Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Cow Poke]

None whatsoever. From the strict monotheist view that I share with Jews and Muslims I have lots of company in the simplicity and wonder of God.

That should have been directed at Tassman.

[shunyadragon]

Don't you have anything better to do?

In your case ah . . . no.

Intelligent meaningful posts give something better to do.

[shunyadragon]

That should have been directed at Tassman.

I have my own disagreements with Tassman, and he does not ridicule me as many do.

My disagreements concerning the Trinity are those that cling to a Roman theology.

[Littlejoe]

None whatsoever. From the strict monotheist view that I share with Jews and Muslims I have lots of company in the simplicity and wonder of God.

Jews do claim a strict Monotheist view...but they obviously do not know their own Scriptures. Their are multiple places in the Old Testament Hebrew where the name used for God is plural. Virtually all Hebrew Scholars acknowledge that the word used many times for God in the Hebrew Scriptures, Elohim, is a plural noun. Genesis 1:26 for instance, "...let US make man in OUR They TheyThey


The speaker is Elohim (See verse 6)who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.


Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God.

Another example is Genesis 19:24 which reads:



Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.

And finally, we have examples of 3 personalities in one passage of Old Testament Scripture Isaiah 48:12 - 16: (pay attention to the last sentence that I bolded)

And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.

So, as we can clearly see, the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth...and it is abundantly clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

There is another passage in Isaiah 63:7 - 14 that also names the Trinity, but it's not as overt...

[Cow Poke]

I have my own disagreements with Tassman, and he does not ridicule me as many do.

My disagreements concerning the Trinity are those that cling to a Roman theology.

My "that should have been directed at Tassman" was MY "that", not your "that".

[37818]

I think we all know that. We just disagree on what is true or false. Our belief doesn't make it true or false. Our belief reflects what we find to be true or false.

How do you find it true that there is no God?

[Cerebrum123]

In your case ah . . . no.

Intelligent meaningful posts give something better to do.

We've never seen you give an "Intelligent meaningful post", so you have no room to talk.

[37818]

What about because you, 37818, say it is true?

My mere saying anything to be true does not make it true.

[carpedm9587]

How do you find it true that there is no God?

First, there is no "proof" for god existing or not existing. Those beliefs will be based on where the preponderance of the evidence takes us. For me, the preponderance of the evidence points to "god" being a human creation. There are a lot of data points to that. One is the pattern of human history. One is the divergence of religious beliefs. One is the absence of any experience of such a being on my part. Another is the lack of any credible evidence to the existence of the supernatural from anywhere. Finally, there are the internal inconsistencies in most religions.

When I put that all together, I end up believing that humanity has created its gods, primarily in its own image and likeness. I believe the gods of our world exist in our beliefs, and not in objective reality.

[shunyadragon]

Jews do claim a strict Monotheist view...but they obviously do not know their own Scriptures. Their are multiple places in the Old Testament Hebrew where the name used for God is plural. Virtually all Hebrew Scholars acknowledge that the word used many times for God in the Hebrew Scriptures, Elohim, is a plural noun. Genesis 1:26 for instance, "...let US make man in OUR They TheyThey


The speaker is Elohim (See verse 6)who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.


Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God.

Another example is Genesis 19:24 which reads:



Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.

And finally, we have examples of 3 personalities in one passage of Old Testament Scripture Isaiah 48:12 - 16: (pay attention to the last sentence that I bolded)

And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.

So, as we can clearly see, the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth...and it is abundantly clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

There is another passage in Isaiah 63:7 - 14 that also names the Trinity, but it's not as overt...

I have dialogued with Christians and Jews over many years, and consider Jews far more knowledgeable about their scriptures than Christians that cling to the Roman Trinity doctrine will ever be.

Your references require an extreme stretch of the imagination, anecdotal, and interpretative agenda based on later doctrine and dogma of Old Testament scripture that is just not there. The Jews acknowledge the aspects of God described in their scripture, but belief in the Trinity based on OT scripture is just not there.

The better Christian scholars with a degree of objectivity believe the Trinity is an interpretation of OT scripture based on the the New Testament and later interpretation, and not literally described in the OT.

I believe the persistence of many Christians to believe in your view and interpretation of the Old Testaments, as well as those that believe in a literal Genesis do indeed document the fact that many believers do indeed live a lie today

[Littlejoe]

I have dialogued with Christians and Jews over many years, and consider Jews far more knowledgeable about their scriptures than Christians that cling to the Roman Trinity doctrine will ever be.


Your references require an extreme stretch of the imagination, anecdotal, and interpretative agenda based on later doctrine and dogma of Old Testament scripture that is just not there. The Jews acknowledge the aspects of God described in their scripture, but belief in the Trinity based on OT scripture is just not there.


The better Christian scholars with a degree of objectivity believe the Trinity is an interpretation of OT scripture based on the the New Testament and later interpretation, and not literally described in the OT.


I believe the persistence of many Christians to believe in your view and interpretation of the Old Testaments, as well as those that believe in a literal Genesis do indeed document the fact that many believers do indeed live a lie today

None of this is true or accurate. You're simply using the "poisoning the well" argument. No real refutations displayed...Appeal to authority and hand waving are not real arguments. Saying the Scriptures cited do not say what they say is laughable. Your belief of "many Christians" is also, just that, your mistaken belief. Thanks for playing but it's obvious you do not know what you are talking about.

[Cerebrum123]

None of this is true or accurate. You're simply using the "poisoning the well" argument. No real refutations displayed...Appeal to authority and hand waving are not real arguments. Saying the Scriptures cited do not say what they say is laughable. Your belief of "many Christians" is also, just that, your mistaken belief. Thanks for playing but it's obvious you do not know what you are talking about.

That part has been obvious for a long time IMO.

[37818]

First, there is no "proof" for god existing or not existing. Those beliefs will be based on where the preponderance of the evidence takes us. For me, the preponderance of the evidence points to "god" being a human creation. There are a lot of data points to that. One is the pattern of human history. One is the divergence of religious beliefs. One is the absence of any experience of such a being on my part. Another is the lack of any credible evidence to the existence of the supernatural from anywhere. Finally, there are the internal inconsistencies in most religions.

When I put that all together, I end up believing that humanity has created its gods, primarily in its own image and likeness. I believe the gods of our world exist in our beliefs, and not in objective reality.

You are arguing that there is no proof that existence exists. God's identity is being the self Existent. And only uncaused Existence is self Existent. Hence God's identity. One does not need to prove what is self evident. And on top of this God is knowable by way of the gospel of grace.

[carpedm9587]

You are arguing that there is no proof that existence exists.

No - I am arguing their is insufficient evidence that any form of supernatural being conventionally known as "god" exists. Of course, if god is equated with "all that is," then you are suggesting a form of pantheism. If all of the existent universe = god, then that is not the conventional definition of "god," AFAIK.

God's identity is being the self Existent. And only uncaused Existence is self Existent. Hence God's identity. One does not need to prove what is self evident. And on top of this God is knowable by way of the gospel of grace.

I'll leave this to you. It seems to be a blend of Thomism and ... I'm not sure what. I actually don't have much success following most of your posts or arguments. Your language is a little "out there" for me. Perhaps others are more successful.

[37818]

No - I am arguing their is insufficient evidence that any form of supernatural being conventionally known as "god" exists. Of course, if god is equated with "all that is," then you are suggesting a form of pantheism. If all of the existent universe = god, then that is not the conventional definition of "god," AFAIK.

You seem to be disallowing the only valid primary concept for God [self Existent, and that uncaused existence is the only thing that is self existent]. And you are making the claim that there can be nothing beyond what ever you are referring to as "nature." i.e. "supernatural."

I'll leave this to you. It seems to be a blend of Thomism and ... I'm not sure what. I actually don't have much success following most of your posts or arguments. Your language is a little "out there" for me. Perhaps others are more successful.

I reject Thomism and Existentialism. I believe that there is uncaused existence. And that uncaused existence precedes everything. And that uncaused existence is the only thing which qualifies to be God. Fact, God's Hebrew Name has been translated "self Existent." As I have explained only uncaused existence is self existent.