Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

If knowing my personal beliefs is a requirement, we're done.I consider this a debate board, which means one addresses the arguments presented. This debate concerns Biblical support for a doctrine.Even in the course of researching information to counter an argument, one can learn.

quote:

---

I was going to try to address your points here but I may not after all. I'm no Greek scholar, and I'm sure you aren't either, so what you "feel" about the Greek term kurios means zip.

---

Neither of us are Greek scholars, but that doesn't mean we can't do the best we can. I found the journey rather interesting.

quote:

---

So if the consensus of the orthodox scholars is that kurios refers to Jehovah in that verse, that's the end of it for me.

---

Don't just lob it to the scholars.

quote:

---

God the Father and God the Son are two separate PERSONS, but together with the Holy Spirit ONE "being" or God. The verse is definitely speaking of two PERSONS, the Lord Jesus and God, which in such constructions is generally understood to be God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. There are other verses where the Holy Spirit is said to have raised Christ (Romans 8:11), and where He Himself says He raised Himself (John 10:17-18). All three Persons raised Him. All three are God.

---

I understand what the doctrine says, the point of the debate is to support it Biblically.Romans 8:11 doesn't say that the Holy Spirit raised Christ. It says that God raised up Jesus. Looking at the various translations, "take it" is about receiving what is offered; not necessarily bringing about what is offered. The same word is used in the last sentence. He can lay down his life and he can accept it back. It isn't really saying he raised himself from the dead.The verse I'm addressing doesn't support the idea of 3 in 1. The verses you presented don't support the idea of 3 in 1.

quote:

---

Well, if you don't think these verses identify Jesus as Jehovah then other verses do from which we can conclude that these have to as well.

---

Realistically, I don't have time to address all the verses in that outline in one post. That doesn't mean I won't get to the others at some point.

quote:

---

As for your Talmudic reference, I don't take Talmudic references as definitive of anything.

---

Paul and Jesus were Jewish.

quote:

---

Fine, but if that's the orthodox understanding of what it means who are you to disagree with them? I'm with them and not you.

---

If you don't like disagreement, why participate? A debate is argument and counter argument.

quote:

---

How can there be TWO "divine beings" when God is the ONLY "divine being" according to scripture?

---

I don't think scripture really says there is only one divine being. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) says: Or YHWH our God is one YHWH. Not necessarily the only god or divine being. I know, all those gods are false gods; but how meaningful is praising someone for being the greatest among the fakes? I don't think they considered the other gods to be fakes, just not as good as theirs.

quote:

---

You are of course free to disagree with the entirety of Christian history if you want, but what you "feel" about any of this is really inconsequential in that context.

---

I feel, I think, IMO, etc.; those are just ways of expressing my opinion which is what we present in a debate. Then we present information to support our opinion.This isn't a blog, it's a debate board. Opposing views are part of the process.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:The fabricated term "Godhead" goes hand in hand with the false trinity teaching that officially became the central doctrine of the "Christianized" Romans in the 4th century C.E. (The Christianized Romans later came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.) The teaching of trinity that survives today began to be formalized in 325 CE/AD at the Council of Nicaea. On that occasion, about 300 Catholic bishops met with Roman Emperor Constantinea non-Christian who was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding Constantine's role in the formulation of the Trinity, the Encyclopedia Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, [that Christ was] 'of one substance with the Father.' "Keep in mind that Jesus died, was resurrected, and returned to heaven in 33 C.E. and that this idea that would later evolve into the trinity did not officially become Roman Catholic dogma until 381 C.E.more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene. Also keep in mind that the ROMANS who executed Jesusprior to adopting Christianity as the state religionhad a long history of polytheism (worship of many gods). It was therefore a simple matter for the Christianized Romans aka Roman Catholics to graft various pagan/false teachings into their version of Christianity. One such teaching became the "Christian" version of trinity or worship of a triune/triad (three-in-one) god.

That is bogus history. The Roman Catholic Church did not begin until 606 AD with the declaring of the Bishop of Rome to be head of all the churches and it was downhill from there. Before that the Church was still the apostolic Church and the Councils represented apostolic thought. Constantine certainly represents a move in the wrong direction but the decisions of the Council were not the decisions of Constantine but of the assembled Christian leaders based on scripture.Take a look at the discussion of the Arian heresy Phat linked. The argument is Bible-based. And so is the argument I provided in Message 20.The Trinity is and always was based on the Bible. Your inability to follow the reasoning at the link provided just proves that you don't understand how it is derived from scripture. Or anything about Church history.

quote:

---

PURPLEDAWN:

​

Since Alter2Ego has no counter argument to present concerning the Trinity, I'm going in. Sorry Faith.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- PURPLEDAWN:
I don't see that there is anything to counter-argue against. Faith presented a third-party, Trinitarian blog that is not part of this forum. The third-party source spent the entire time telling people his/her personal philosophy, with verses of scriptures tossed in as support for the blogger's philosophy.I am familiar with all of the verses from the Trinitarian blog. When I read them, I don't see anything resembling trinity because I pay attention to the context (the surrounding words, verses, and chapters). That's why I asked Faith three separate and distinct times to "defend" the verses from the Trinitarian blog by: (1) quoting at least six of them; (2) bolding the words she is focusing on within each of the verses; and (3) explain to the rest of us why she has concluded that the bolded sections of the verses mean trinity. She refused to do that.Since Faith is unwilling, perhaps someone else can quote a couple verses that they believe is proof that trinity is in the Bible, and then follow the steps that I asked above in showing the rest of us where he/or she is getting the idea of trinity from the verses. I will then present a counter-argument for why the verses are not with reference to trinity.

That's one way this thread can work. It's also a way that the thread can reach nearly 100 posts with very little being discussed.You are the thread proposer, and you are acknowledging that you find the verses that Faith cites wanting. So why wait to counter punch? Why is the onus on everyone else to drive your thread? Why don't you present an argument that the verses generally used to defend the Trinity do not do so.I don't think any of us believe that you are completely ignorant of the usual arguments. Purpledawn is at least presenting some arguments. Otherwise, perhaps it's nearly time to ask Percy to pipe us out.

quote:

---

FAITH:
That is bogus history. The Roman Catholic Church did not begin until 606 AD with the declaring of the Bishop of Rome to be head of all the churches and it was downhill from there. Before that the Church was still the apostolic Church and the Councils represented apostolic thought. Constantine certainly represents a move in the wrong direction but the decisions of the Council were not the decisions of Constantine but of the assembled Christian leaders based on scripture.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
I believe I made it clear that the Christianized Romans later became known as Roman Catholics, meaning they were not called Roman Catholics at the time they dreamed up trinity, as follows:

quote:

---

The fabricated term "Godhead" goes hand in hand with the false trinity teaching that officially became the central doctrine of the "Christianized" Romans in the 4th century C.E. (The Christianized Romans later came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.) The teaching of trinity that survives today began to be formalized in 325 CE/AD at the Council of Nicaea. On that occasion, about 300 Catholic bishops met with Roman Emperor Constantinea non-Christian who was not baptized until he lay dying.

---

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church evolved from the Christianized Romans--the same Romans who formalized the false trinity dogma in the 4th century AD--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene.

In context, the parallel statement that he "shall also quicken your mortal bodies BY HIS SPIRIT," refers us back to its being the Spirit by whom Jesus was also raised from the dead. If God raised Him by His Spirit it was the Spirit doing the raising. This is the orthodox understanding. That's a lot of word manipulation PD. He speaks of having POWER to lay it down and to take it again, which isn't required for the mere act of receiving what is offered. And both condemned the Pharisees' "traditions of men" which is what the Talmud is. I can hardly believe you said that. "Divine" refers to the uncreated God and God only, who said "I am God and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22, 46:9). There are no other gods and the "gods" of the heathen are revealed to be demons (or devils in the KJV), (Leviticus 17:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20, Revelation 8:20) nothing divine about them, merely creatures, created angels, fallen angels.The major heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which you are sounding like here, is that they try to make Jesus out to be one of the supposed lesser "gods," particularly in John 1:1 where they insist that "the Word was God" really means "was A god" a lesser god. The problem with that is that God said there ARE no other gods, that He is the only God, and "I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42.8).In John 17:5 Jesus prays which is an outright claim to be God. Such a prayer to be glorified would be blasphemy if He were not God, since God would not give His glory to Jesus if he were a mere "god," that is to "another," a mere creature. This is another scriptural basis for Jesus having to be the true God. You seem to completely miss the point of such scripture references. The true God had entered history through Abraham at a time when He had been largely forgotten and the world had become used to following the "fake" demon gods, Abraham's family having done so and even the wife of Jacob/Israel carrying around her family's little idol gods (not unlike the Pope's following around a statue of "Mary" just like any old heathen god, an idol carved of wood etc.)The true God's teachings then included educating the people to the difference between Himself and all the lesser "gods" and weaning them to true worship of the true God instead. His having a people to Himself meant teaching them who the Creator God really is as opposed to all the false gods the world was following, and giving them laws to keep themselves separated from the influence of the demonic religions. He was educating a people who were of course fallen, who had lost the spiritual connection with Himself that Adam and Eve had had before the Fall. Only when Jesus came was the Holy Spirit poured out so that the Fall could begin to be reversed.Yes, all the heathen nations of the world have their "gods" who aren't gods at all but demons ruled by Satan since the Fall, and the true God who is above all had to keep teaching His people the difference, which they kept forgetting such as when they set up the golden calf after the manner of the heathen religions, and later on when they kept falling into the practices of the surrounding nations, even sacrificing their children to the demon god Molech.Another theme in scripture is that some of the heathen such as Rahab and Ruth recognized that Israel's God was THE God as opposed to the gods of the idolatrous nations.You are missing the meaning of making such comparisons. God speaks according to what the people are able to understand.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to add scripture refs for gods being demonsEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Bunch of little corrections, but also added the A in JWs calling Jesus "A god"

You keep using the term "personal philosophy". I hardly think that the doctrine of the trinity is that guy's personal philosophy. So what you should have written is "The third-party source spent the entire time telling people the doctrine of the trinity, with verses of scriptures tossed in as support for the doctrine of the trinity".The guy did quite a good job, I don't see why you won't make an effort to rebut any of his trinitarian arguments.

quote:

---

FAITH:
Take a look at the discussion of the Arian heresy Phat linked. The argument is Bible-based. And so is the argument I provided in Message 20.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
I'm not interested in weblinks to third-party sources. You should briefly quote the relevant portion here from the "Arian heresy link," and then explain in your own words why it is proof of trinity by quoting scriptures from the Judeo-Christian Bible to back up your argument.Your modus Operandi is to send people to third-party sources so that the third-party source can do your arguing for you. You tried that with me already, and it didn't work. When I asked you to defend the verses from your third-party Trinitarian blog, you refused.

quote:

---

NU NUKES:
That's one way this thread can work. It's also a way that the thread can reach nearly 100 posts with very little being discussed.

​

You are the thread proposer, and you are acknowledging that you find the verses that Faith cites wanting. So why wait to counter punch? Why is the onus on everyone else to drive your thread? Why don't you present an argument that the verses generally used to defend the Trinity do not do so.

​

I don't think any of us believe that you are completely ignorant of the usual arguments. Purpledawn is at least presenting some arguments. Otherwise, perhaps it's nearly time to ask Percy to pipe us out.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NU NUKES:
If I were to do what you are not suggesting, that would amount to preaching. Not only that, I would have to present several counter-arguments for each verse of scripture that Trinitarians often use, because they do not all focus on the same words within the same verse. They use different parts of the same verse and come up with entirely different reasons for why the verse is talking "trinity."That's why my method is to wait for someone to tell me what they believe a verse is saying, after which I ask them to prove it by quoting the verse and showing me where it says what they are claiming. Only then do I present a counter-argument by showing them the context of the verse they are quoting.

You accuse me of all kinds of things instead of dealing with the issues. All you have to do is pick out some of the scripture refs at the link that you think are particularly wrong and make your case against them. That's what purpledawn did.But by now I've also discussed some of the scripture refs so you could even start there since you are so allergic to the link. If you need to know how I construe the verse before you are willing to answer, well, I've construed it. Have at it.And it would be very hard to quote from the material Phat posted because of its format. I am in the same position with respect to that quote you are too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK here's a bone for Alter (or anyone else) to pick on, one of my own favorite proofs of Jesus' Deity, Thomas' addressing Him as "my Lord and my God.'Here Purpledawn can play with the Greek word kurios translated "Lord" if she wants, and maybe even try to argue like the Jehovah's Witnesses do, that calling Jesus "my God" was acknowledging Him to be a lesser god but not THE God.Which a Trinitarian such as myself answers that that is idolatry, and no Jew, which Thomas was, would ever talk that way about a demon god, but only the true God.Therefore this passage demonstrates that Thomas recognized Jesus to be THE God, and is another of the proofs of His Deity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi PD,I don't think we're gonna make any sense out of the concept of the trinity, its a mystery and it doesn't really make much sense as a concept. I think Mitch Hedberg's joke is apt::

quote:

---

I have a 2-in-1 shampoo, but 2-in-1 is a bullshit term, because 1 is not big enough to hold 2. That's why 2 was created. If it was 2-in-1, it would be overflowing. The bottle would be all sticky.

---

I don't think it makes sense to say that "Jesus *is* YHWH". I thought they were supposed to be seperate persons. First off, obviously they have different names, so there not the same thing. Also, Jesus said to pray to "Our Father", and that seems to distinguish them. But the concept of the trinity is that they are still both God, even though they're not the same thing.So I think you're right that we shouldn't say that Jesus was YHWH, but I don't think that ruins the trinity. It doesn't really make sense, but there you have it.I took a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, and they seem to kinda dodge the issue.Basically Jesus is considered Divine but he doesn't have to be equated with YHWH.

quote:

---

The Divinity of Jesus is proved by some writers by an appeal to prophecy and miracle. But, though Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament to the letter, He Himself appears to appeal to them mainly in proof of His Divine mission; He shows the Jews that He fulfills in His Person and His work all that had been foretold of the Messias. The prophecies uttered by Jesus Himself differ from the predictions of the Old Testament in that Jesus does not speak in the name of the Lord, like the seers of old, but in His own name. If it could be strictly proved that they were made in virtue of His own knowledge of the future, and of His own power to dispose of the current of events, the prophecies would prove His Divinity; as it is they prove at least that Jesus is a messenger of God, a friend of God, inspired by God. This is not the place to discuss the historical and philosophical truth of the miracles of Jesus, but we know that Jesus appeals to His works as bearing witness to the general truth of His mission (John 10:25, 33, 38), and also for the verity of some particular claims (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10-11; etc.) They show, therefore, at least that Jesus is a Divine legate and that His teaching is infallibly true.

---

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Character of Jesus ChristThere's more to read near the bottom under "The Divinity of Jesus" if you care to.They conclude with:

quote:

---

But if the Divine Sonship of Christ is a mere intellectual relation, and if Christ is God in a most figurative sense, the Paternity of the Father and the Divinity of the Son will be reduced to a figure of speech.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo

It seems to have worked just fine, in that so far you have been unable to come up with a single counter-argument.