only name one is baptized in is Jesus and therefore the Father, Son and holy spirit and the singular name are all Jesus.... hence the name Jesus only.

Of course the verse is of no use to Trinitarians either because as I posted earlier the basic concept of the Trinity needs to include more than just three mentioned together. In John 17 Jesus says his disciples are one en just as he and his Father are one. But they are not one being.

Peter, James and John are mentioned together numerous times but they are not a Trinity of three persons in one human.

What is missing from your formula is that three are one God.

Additionally what do you do with 1John 5:7 where the spriit and water and blood agree in one?



By your same logic since the three are together and are on one thing then water and blood must also be persons and in fact God!




Your first comment is an argument from silence. As for the second, BDAG notes that this phrase can mean "the sense of EIS TO ONOMA=‘with mention of the name.’





Argument from silence.

No, the modalists have a good point, although I deny their conclusion. The Name of God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He is one Being, of one substance, power and glory, subsisting as a tri-personal God. There is only one God, not three, and His Name is Jehovah Father, Jehovah Son, and Jehovah Holy Ghost.

Nowhere did He ever instruct us to baptize people in the name of some kind of spirit-led organization. That is blasphemy.

[Cal_Minian]

No, the modalists have a good point, although I deny their conclusion. The Name of God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He is one Being, of one substance, power and glory, subsisting as a tri-personal God. There is only one God, not three, and His Name is Jehovah Father, Jehovah Son, and Jehovah Holy Ghost.


You can make that claim that the name is Jehovah, but there is no reason why the Greek ONOMA has a reference to a personal name or even a title here. BDAG speaks about the idiom as in getting baptized while invoking the name of "Father" and the name of "Son" and the name of "holy spirit." ONOMA (name) can also be considered authority. There are just too many good possiblities that grammatically and contextually don't fit your preconception.

And, since this is your proof-text of the Trinity you bear the burden of proof. You have failed.

[Krusader]

You can make that claim that the name is Jehovah, but there is no reason why the Greek ONOMA has a reference to a personal name or even a title here. BDAG speaks about the idiom as in getting baptized while invoking the name of "Father" and the name of "Son" and the name of "holy spirit." ONOMA (name) can also be considered authority. There are just too many good possiblities that grammatically and contextually don't fit your preconception.

And, since this is your proof-text of the Trinity you bear the burden of proof. You have failed.

So, then it's contextually allowable to baptize your proselytes in the name of Jehovah's "spirit-led" organization. Please provide Scirptural references for this form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

[Xavier]

Well, then Mr. Funny-Man, would you like to contribute to this thread instead of taking pot-shots?

Nope, you are too clueless to be worth talking with. I wouldn't stand to learn anything and you are (from what I've seen) unable to learn.

[Cal_Minian]

So, then it's contextually allowable to baptize your proselytes in the name of Jehovah's "spirit-led" organization. Please provide Scirptural references for this form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Yes, In the first century Christians were identified by the gifts of the spirit because they were led by the spirit. It was a sign that this new religion of Christianity now had God's backing, and not the Jews.

You quibble on an interpretation like this and yet swallow the camel by teaching that God is three persons when no bible writer ever articulates that concept. The Trinity is a foundational concept. The holy spirit does exist. We simply disagree as to what it is. That is a matter of intepretation.

[Krusader]

Yes, In the first century Christians were identified by the gifts of the spirit because they were led by the spirit. It was a sign that this new religion of Christianity now had God's backing, and not the Jews.

You quibble on an interpretation like this and yet swallow the camel by teaching that God is three persons when no bible writer ever articulates that concept. The Trinity is a foundational concept. The holy spirit does exist. We simply disagree as to what it is. That is a matter of intepretation.

A word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world nor the world to come. You need to get out of an organization that will reap punishment for blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

[Cal_Minian]

A word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world nor the world to come. You need to get out of an organization that will reap punishment for blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Dear Crusader,
Don't take this the wrong way, but you are a bit unbalanced. You assume what you seek to prove. You have not proven that our view that the holy spirit is the spirit of the Father and not another person is false.

In addition you continually ignore the exegetical points I raise.

If you have an exegetical point to prove from Scripture, please do so. If you start making some sense I might even respond further. If you continue to ignore my points there will no longer be a reason for me to read your posts.

[Krusader]

[

I'm off balanced - and you're the sane one, right? You are trying to defend baptism done in the name of Jehovah's spirit-led organization, with absolutely no biblical proof or any proof at all that this was ever included in any baptismal formula in the entire history of the Christian Church until the JWs decided to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and replace him with their organization.

Oh yeah, that's sane.

What's the matter Cal, got you on the run?

[Cal_Minian]

[

I'm off balanced - and you're the sane one, right? You are trying to defend baptism done in the name of Jehovah's spirit-led organization, with absolutely no biblical proof or any proof at all that this was ever included in any baptismal formula in the entire history of the Christian Church until the JWs decided to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and replace him with their organization.

Oh yeah, that's sane.

What's the matter Cal, got you on the run?

Crusader,
No, you are off-topic. I maintain that no bible writer taught the Trinity, in context and you brought up Matt 28:19-20. My exegesis proved that your view could not be supported, that the ONOMA or name was according to BDAG a reference to be baptized while invoking the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. I also showed that 1John 5:7 with the spirit, water and blood being one in agreement did not make the water and blood persons. So your proof-text is shot.

To try to recover you brought up a bit of sleight of hand and change the subject to the fact that you do not think JWs should baptize in the name of the spirit directed organization. That is a dodge, pure and simple and does not let you off the hook for being unable to prove your points.

Also, Matthew 28:19-20 is descriptive not prescriptive. In other words, those words do not need to be recited word for word during baptisms.

How do I know this? Because of the many examples where Scripture decribes Christians being baptized in the name of Jesus with no mention of anyone or anything else.

I am not going down your rabbit trail.

It is still true that no bible writer teaches the Trinity, in context, as a clear biblical teaching. This makes it stand apart from all legitimate foundational Christian doctrines like baptism.

[Krusader]

Crusader,
No, you are off-topic. I maintain that no bible writer taught the Trinity, in context and you brought up Matt 28:19-20. My exegesis proved that your view could not be supported, that the ONOMA or name was according to BDAG a reference to be baptized while invoking the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. I also showed that 1John 5:7 with the spirit, water and blood being one in agreement did not make the water and blood persons. So your proof-text is shot.

To try to recover you brought up a bit of sleight of hand and change the subject to the fact that you do not think JWs should baptize in the name of the spirit directed organization. That is a dodge, pure and simple and does not let you off the hook for being unable to prove your points.

Also, Matthew 28:19-20 is descriptive not prescriptive. In other words, those words do not need to be recited word for word during baptisms.

How do I know this? Because of the many examples where Scripture decribes Christians being baptized in the name of Jesus with no mention of anyone or anything else.

I am not going down your rabbit trail.

It is still true that no bible writer teaches the Trinity, in context, as a clear biblical teaching. This makes it stand apart from all legitimate foundational Christian doctrines like baptism.

How on earth can you fault me when you are dunking people in the name of an organization that usurps the place of the Holy Spirit. You have fallen down the dark hole of apostasy, don't worry about rabbit trails.

[Cal_Minian]

How on earth can you fault me when you are dunking people in the name of an organization that usurps the place of the Holy Spirit. You have fallen down the dark hole of apostasy, don't worry about rabbit trails.

Because you are off topic and changing the subject when you have not had the decency to address my previous points. When you have done that you have the right to make new ones.

Well, you have the right to make new ones but I can't take you seriously until you address the previous ones. Why should I waste my time on new ones. Your track record is hit and run... hit, obfuscate and run... hit change the subject and run..... get the point?

[Krusader]

Because you are off topic and changing the subject when you have not had the decency to address my previous points. When you have done that you have the right to make new ones.

Well, you have the right to make new ones but I can't take you seriously until you address the previous ones. Why should I waste my time on new ones. Your track record is hit and run... hit, obfuscate and run... hit change the subject and run..... get the point?

I think you need to stop and put away your WT books and open a Bible. Don't listen to me - listen to God.

[Cal_Minian]

I think you need to stop and put away your WT books and open a Bible. Don't listen to me - listen to God.

I have been reading the bible and looking for a writer who teaches that God is three persons. However, no bible writer teaches that three persons are one God. No bible writer teaches that three persons are co-eternal. No bible writer teaches even the concept of multiple persons in one being.

The Trinity stands alone. There are no foundational doctrines, doctrines that we need to build other doctrines that are derived in this way.

For example, in order to have eternal life we must appeal to the ransom sacrifice of Christ. We must understand that even if we die we will be resurrected. These three doctrines are all required and dependant upon each other.

However we do not derive these individual doctrines, even in their most basic forms, but taking a verse which says "eternal" and another verse from another bible writer teaching something else about "life" and construct a docrine of "eternal life." No, multiple bible writers have already combined these elements together for us in at least their basic form.

Does any one passage inform us as to all facets of "eternal life"? No, but it is taught in its basic form by bible writers teaching this in context.

That is how all legitimate Christian doctrine is in fact derived. We may disagree on the interpretation but we both know that the concept of "eternal life" is a basic, foundational Christian Doctrine.


So if you want me to read the bible I am glad to continue. .... just show me where a bible writer teaches the Trinity in context and we can discuss those passages.

[Krusader]

I have been reading the bible and looking for a writer who teaches that God is three persons. However, no bible writer teaches that three persons are one God. No bible writer teaches that three persons are co-eternal. No bible writer teaches even the concept of multiple persons in one being.

The Trinity stands alone. There are no foundational doctrines, doctrines that we need to build other doctrines that are derived in this way.

For example, in order to have eternal life we must appeal to the ransom sacrifice of Christ. We must understand that even if we die we will be resurrected. These three doctrines are all required and dependant upon each other.

However we do not derive these individual doctrines, even in their most basic forms, but taking a verse which says "eternal" and another verse from another bible writer teaching something else about "life" and construct a docrine of "eternal life." No, multiple bible writers have already combined these elements together for us in at least their basic form.

Does any one passage inform us as to all facets of "eternal life"? No, but it is taught in its basic form by bible writers teaching this in context.

That is how all legitimate Christian doctrine is in fact derived. We may disagree on the interpretation but we both know that the concept of "eternal life" is a basic, foundational Christian Doctrine.


So if you want me to read the bible I am glad to continue. .... just show me where a bible writer teaches the Trinity in context and we can discuss those passages.

The Bible teaches the concept of one God who comes to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have tri-personal relationships, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another. You won't find the Bible saying the word "Trinity" or "Three Persons," which are theological terms used to explain what is found in Scripture.

You like the term "foundational," yet the foundation you have built your belief system on is the occultism of Russell (who framed much of his theology based on the measurements of a pyramid).

Why not set aside your Watchtowers and Awakes and collateral reading material, and simply study the Bible?

[Cal_Minian]

The Bible teaches the concept of one God who comes to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have tri-personal relationships, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another. You won't find the Bible saying the word "Trinity" or "Three Persons," which are theological terms used to explain what is found in Scripture.

You like the term "foundational," yet the foundation you have built your belief system on is the occultism of Russell (who framed much of his theology based on the measurements of a pyramid).

Why not set aside your Watchtowers and Awakes and collateral reading material, and simply study the Bible?

You have a bad habit of spouting your catechism and not providing scriptural support. Monotheism is the worship and belief in one Almighty God. Look at all the scriptures where the term "one God" is found and you know what you find? The God and Father of Jesus Christ.

Only the Father is the one God of Christian monotheism. That is monotheism.





ASV Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

ASV 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

ASV Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

ASV 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,



Who do bible writers teach is the one God of Christian monotheism? The Father.

Bible writers do not teach that the one God is two persons or three persons, but one person, the Father.

Your premise is flawed.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

This is at least the second time you have raised that old crusty straw-man argument. I have never argued and never will that the Trinity is false because that word is not found in the bible.

My argument is that no bible writer teaches that doctrine, in context, as a bible teaching.

The concept of the Theocratic Kingdom is found in the bible by your own admission but what is finally apparent is that you now agree that the concept of the Trinity is not found in the bible!
Thank you.

Case closed!

Sorry Cal. Never said such a thing and if you think I did, you misunderstood my words and I AM the authority on what my words mean. The concept of the Trinity IS found in the Bible or else we would have never reached it.

Cal. Is this how you win debates? You suddenly jump up and down and say "I won! I won!"? That doesn't work around here. It's more the antics of a small child. If people go away, I'd say it's simply not because of powerful arguments, as you have none, but simply annoyance.

[Cal_Minian]

Sorry Cal. Never said such a thing and if you think I did, you misunderstood my words and I AM the authority on what my words mean. The concept of the Trinity IS found in the Bible or else we would have never reached it.

Cal. Is this how you win debates? You suddenly jump up and down and say "I won! I won!"? That doesn't work around here. It's more the antics of a small child. If people go away, I'd say it's simply not because of powerful arguments, as you have none, but simply annoyance.

I gave you a verse where the concept of the theocratic kingdom of God was taught in context by a bible writer.

Will you now give me a passage (I will be easy on you!) where the concept of three persons in one God is taught in context by a bible writer?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I gave you a verse where the concept of the theocratic kingdom of God was taught in context by a bible writer.

Will you now give me a passage (I will be easy on you!) where the concept of three persons in one God is taught in context by a bible writer?

For about the umpteenth time.....


That's not the criteria I use. I ask if Scripture teaches it. Not just if it's taught in one passage.

[Cal_Minian]

For about the umpteenth time.....


That's not the criteria I use. I ask if Scripture teaches it. Not just if it's taught in one passage.

You SAID that you selected all the verses about baptism and then you would combine them.

You have never and will not and keep evading and keep changing the subject every time I ask for you to provide all the verses about the Trinity.

BAPTISM in its basic form = immersion in water for repentance of sins
TRINITY in its basic form = three persons in one God.

How do you determine which are the Trinity verses?

This is not rocket science.

[Xavier]

But then, of course, Baptism isn't about the repentance of sin per se as much as it is about showing yourself to be a part of the Christian Community. However, once again, in your absurdly simplistic notion of theology, you've missed what the REAL picture is in favour of what you wish the picture to be.

[Cal_Minian]

But then, of course, Baptism isn't about the repentance of sin per se as much as it is about showing yourself to be a part of the Christian Community. However, once again, in your absurdly simplistic notion of theology, you've missed what the REAL picture is in favour of what you wish the picture to be.

My picture is the same one that bible writers teach in context. Call that simplistic if you will.

[BibleWheel]

Hi Cal,

I've read through this thread and think I can add a little light.

I do not believe that your focus on the Trinity is the true issue at hand. The true issue is the Divinity of Christ. The Trinity is the result of Christians trying to understand the Divinity of Christ in light of the Unity of God and the distinction between the Father and the Son.

It is easy to prove that this is the genuine issue. All you need to do is ask yourself how you would reconcile these doctrines. Each doctrine is taught in context by biblical writers as you demand. Here is a brief overview:

1) One God - Deut 6:4 etc
2) The Son is God - John 1:1-18, Col 1:15-17, etc
3) Son is distinct from the Father - Matt 3 (Baptism of Christ), John 5 (two witnesses must be distinct), etc.

Now I know that you agree with Doctrines #1 and #3 and that you deny doctrine #2. But that is not the point. The point is that Doctrine #2 is the ORIGIN of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is not a pagan imposition on Christianity. It is the result of Christians trying to understand fundamental doctrines taught "in context by biblical writers." So going around and around on the doctrine of the Trinity will not get us anywhere.

Here is a challenge for you. Can you recapitulate Christian history in your imagination? What I mean is this. Suppose you, like many of the most significant writers in early Christian history, really believed Doctrines #1, #2, and #3.

How would you reconcile them?

This is a very important thought experiment. I am not asking you to compromise your disagreement with Doctrine #2. I am only asking that you try to imagine for a few minutes that you - like millions of Christians - actually, really, and truly believe all three doctrines #1, #2 and #3.

How would you reconcile them?

Richard

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You SAID that you selected all the verses about baptism and then you would combine them.

You have never and will not and keep evading and keep changing the subject every time I ask for you to provide all the verses about the Trinity.

BAPTISM in its basic form = immersion in water for repentance of sins
TRINITY in its basic form = three persons in one God.

How do you determine which are the Trinity verses?

This is not rocket science.

Again, let me say this as the point does not seem to be getting across. (errrr....astake. Happy Rayado?)

I do not accept your criteria.

When you argue against your opponent, his argument must be shown to be false by his criteria and not by yours. If you think my argument doesn't meet your criteria, big news to me. You have to show it by my criteria which you have not done.

[Xavier]

My picture is the same one that bible writers teach in context. Call that simplistic if you will.

No, Cal. MY picture is the one that the Bible writers teach in context. Yours is one of wooden literalism and shows a complete failure to understand ANY themes of New Testement Theology.

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

I've read through this thread and think I can add a little light.

I do not believe that your focus on the Trinity is the true issue at hand. The true issue is the Divinity of Christ.
Richard

Dear BibleWheel,
I can understand why you would rather defend the divinity of Christ than the Trinity. But that is not necessary for JWs because we teach the divinity of Christ.

Now, are you of the beleif that merely the divinity of Christ is essential for Christians or is it the Trinity that is essential.

Oneness Pentecostals believe in the Divinity of Christ but they believe the Son is the Father.

Is that ok too? Or do you really need to make a distinction of hypostasis like Gregegory of Damascus and John of Nyssa say is necessary?

Also, you say that there is 'one God'. However all the verses in the Bible that teach that there is 'one God' identify the Father as the one God.

That is what monotheism is all about..... worshiping the one God. The Father is called the 'one God' numerous times in Scripture (1Co 8:6; Eph 4:6; Mal 2:10; 1Ti 2:5) but the Son is never called the 'one God.'

BTW your entire premise is flawed because Deuteronomy 6:4 does not even contain the term 'one God.'

So, now that the only verses which have the phrase 'one God' are seen to be the God and Father of Jesus Christ, even your proof that the Son is God like the Father is God is fatally flawed.

[Cal_Minian]

Again, let me say this as the point does not seem to be getting across. (errrr....astake. Happy Rayado?)

I do not accept your criteria.

When you argue against your opponent, his argument must be shown to be false by his criteria and not by yours. If you think my argument doesn't meet your criteria, big news to me. You have to show it by my criteria which you have not done.

Dear ApologiaNick,
You yourself said that you would look at all the baptism verses to determine the doctrine of baptism and you continue to dodge my question as to how you identify trinity verses.

So I am attempting to show you that your own criteria does not work on the Trinity. That being said I do not NEED to prove it by your own criteria because I have the whole of the entire biblical witness on my side.

Of all the foundational doctrines taught in Christendom only the Trinity needs to be pieced together like a quilt at a sewing bee.

[BibleWheel]

Dear BibleWheel,
I can understand why you would rather defend the divinity of Christ than the Trinity. But that is not necessary for JWs because we teach the divinity of Christ.
Hi Cal,

Good to meet you.

Are we equivocating over the meaning of the phrase "Divinity of Christ"? I used this phrase with what I understand to be its standard meaning as a reference to the fact that Christ is God. Since you don't believe this, you must be using the phrase in a way contrary to its standard theological definition. What does "Divinity of Christ" mean to you?


Now, are you of the beleif that merely the divinity of Christ is essential for Christians or is it the Trinity that is essential.
As I wrote in the previous note, the doctrine of the Trinity is a consequence of the Divinity of Christ viewed in light of the rest of the Bible. If the Bible did not teach the Divinity of Christ, then we wouldn't be having a conversation about His membership in a Trinity, now would we? And since the Divinity of Christ is taught "in context by biblical writers" it meets the standard you set up.

Your effort to put the emphasis on the Trinity seems like a set up for your "silver bullet" about it not be taught in a single context. Since this is not the real issue at hand, I felt it necessary to expose your trick. Now we are talking about the real issue in terms you can not simply reject as not being "taught in context by biblical writers."


Oneness Pentecostals believe in the Divinity of Christ but they believe the Son is the Father.
And that's their problem. I don't understand why you mention this, since I specifically asserted the distinction between the Father and Son in point #3 of my previous post. The fact that others deny Doctrine #3 should not be an issue here since neither you nor I deny that doctrine.


Is that ok too? Or do you really need to make a distinction of hypostasis like Gregegory of Damascus and John of Nyssa say is necessary?
There is no need at this point to introduce technical Greek theological terms. Those terms came into use AFTER the fact of the distinction between the Father and the Son was already perceived by Christians. So lets just cut to the chase - as far as I know, you and I agree that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, so why confuse the issue?


Also, you say that there is 'one God'.
No Cal .... WE (that's you and me) say there is 'one God'. It is one of our primary points of agreement.


However all the verses in the Bible that teach that there is 'one God' identify the Father as the one God.

That is what monotheism is all about..... worshiping the one God. The Father is called the 'one God' numerous times in Scripture (1Co 8:6; Eph 4:6; Mal 2:10; 1Ti 2:5) but the Son is never called the 'one God.'
That's another topic. We could discuss it if you like .... after you show me you have the ability and the interest to at least attempt an answer to my challenge. Why have you not even addressed it?


BTW your entire premise is flawed because Deuteronomy 6:4 does not even contain the term 'one God.'
Come on Cal ... I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive proof of a point I knew you already agreed with! You seem to be dodging. Why did you ignore the ENTIRE POINT of post?

Come on - loosen up a little. Spread your wings. Open your mind. All I asked you to do is to "imagine for a few minitutes" that you - like millions of Christians - believed in those doctrines #1, #2, and #3 that are taught in context by Bible writers.

Like I said, this is a very important exercise. If you can not place yourself in the mind set of those you disagree with long enough to at least perceive their point of view, you will remain ignorant of their true thought process and all your efforts to convince them of your beliefs will be vain because they will all recognize that you have not even tried to understand their doctrines.

Its really quite simple. I'm just asking you to reason with me from the Scriptures.

Open you mind. Think. Use your God-given imagination to explore the thoughts of others that you disagree with. If you can do this, then you will have gotten behind their "firewall" and you will know the inner workings of their thoughts, and so if they are in error you can destroy their false fortress in fortnight!

That is what you want to do, isn't it?

Richard

[Krusader]

JWs do not teach the divinity of Christ as understood in Christian theology. What they teach is Arianism and Gnosticism. They believe that Jehovah, their deity, could not interact with the world except through an intermediary (Jesus), through whom he created and redeemed the world. At most, Jesus is some kind of subdeity in Witness teaching, and this is totally contrary to the monotheism of Christianity which excludes the possibililty of more than one God. If JWs wish to claim Jesus as a subdeity, then they are polytheistic heretics, right up there with the Mormons.

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

Good to meet you.

Are we equivocating over the meaning of the phrase "Divinity of Christ"? I used this phrase with what I understand to be its standard meaning as a reference to the fact that Christ is God. Since you don't believe this, you must be using the phrase in a way contrary to its standard theological definition. What does "Divinity of Christ" mean to you?


As I wrote in the previous note, the doctrine of the Trinity is a consequence of the Divinity of Christ viewed in light of the rest of the Bible. If the Bible did not teach the Divinity of Christ, then we wouldn't be having a conversation about His membership in a Trinity, now would we? And since the Divinity of Christ is taught "in context by biblical writers" it meets the standard you set up.

Your effort to put the emphasis on the Trinity seems like a set up for your "silver bullet" about it not be taught in a single context. Since this is not the real issue at hand, I felt it necessary to expose your trick. Now we are talking about the real issue in terms you can not simply reject as not being "taught in context by biblical writers."


And that's their problem. I don't understand why you mention this, since I specifically asserted the distinction between the Father and Son in point #3 of my previous post. The fact that others deny Doctrine #3 should not be an issue here since neither you nor I deny that doctrine.


There is no need at this point to introduce technical Greek theological terms. Those terms came into use AFTER the fact of the distinction between the Father and the Son was already perceived by Christians. So lets just cut to the chase - as far as I know, you and I agree that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, so why confuse the issue?


No Cal .... WE (that's you and me) say there is 'one God'. It is one of our primary points of agreement.


That's another topic. We could discuss it if you like .... after you show me you have the ability and the interest to at least attempt an answer to my challenge. Why have you not even addressed it?


Come on Cal ... I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive proof of a point I knew you already agreed with! You seem to be dodging. Why did you ignore the ENTIRE POINT of post?

Come on - loosen up a little. Spread your wings. Open your mind. All I asked you to do is to "imagine for a few minitutes" that you - like millions of Christians - believed in those doctrines #1, #2, and #3 that are taught in context by Bible writers.

Like I said, this is a very important exercise. If you can not place yourself in the mind set of those you disagree with long enough to at least perceive their point of view, you will remain ignorant of their true thought process and all your efforts to convince them of your beliefs will be vain because they will all recognize that you have not even tried to understand their doctrines.

Its really quite simple. I'm just asking you to reason with me from the Scriptures.

Open you mind. Think. Use your God-given imagination to explore the thoughts of others that you disagree with. If you can do this, then you will have gotten behind their "firewall" and you will know the inner workings of their thoughts, and so if they are in error you can destroy their false fortress in fortnight!

That is what you want to do, isn't it?

Richard

Dear Richard,
You cannot dismiss my argument. I have already refuted your premise. You base your entire discussion that the bible teaches there is 'one God' and then give a verse that does not say 'one God'!

So you are shot down before you lift off! You also need to address my point that every time the bible speaks about the one God of Christian monotheism that this is a reference to the Father.

However you need a reference to 'one God' that is either Jesus or the Trinity.

You have furnished neither.

[Krusader]

Dear Richard,
You cannot dismiss my argument. I have already refuted your premise. You base your entire discussion that the bible teaches there is 'one God' and then give a verse that does not say 'one God'!

So you are shot down before you lift off! You also need to address my point that every time the bible speaks about the one God of Christian monotheism that this is a reference to the Father.

However you need a reference to 'one God' that is either Jesus or the Trinity.

You have furnished neither.

Hey, the guy clearly beat you in debate.

[BibleWheel]

Dear Richard,
You cannot dismiss my argument. I have already refuted your premise. You base your entire discussion that the bible teaches there is 'one God' and then give a verse that does not say 'one God'!

So you are shot down before you lift off! You also need to address my point that every time the bible speaks about the one God of Christian monotheism that this is a reference to the Father.

However you need a reference to 'one God' that is either Jesus or the Trinity.

You have furnished neither.

Hey Cal,

While it may be entertaining to watch you tap-dance around a direct challenge, I don't think it is very edifying.

In your first response to me, you deliberately obfuscated my point by equivocating on the meaning of "Divinity of Christ" when you asserted that the JWs also teach it. You knew perfectly well what I meant. Your deliberate equivocation is absolutely inexcusable and completely unworthy of any serious theological discussion.

But it gets worse. You then ignored my direct question as to what you meant by "Divinity of Christ" and are now attempting to twist the conversation into a dispute over what should be a fundamental point of agreement between us, viz One God.

If you don't want to meet my challenge, fine. But don't you think you would be displaying a lot more self-respect and intellectual integrity if you would just say so instead of trying to distract us with a transparently silly diversionary tap-dance?

Richard

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear ApologiaNick,
You yourself said that you would look at all the baptism verses to determine the doctrine of baptism and you continue to dodge my question as to how you identify trinity verses.

So I am attempting to show you that your own criteria does not work on the Trinity. That being said I do not NEED to prove it by your own criteria because I have the whole of the entire biblical witness on my side.

Of all the foundational doctrines taught in Christendom only the Trinity needs to be pieced together like a quilt at a sewing bee.

Just this little difference. The Trinity is a multi-facted doctrine. We take monotheism, the deity of Christ, and the deity of the Holy Spirit, as well as that only God can atone for our sins. The Trinity touches on every doctrine in some way.

You have to use my criteria again. Not yours.

Furthermore, if the whole of Scripture can be seen to teach the Trinity, which it can, then why whine because "I don't see it all in one passage!"

[BibleWheel]

The Trinity is suspect because all other legitmate foundational Christian doctrines are found in at least their basic form in one passage in context by a bible writer, and generally by multiple bible writers.
Hey Cal,

I'm sorry, but you can not legitimately use this argument anymore until you respond to my refutation of it.

Let me repeat so that there will be no confusion.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is a consequence of the the biblical revelation of the Deity of Christ seen in light of the rest of the Bible. You know that I am correct. It is too simple to deny. If the Bible did not teach the Deity of Christ, then there would be no Doctrine of the Trinity. Period.

I know that this presents you with a fundamental problem. Your "silver bullet" can not kill this argument since there are plenty of verses found "in context by a bible writer" that arguably teach the Deity of Christ.

You therefore have no choice but revert to real exegesis. I know its hard. Very intimidating. But you have no choice now. Your ruse has been exposed.

Like I said, I'm sorry ... it must be very distressing to see your silver turned to dross, especially since genuine theological silver bullets are one of the most valuable commodities an apologist could have. Believe me, I know (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1644).

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

Hey Cal,

I'm sorry, but you can not legitimately use this argument anymore until you respond to my refutation of it.

Let me repeat so that there will be no confusion.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is a consequence of the the biblical revelation of the Deity of Christ seen in light of the rest of the Bible. Richard

Then you simply deny my argument or don't understand it. My point is that all foundational Christian doctrines are found in at least their basic form taught in context by a bible writer or bible writers.

The Trinity stands alone. There are no other foundational doctrines held to by Christians which are merely a "consequence" of other doctrines.

Now, you do not appear to deny my statement that the Trinity stands alone in this regard.

So if you want to prove your theory that the Trinity is a necessary consequence go ahead and try.

So far you have just dogmatically stated your opinion.

[BibleWheel]

Then you simply deny my argument or don't understand it. My point is that all foundational Christian doctrines are found in at least their basic form taught in context by a bible writer or bible writers.

The Trinity stands alone. There are no other foundational doctrines held to by Christians which are merely a "consequence" of other doctrines.

Now, you do not appear to deny my statement that the Trinity stands alone in this regard.
You are correct, I have not even attempted to disprove your assertion about the unique nature of the Trinity Doctrine. There is no need to because the whole thing is a ruse, as proven in ealier posts.

Now you are just dodging a direct challenge that strikes the heart of your argument.


So if you want to prove your theory that the Trinity is a necessary consequence go ahead and try.

So far you have just dogmatically stated your opinion.

Ha! That's funny Cal. I wish you had followed my earlier advice, and had tried to open your mind. First, its not "my theory." Its a simple fact, as I already proved. Second, I NEVER said the Trinity was a NECESSARY consequence of the Deity of Christ.

And why didn't I say that?

Well ... uhhhh ... because it would be FALSE! And you already knew it was false, and you knew that I knew it was false.

And why did we all know it was false? Because we all know that one way to deal with the Biblical teaching of the Deity of Christ without the Trinity is to be a Oneness Pentacostal! And since we talked about Oneness Pentecostals in this thread just a few posts ago, we both know that we both know that the Trinity is not a NECESSARY consequence of the Deity of Christ (if you're willing to be a modalist, that is).

Your adamant refusal to use the full strength of the mind God gave you does not glorify Him nor advance your doctrines. In fact, the only thing you have accomplished as far as I can see is the destruction of the resonance of your own voice. It now sounds like a weak and ineffectual squeak.

Here's the deal Cal. If you want to have a serious theological debate about anything, you are going to have to strive to honestly deal with challenges to your position. Here's your batting average as I see it:

Strike 1: You equivocated on the meaning of the Divinity of Christ.
Strike 2: You ignored my complaint about the equivocation.
Strike 3: You tried to divert the conversation to a dispute about the meaning of One God.

By all the rules of the game, you should have been out. But we're gracious around here and let you continue:

Strikes 4, 5, and 6: You have repeatedly dodged my direct challenge to your "silver bullet" arguement about the Trinity.

Its not looking to good Cal. Please try to shape up. Its no fun to debate with someone who is not even trying to win by the rules.

Richard

[Cynic Sage]

Hey, the guy clearly beat you in debate.
And that's saying alot considering they're both nuts.

[BibleWheel]

And that's saying alot considering they're both nuts.
Hello my Christian brother.

Nice to see you growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

You are correct, I have not even attempted to disprove your assertion about the unique nature of the Trinity Doctrine. There is no need to because the whole thing is a ruse, as proven in ealier posts.

Now you are just dodging a direct challenge that strikes the heart of your argument.



Ha! That's funny Cal. I wish you had followed my earlier advice, and had tried to open your mind. First, its not "my theory." Its a simple fact, as I already proved. Second, I NEVER said the Trinity was a NECESSARY consequence of the Deity of Christ.

And why didn't I say that?

Well ... uhhhh ... because it would be FALSE! And you already knew it was false, and you knew that I knew it was false.

And why did we all know it was false? Because we all know that one way to deal with the Biblical teaching of the Deity of Christ without the Trinity is to be a Oneness Pentacostal! And since we talked about Oneness Pentecostals in this thread just a few posts ago, we both know that we both know that the Trinity is not a NECESSARY consequence of the Deity of Christ (if you're willing to be a modalist, that is).

Your adamant refusal to use the full strength of the mind God gave you does not glorify Him nor advance your doctrines. In fact, the only thing you have accomplished as far as I can see is the destruction of the resonance of your own voice. It now sounds like a weak and ineffectual squeak.

Here's the deal Cal. If you want to have a serious theological debate about anything, you are going to have to strive to honestly deal with challenges to your position. Here's your batting average as I see it:

Strike 1: You equivocated on the meaning of the Divinity of Christ.
Strike 2: You ignored my complaint about the equivocation.
Strike 3: You tried to divert the conversation to a dispute about the meaning of One God.

By all the rules of the game, you should have been out. But we're gracious around here and let you continue:

Strikes 4, 5, and 6: You have repeatedly dodged my direct challenge to your "silver bullet" arguement about the Trinity.

Its not looking to good Cal. Please try to shape up. Its no fun to debate with someone who is not even trying to win by the rules.

Richard

Dear Richard,
Are you going to make an argument for the Trinity or merely pretend to make an argument?

[BibleWheel]

Dear Richard,
Are you going to make an argument for the Trinity or merely pretend to make an argument?
Hi Cal,

Are you saying you don't understand my argument? That's ok. I probably failed to make myself clear. Let me try again.

The Trinity is a consequence of the Deity of Christ. If Christ is not God, then there is no Trinity.

Do you agree with this? If not, why not? I have repeated this argument at least three times, but you have not responded to it.

Please don't misdirect the conversation. I want an answer to this specific question.

OK?

Thanks!

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

Are you saying you don't understand my argument? That's ok. I probably failed to make myself clear. Let me try again.

The Trinity is a consequence of the Deity of Christ. If Christ is not God, then there is no Trinity.

Do you agree with this? If not, why not? I have repeated this argument at least three times, but you have not responded to it.

Please don't misdirect the conversation. I want an answer to this specific question.

OK?

Thanks!

Richard

In a previous post you attempted a proof starting with Deut 6:4 that there is one God. I pointed out that the verse actually says that there is one Jehovah, not one God.

Then I proceeded to list verses in the bible specifically contain the phrase "one God" and showed that this was the Father.

The Son is never called the "one God" but others in Scripture who represent the Almighty God are called elohim or QEOS. But they are never called the "one God" of Christian monotheism.

Therefore it is not sufficient to say Jesus is QEOS or elohim and then assume that because there is "one God" he is God like the Father is God.

This is because the term "one God" always refers to the God and Father of Jesus Christ. The term "one God" is therefore a description of the Father.

I know you are not trying to prove Jesus is the Father but neither have you proven he is the "one God" in a Trinitarian sense which is what you need.

[Dee Dee Warren]

that has to be the most retarded argument I have ever heard

[BibleWheel]

In a previous post you attempted a proof starting with Deut 6:4 that there is one God. I pointed out that the verse actually says that there is one Jehovah, not one God.
And I pointed out that you deliberately misled the conversation, as you are doing again here and now.

It is impossible that you misunderstood my argument. It was too plain and obvious. I even explained it to you. So the only conclusion is that you are deliberately trying to dodge the truth.

And that is a cardinal sin in any debate.

Let me remind you of the truth you already know. I began with a point of funamental agreement between us, viz. THERE IS ONE GOD.

That was the one and only purpose of citing Deut 6.4.

Now you are trying to divert the conversation away from my challenge. Wow ...

So will you please answer the question? If not, then you will have accomplished nothing but the utter and complete destruction of your voice in this forum. Is that what you want?

Thanks!

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

And I pointed out that you deliberately misled the conversation, as you are doing again here and now.

It is impossible that you misunderstood my argument. It was too plain and obvious. I even explained it to you. So the only conclusion is that you are deliberately trying to dodge the truth.

And that is a cardinal sin in any debate.

Let me remind you of the truth you already know. I began with a point of funamental agreement between us, viz. THERE IS ONE GOD.

That was the one and only purpose of citing Deut 6.4.

Now you are trying to divert the conversation away from my challenge. Wow ...

So will you please answer the question? If not, then you will have accomplished nothing but the utter and complete destruction of your voice in this forum. Is that what you want?

Thanks!

Richard

Please demonstrate how Deut 6:4 proves that there is one God. It proves there is one Jehovah.

The one God is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. That is what Scriputure teaches.

Therefore proveing that the Son is merely called QEOS or elohim is not sufficient. That title is also used for angels and men who represent the one God.

[BibleWheel]

Please demonstrate how Deut 6:4 proves that there is one God. It proves there is one Jehovah.

The one God is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. That is what Scriputure teaches.

As stated over and over and over again, my purpose for citing Deut 6.4 was to reiterate a point of fundamental agreement between you and I, viz One God.

Do you deny that there is only One God? If not, then there is nothing to discuss on this point and you can move on and ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Its just too simple Cal. There is absolutely no wiggle room here. You can't squirm out of my direct challenge to your argument without admitting defeat in the face of everyone reading this thread.

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

As stated over and over and over again, my purpose for citing Deut 6.4 was to reiterate a point of fundamental agreement between you and I, viz One God.

Do you deny that there is only One God? If not, then there is nothing to discuss on this point and you can move on and ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Its just too simple Cal. There is absolutely no wiggle room here. You can't squirm out of my direct challenge to your argument without admitting defeat in the face of everyone reading this thread.

Richard

Dear Richard,
First you attempt to weasle out of proving the Trinity and try to get me to agree that the real issue is the deity of Christ. I don't by this and won't let you get off that easily.

NOW you attempt to get out of the very first and primary part of your argument which is a vain attempt to prove that the Father and Son are the same God. But you use a verse where the phrase "one God" is not even present. I don't fault you alone for this. I have seen this before and when I bring it up most take off for the hills. I commend you for sticking it out, but please do not think this means that I will let you get away with the shell game you are attempting.

I maintain that the phrase "one God" that you started off with is indeed the key and that this is the very essence of monotheism. Mono=1 and Theos=God. It is one word, see? MonoTheism. Say it and commit it to memory. "One God" = "MonoTheos".

Now that this has been demonstrated, yes we both say we believe in "one God" and are monotheists.

However I am a MonoPersonalTheist and you are a PolyPersonalTheist.

I therefore maintain that the "one God" is always one person, the Father. I have given you verses which identify the Father as that "one God." Want to see them again? ok here they are: (Mal. 2:10; 1 Co. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5)

Therefore if you claim a fundamental agreement with me on this point it will be that only the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the "one God" while others like Moses can be called "God" as his representative. (Ex 7:1)

Do you agree and can we proceed, or are you going to continue to try tell me what to beleive so that you can "convince" me what to believe? :lol:

[BibleWheel]

Dear Richard,
First you attempt to weasle out of proving the Trinity and try to get me to agree that the real issue is the deity of Christ. I don't by this and won't let you get off that easily.
Well, I have heard that mimicry is the most sincere form of flattery. Thanks for the compliment!


NOW you attempt to get out of the very first and primary part of your argument which is a vain attempt to prove that the Father and Son are the same God.
Strike 8: Your statement is factually false. I have never tried to prove to you that the Father and Son are the same God. On the contrary, this is what I wrote:


This is a very important thought experiment. I am not asking you to compromise your disagreement with Doctrine #2. I am only asking that you try to imagine for a few minutes that you - like millions of Christians - actually, really, and truly believe all three doctrines #1, #2 and #3.

How would you reconcile them?

How about that! Who would of thought? I actually did the exact opposite of what you asserted, and that was recently here in this very thread.


But you use a verse where the phrase "one God" is not even present. I don't fault you alone for this.
I've already proven three times (without refutation mind you) that the doctrine of there being only one God is not an issue between us. You seem to be having trouble processing basic English sentences.


I have seen this before and when I bring it up most take off for the hills. I commend you for sticking it out, but please do not think this means that I will let you get away with the shell game you are attempting.
Wow! More flattery! Thanks again. :smile:


I maintain that the phrase "one God" that you started off with is indeed the key and that this is the very essence of monotheism. Mono=1 and Theos=God. It is one word, see? MonoTheism. Say it and commit it to memory. "One God" = "MonoTheos".
And I maintain that you are stilling dodging my direct challenge with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the challenge I presented.


Now that this has been demonstrated, yes we both say we believe in "one God" and are monotheists.
:woohoo: Maybe we're getting somewhere after all.


Do you agree and can we proceed, or are you going to continue to try tell me what to beleive so that you can "convince" me what to believe? :lol:
All I want is a valid response to my first post to you in this thread. I am still waiting. The amazing thing is that my challenge is extremely simple. You are simply ignoring it.

And that speaks volumes ... unlike your own voice, which wanes weaker with each dodge that you post.

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

Dear BibleWheel,
Once again I must ask you, are you going to make an argument for the doctrine of the Trinity or even a watered down doctrine of the deity of Christ or are you merely going to pretend to make an argument?

I do not agree that we agree that there is "one God" when you define the one God differently that does Scripture.

This is because each time the term "one God" is used, in both the OT and NT it refers to the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

What is funny is that not only do you equivocate on the word God but you use a verse to illustrate what the "one God" is to you, which does not even have the phrase "one God" in it! (ie Deut 6:4)


I can't take an argument seriously that begins on such fragile footing, sorry.

[BibleWheel]

Dear BibleWheel,
Once again I must ask you, are you going to make an argument for the doctrine of the Trinity or even a watered down doctrine of the deity of Christ or are you merely going to pretend to make an argument?

I do not agree that we agree that there is "one God" when you define the one God differently that does Scripture.

This is because each time the term "one God" is used, in both the OT and NT it refers to the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

What is funny is that not only do you equivocate on the word God but you use a verse to illustrate what the "one God" is to you, which does not even have the phrase "one God" in it! (ie Deut 6:4)


I can't take an argument seriously that begins on such fragile footing, sorry.
All I want is a response that deals with the question I asked in my first post to you.

I'm still waiting ....

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

All I want is a response that deals with the question I asked in my first post to you.

I'm still waiting ....

Richard

When you are willing to make a Scriptural argument and if I am still on TWEB I will read and respond. It appears that you have found an argument on the web and can't deviate from the script. Sorry but I won't play along.

The "one God" of Christian monotheism is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. I have refuted your argument before your fingers left your keyboard....

Make a real argument and not a pretend argument and you can play too.

[BibleWheel]

When you are willing to make a Scriptural argument and if I am still on TWEB I will read and respond. It appears that you have found an argument on the web and can't deviate from the script. Sorry but I won't play along.
Nope. That argument came straight from my heart. I simply saw through your ruse. You want to talk only about the Trinity because you can argue that it is suspect because it is not taught "in context by a biblical writer." This is your "silver bullet" that now has been shown to be dross. By the way, did this argument originate with you, or did you pick it up from the web or a book someone else wrote? Somehow methinks you got it from the JWs. Ha! Turnaround is fair play, right?

So let me repeat: All I want is a response that deals with the question I asked in my first post to you.

Thanks!

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

Nope. That argument came straight from my heart. I simply saw through your ruse. You want to talk only about the Trinity because you can argue that it is suspect because it is not taught "in context by a biblical writer." This is your "silver bullet" that now has been shown to be dross. By the way, did this argument originate with you, or did you pick it up from the web or a book someone else wrote? Somehow methinks you got it from the JWs. Ha! Turnaround is fair play, right?

So let me repeat: All I want is a response that deals with the question I asked in my first post to you.

Thanks!

Richard

Dear Richard,
I understand that you do not want to defend the Trinity. I understand, really I do. It is indefensible!

However I did set that aside to interact with your argument on the deity of Christ which started with the premise that there is one God.

1. There is one God - Deut 6:4.

This text does not say that there is one God. It says there is one Jehovah.

I understand why Trinitarians pick this verse. They think it is safe because they do not feel one can identify the Father as God in this verse. However Jesus quoted this verse and applied it to one person in Mark 12.



NRS Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;

When Jesus quoted this verse he spoke of the Lord in the third person and called him his own God (our God).

When the Scribe to whom he was speaking heard this he understsood him, he said:



NRS Mark 12:32 Then the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that 'he is one, and besides him there is no other';


The scribe also used the singular pronoun and agreed that Jesus had spoken of God whom he represented as a single person.

But, hey! Jews back then just as they do today considered God to be an absoute unity and one person!.

So how did Jesus respond? Did he correct the Jew and say that both he and his Father were God?



NRS Mark 12:34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that no one dared to ask him any question.


No! Jesus saw that when the Scribe continued to represent God as one person with the third person personal pronoun "he" as they had for centures he considered him wise.

That means Trinitarians are not wise.

[Krusader]

Cal says:

"I understand that you do not want to defend the Trinity. I understand, really I do. It is indefensible!"

And this coming from somebody who has yet to find a way to explain why he follows an organization who has consistently falsely prophesied since the 19th century.

[Cal_Minian]

Cal says:

"I understand that you do not want to defend the Trinity. I understand, really I do. It is indefensible!"

And this coming from somebody who has yet to find a way to explain why he follows an organization who has consistently falsely prophesied since the 19th century.

Dear Crusader,
Because you do not address my arguments and continually post off-topic I am going to put you on ignore. Sorry.

Cheers!

[BibleWheel]

Dear Richard,
I understand that you do not want to defend the Trinity. I understand, really I do. It is indefensible!

However I did set that aside to interact with your argument on the deity of Christ which started with the premise that there is one God.

1. There is one God - Deut 6:4.

This text does not say that there is one God. It says there is one Jehovah.

I understand why Trinitarians pick this verse. They think it is safe because they do not feel one can identify the Father as God in this verse. However Jesus quoted this verse and applied it to one person in Mark 12.



When Jesus quoted this verse he spoke of the Lord in the third person and called him his own God (our God).

When the Scribe to whom he was speaking heard this he understsood him, he said:



The scribe also used the singular pronoun and agreed that Jesus had spoken of God whom he represented as a single person.

But, hey! Jews back then just as they do today considered God to be an absoute unity and one person!.

So how did Jesus respond? Did he correct the Jew and say that both he and his Father were God?



No! Jesus saw that when the Scribe continued to represent God as one person with the third person personal pronoun "he" as they had for centures he considered him wise.

That means Trinitarians are not wise.

Strike 9: You have persisted in your admant refusal to even acknowledge, let alone engage, the point I raised in my first post to you. You keep repeating the same dodge like a broken record.

I don't debate automatons.

You lose

The conversation is over.

Richard

[Cal_Minian]

Strike 9: You have persisted in your admant refusal to even acknowledge, let alone engage, the point I raised in my first post to you. You keep repeating the same dodge like a broken record.

I don't debate automatons.

You lose

The conversation is over.

Richard

What point was that? I refuted all the points you made that were worth refuting.