David Brainerd 4 days ago
Now here are the points in question by David
I comment on the point on neuter in this article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/challenge-from-facebook-unitarian.html
Being is what you are, person is who you are, they are not equivalent terms. It's not that hard. Furthermore the comment given is an ad homenim rather than an actual point.
Instead of attacking Sam Shamoun and Athanasius, why don't you actually address what they are saying? Philosophy has it's time and place and using certain terms to explain the Trinity doesn't mean Trintarians are accepting Satan's definition of terms.
What is wrong with trying to explain the Trinity biblically by using "philosophical" terms? Just because a term is not in the Bible, doesn't make it so. Not to mention even the average man would and could use terms to distinguish between person and being.
Robert M. Bowman makes the following observation regarding Colossians 2:9 and 1:19:
"Some argue that Colossians 2:19 ("and you have come to fullness in him") shows the "fullness" of verse 9 doesn't not mean that Jesus has God's very nature. The reasoning seems simple enough: Paul says that we have the fullness, not that we're God by nature; therefore, saying that Jesus has fullness doesn't make him God by nature, either. But this argument misconstrues the relationship between the two statements. Paul is not saying that believers have the fullness of deity dwelling in them bodily as well! Rather, he is saying that God's fullness is found in Christ personally, those who are united to Christ (who are "in him") have the fullness of God's power and love working in their lives. In both cases it is God's fullness, but in the case of Christ it resides in him personally and bodily, whereas in our case that fullness is meditated to us through our relationship with Christ"
and
"Finally we should comment on the argument that Paul's statement in Colossians 1:19- that God "was pleased" for all his fullness to dwell in Christ-proves Christ was not always deity. In context, Paul i referring to the incarnation. He is saying that God was pleased to be fully incarnated in the human Jesus of Nazareth. "It is the same Jesus, crucified and buried but risen again, and now alive for everyone as Christ the Lord, in whom the totality resides." Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 on their own do not address directly the question of the nature of the Son prior to his incarnation."
(Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in his Place: A Case for the Deity of Christ).
Also regarding John 3:34:
"31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
John 3:34 is not even talking about the same subject of Colossians 2:9, it is talking about Jesus being sent by the Father and that the Holy Spirit can be given to individuals without a limit to who he may give it to. This is NOT the same context as Colossians 2:9.
Answering Judaism.
