Thursday 24 April 2014

Response to droptozro

More arguments have been presented to me by droptzro and I hope to address them adequately and biblically.

"Sorry, your entire argument went down the tube when you claimed "echad" can mean plural oneness in context.  That's patently false, and you need to check your Lexicons.

This is just bad grammar.  Adam and Eve being united as one, doesn't mean "one" is now "two."  One is still one, this is the semantic domain of the word.  You're not understanding the point of an adjective or in this context, a metaphorical use of one.  That would actually destroy the trinity because you're not claiming the 3 are metaphorically one, or you'd not really have "one God."  The one temple having many parts doesn't make "one" into "many" either.  I submit you need to go learn your basic grammar again.

"one temple"

"one" is an adjective describing how many TEMPLES there are....nothing more, nothing less.   If there were 5,000 pieces to the temple, "one" does not now mean "5000."  This is horridly bad grammar.   It's akin to exactly what Buzzard says, if I have "one Zebra," I don't have now a "one" that means "black and white" or a "one" that means 4 because Zebra's have 4 legs.  You're bleeding the meaning of the words which the adjective "one" modifies INTO the word "one."  Take your argument to an actual seasoned linguist if you still cannot understand this... it's actually quite simple, but you've made it difficult for yourself with the rambling.

Thanks for mentioning me, but you are denying some very serious problems."

Though I said echad can be used in plural or singular depending on context, my argument was not echad is plural in the Shema, my argument was that echad is singular and only talks about how many Gods there are, not how many persons make up the one God. My point is the Shema cannot be used as a proof text for the Trinity or against it. The direction to the Lexicon doesn't shoot me in the foot in light of what I have said regarding Echad being singular in the Shema.

"One, Jesus is a Jew, under the Jewish Levitical Law at that time.  You're denying historical context.  It's well known that Jews are unitarians, and at that time were definitely unitarians.  Jesus is not just quoting Deut 6:4, he's required to KEEP that command.  That YHWH is his God also, you just want to fight to deny it because he's quoting the OT.  Jesus used the same exact type of quote when he rebuked satan, since he would not worship and serve satan, but would only worship and serve YHWH(his God)."

If you even actually understood what Trinitarians believe, you wouldn't make this argument. Yes he is a Jew, that's not disputed. Because Jesus is a man, he would relate to the Father as his God, which he does numerous times. But also made claims about himself which only God is able to claim.

"The Jews knew who they worshiped, Mal 2:10, John 4:22. You're affirming they did not know who they worshiped.  I'm not saying they had to have a personal relationship like we now claim through the Messiah with God, but they knew who their one God was and is... and it's the Father both according to Jesus and all the Jews, John 8:41, John 20:17."
No Trinitarian would dispute that the Father is God, the only point of contention with unitarians such as you is the nature of the Son.

"It's not a faulty assertion to say you're not a monotheist.  You can keep claiming that all you'd like... you're stuck with a form of Sabellianism or 3 Gods.  Take your pick.  3 WHOs in 1 WHAT makes the 1 WHAT your God...thank you for affirming that.  But that's exactly the fact that helped me to abandon the trinity.  Your "one God" is not a person.  Your "one God" is a nature, an ousia, a being... an it.  That's an admission of idolatry.  The claim that the "one YHWH" of Deut 6:4 and Mark 12:28-34 is a "WHAT" is eisegesis, contradicts historical usage, and the context."

I don't have to be stuck with Sabellianism or Tritheism, I can safely keep the third option of Trinitarianism because:
1.Jesus is distinct from the Father, two persons.
2. Jesus claims to be able to answer prayers when he says in John 14 "If you ask anything in my name I will do it". He could only answer prayers if he is omnipresent, an attribute that God only has.

Your false dilemma isn't going to work.

Bare also in mins that while a rock has being, it is not personal. When YHWH is referred to as a being, that being is personal, but not a person. You are assuming the Shema is a unitarian creed and assert it as such, just like Anthony Buzzard constantly does.

"The one YHWH is one God, and there is "no other but Him" according to the scribe which Jesus agrees with.  Are you going to tell me now that the one WHAT of the trinity is a "He/Him"?  What is a HE or a HIM?  Is it a WHO or a WHAT?

Is "Him" a singular personal pronoun or a tri-personal pronoun?  Which is the safe assumption?  Would not your doctrine lead you to believe 3 He's(Father, Son, Spirit) are 1 He then?  How is that not an obvious contradiction or claim that 3 persons are 1 person?"

Its one what. Furthermore, there is an obvious distinction between a being and a person. We are not saying 3 persons in 1 person or 3 beings in 1 being, because of obviously that would be absurd rhetoric.

Trinitarians will agree that there is no God but YHWH, since biblical Triniarianism is consistent with Monotheism.

"James White's quote is horrid eisegesis.  That's about as bad as it gets in "theological double-talk" to claim one can read their doctrine into the text wherever one can get away with it.  You should be able to see through that nonsense.  So wherever I cannot tell for sure who YHWH is, I'm just going to assume it's "X" based on a doctrine which never explicitly states YHWH or God is 3 persons or tri-une.  See through that, please!"

This to me is a dismissal of what White has written and said. If you want to reject the statement, that's within your right to do so.

"You did not fully deal with Deut 32... read the entire context.  That God is YHWH, the Father, who is also the Most High(v.8).  Cross-reference "Most High" or "Highest" with any text you'd like and you'll see clearly, Jesus is the son of the Most High God(Luke 1:32-35, Mark 5:7)  You need to read the entire chapter.

36 “For the LORD will judge His people
And have compassion on His servants,
When He sees that their power is gone,
And there is no one remaining, bond or free.
37 He will say: ‘Where are their gods,
The rock in which they sought refuge?
38 Who ate the fat of their sacrifices,
And drank the wine of their drink offering?
Let them rise and help you,
And be your refuge.
39 ‘Now see that I, even I, am He,
And there is no God besides Me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

This is clear proof that the Father is the only God, stop denying it and submit to the entire text my friend.  You are kicking against the goads it is so obvious how far you must go to deny simple grammar and math."

To repeat again, What Deuteronomy 32 speaks on is the One God who gave his people life and created them Jesus is called Father in Isaiah 9:6, but not in the sense of being God the Father, but rather being co-father and co-creator of the human race. In light of this, Deuteronomy 32 speaks on the Godhead generally. There is no kicking against the goad, because the New Testament already affirms the eternal nature of Christ in texts such as John 1:1* and Philippians 2:5-11.

"Ultimately you do not realize, that you're condemning Jesus.  Jesus had a one person God, his Father alone.  We who follow him, have the same God.  Why are you denying Jesus? and why are you denying the one true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Messiah?

Col 1:3 We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you".

Once again, you misrepresented the Trinitarian position. No Trinitarian denies that Jesus has a God if he is self aware of his theology. Furthermore, read on into Colossians 1:15-20. I have also written an article on this issue:

I don't dispute Jesus worshipped the Father, but this wouldn't refute the Trinity in light of what I have said earlier. Furthermore you haven't addressed what I have said about Revelation 1 and 2. Jesus addresses the Father as his God by virtue of being a flesh and blood man, but he is also God in light of the fact he claims to be the Alpha and Omega which I may add is not some ambiguous phrase, but is a title belonging to God alone.

If you admit Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, your Unitarianism falls flat and you are guilty of the very thing you accuse Trinitarians of, idolatry. By referring to YOU as an idolater, this doesn't automatically lead to Jesus being such, nor am I condemning Jesus as such. That's fallacious reasoning.

I can happily accept not just Colossians 1:3, but all of Colossians.

Answering Judaism.

*10th of February 2020. See the following information on John 1:1: It is very important regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments regarding John 1:1.

No comments:

Post a Comment