Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

quote:

---

Such an extreme loss of genetic variation in animals we know to have under gone such bottle necking can have transplants (skin grafts, for example) that do not provoke immune responses due to being so close genetically.

​

This does not occur in every single species, does it?

​

Score one for not the Bible.

---

You and Faith know better than to talk science issues on the religious side.The originator didn't even say what the Bible was reliable for and you present an ancient cultural story as a factual event. Why?The Bible is a religious book. It isn't a science book or a history book. The originator didn't claim that it was and hopefully won't since this is on the religious side of the forum.I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated if you wouldn't take the thread down the same old flood path that belongs on the science side.Foundational myths don't make a religious book unreliable for religious teachings or beliefs.

quote:

---

You said theists never respond to scientific issues with declarations of faith. So that equates to "theists respond to scientific issues with scientific arguments." Is that the point you were making?

---

He's being sarcastic, because some theists do respond to scientific issues with declarations of faith. He failed to mention that such responses are also met with complaints and sometimes suspension.Hopefully you are here to debate your questions in Message 1 and not just to see what reaction you can get from those who are religion free.Your topic seems to be focused on Bible teachings and their basis in the Bible, so scientific accuracy of the Bible is off topic. It would have been put on the science side if Admin felt the thread was going that route. If I'm incorrect, please let me know.The Style Guides for EvC thread has helpful instructions on how to use the quote boxes here at EvC and it is always wise to read the Forum Guidelines carefully.As for the topic, I usually take the position that the trinity and hellfire were not taught by Jesus (what we know of his supposed teachings) or Paul. I feel they came about after Christianity went to the Gentiles and pagans were assimilated.Again, welcome to EvC and don't let yourself get pulled off course.

quote:

---

The "standard presentation" for trinity is to cherry pick a few words out of an entire verse, ignore the context, and then give personal interpretations of the out-of-context words. I mentioned that to you in my previous response; remember?

---

But that's your job to show the flaws in her facts or her logic. It's on you to show that a verse has been cherry picked.

quote:

---

You don't get, do you? When presenting scriptures in support of questionable religious doctrines, the requirement is that the verse be quoted so that the words being focused on can be bolded or italicized for the benefit of others. Then a brief explanation should be given for why the verse means what the "cherry picker" is claiming it means. When I hover my mouse over the scriptures at the Trinitarian blog you sent me to, all I see is an ordinary quotation with nothing bolded. So I cannot tell which words were the focus of the Trinitarian blogger and why he/she concluded that the verses are proof of trinity.

---

Faith is very good at presenting scripture in religious discussions and she did provide you with a link to the standard selection of scriptures used to support the concept of the Trinity. You asked for the scriptures that support the teachings of the Trinity. She also gave her explanations. We don't encourage large blocks of cut and paste.You're the one claiming the doctrine is questionable. I don't see that she claims her position was due to specific words. It's your turn to provide some support and reasoned argumentation supporting your claim.Hey, I'm impressed they didn't use 1 John 5:7 (Didn't see it anyway)

Since Alter2Ego has no counter argument to present concerning the Trinity, I'm going in. Sorry Faith. The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the TrinityI'm only addressing the section of the commentary entitled "Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh" for right now. I feel the conclusion concerning the use of "kurios" is flawed. Our English word "lord" and the Greek word "kurios" were used in the OT translations to represent the name of the Hebrew God, YHWH, when the name was actually written in the text. They can also refer to humans. From what I've found the differentiation in the OT was supposedly, "my lord" for humans and "the lord" for YHWH. I'm sure there are exceptions. From what I can tell in the Greek we can't really just assume kurios means YHWH. Despotes was also used in the NT concerning God. I also found that YHWH was also rendered God in the OT. ListIn the Greek there isn't an article in front of Lord, but there is in front of God. InterlinearThe sentence is speaking of two beings, not one.The comment in the outline is that the Lord mentioned in 10:13 is the same as the Lord in 10:9 and 12.The point of Romans 10:9 is to acknowledge Jesus and believe that God raised him from the dead.Verse 10 is the faith in YHWH that Paul consistently preaches.Verse 11 the scripture referenced is from the OT, so the him is YHWH, not Jesus.Verse 12 YHWH is the same for everyone.Verse 13 is about calling on YHWH.The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat: I don't see that calling Jesus Lord, means he is YHWH simply because the passages referenced from the OT say Lord.I think Paul speaks of two divine beings, not one. I feel it was more of a title for Jesus, not a personal name.(This post may seem disjointed. I kept getting interrupted. Sorry.)

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.

I don't doubt that the divinity of Jesus can be shown in the NT scripture. Paul didn't encounter the human Jesus, only his divine state.I had to start somewhere and I don't think the NT writers really presented Jesus as being YHWH.The Trinity presents a god with a split personality to avoid the idea that other gods or divine beings exist.Even Phil 2:11 doesn't claim Jesus as "the Lord".Since kurios and theos are general terms, the challenge is to figure out how the writers made the difference known. Some of it would obviously deal with context, but when talking of two or more divine beings, how did they signal the difference. So far, all I've found is the article in front of kurios or theos.Really they could still have a Trinity of three divine beings. Christians worship God, not Jesus or the Holy Spirit.I don't see that the ancient Hebrews denied the existence of other gods or divine beings. MonolatryThe NT is questionable given the different timeframes for the writings.The impression I get from later writings is that Jesus was to take over running the family business. Hebrews 1:10, the commentary says that God the Father addresses the Son as Lord. Unfortunately the quotes from the OT are from Psalms. That isn't YHWH talking. It's a lament to YHWH. When we check Psalm 102:24-25, neither YHWH nor Adonai are used. I even checked the Septuagint. The writer of Hebrews, exercised some artistic license with his writing. Again the commentary assumes YHWH when bringing the OT in. I noticed that in the NT, the writers don't use the phrase "Lord God" when referring to YHWH (God the Father). Paul consistently presents himself as slave to Jesus Christ. In context of the NT writings, the association of Lord to Jesus seems to more about addressing a master, as opposed to a name or representing a name. As you said, Jesus already has a given name. I feel 1 Cor 8:5-6 actually makes my point. Paul keeps them separate and I think that's his way of doing so. YHWH is God and Jesus is Lord. Lord does not seem to represent YHWH in the NT when used with Jesus or in reference to Jesus.None of what I've argued negates the divinity of Jesus in the NT.

quote:

---

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.

---

Paul is discussing the spiritual and sinful natures. The English doesn't support what you're saying. Simply put the verse says: But if the spirit of God dwells in you, God shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you.It doesn't say or infer that Jesus was raised up by the Spirit being spoken of. So you know I didn't make this up, here's an excerpt from the Bible commentary.

quote:

---

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.

---

No more than yours. Yes Jesus has authority to lay down his life if he chooses. He can choose not to also. He also has the authority to receive back his life that is offered him by God. It isn't saying he raised himself up from the dead. If that was possible, then he wasn't really dead. God gave him his life back.

quote:

---

And both condemned the Pharisees' "traditions of men" which is what the Talmud is.

---

Again, this is a debate board. I give my opinion and provide support for my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion and the support, then you provide your own with support. Not accepting the Talmud doesn't support your position.The point was that the word Lord used in the quote refers to YHWH in the OT. The reading of the verses doesn't take us backward to then read Lord Jesus as YHWH Jesus. If there is a Christian method that allows this, show me.

quote:

---

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 Bible isn't consistent on that issue. Religion evolves. This is basically a list of who they were sacrificing to. Not all are devils. They sacrificed to demons who are not God, gods who they didn't know, gods who were new.It doesn't support the idea that all other gods were demons. Demons were separate from the looks of it.Isaiah speaks a lot of there being no other God but YHWH, but at the beginning of Chapter 45 YHWH lists the things he will do so that his anointed one will know he is YHWH, the God of Israel who is summoning him.Even Paul said: So the Bible doesn't completely support the idea that there are absolutely no other divine beings.

quote:

---

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.

---

Other than children were sacrificed to Molech, the rest concerning Molech, other gods, and Satan is fiction and not supported in the Bible text. I agree, YHWH didn't want his group to worship like the others.Grandstanding against another group's god, doesn't make that god false or a demon.YHWH is a divine being, but not all divine beings are YHWH. The Bible doesn't really provide concrete evidence there are absolutely no other divine beings or gods.It is interesting that the commentary has a section, which I have been addressing, entitled "Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh", but then further down he has a section entitled "Jesus is not God the Father".I don't see that Jesus is YHWH per the verses provided in the commentary. I think it is changing the meaning of original scripture to make that connection.

quote:

---

Not only that, Thomas was an imperfect, sinful human being. So even if, for the sake of argument, one would accept that Thomas thought Jesus was also Jehovah, what does that prove? Jesus' true relationship to Jehovah was provided three verses later, in the very same chapter 20 of John that you used earlier. So at this point, you are banking on Thomas who was so lacking in faith, that he would not believe the other disciples who told him Jesus had been resurrected. The result was that Jesus had to show himself to Thomas, as indicated by the verses you quoted earlier.

---

A bit lacking. Thomas is an imperfect human being? That can be said about the author of the books, the church fathers, and all humans, which includes us in this thread. Not reasonable counter. According to Goodspeed, the book of John was probably written as a gospel for the Greeks. If the author made it very clear later who Jesus was and YHWH was not one of the options, then it is important to figure out what Thomas was saying?We can't really ignore it just because it appears to contradict our position. They have a mass of verses that would need to be whittled down to show that the 3 in 1 God Doctrine isn't Biblical.Unfortunately it takes looking at the Greek, which we don't like to do since we don't speak Greek, let alone ancient Greek. (At least I don't) That doesn't mean someone has done the work to this very old issue. The Greek actually says "the Lord of me and the God of me". There's my articles. Interlinear But I have already come to the conclusion that in the NT Lord and God were not used the same as in the OT. The article is, but the use of Lord for Jesus and God for YHWH seems consistent so far.I found this information on Granville Sharp's Rule of Greek Exegesis.

quote:

---

Again, "divinity" refers ONLY to the Creator God, not to all the angels, demons and whatever other CREATED invisible beings there might be, which are "gods" only in a sort of ironic sense, as God clearly says THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS. That doesn't mean there aren't billions of spirit beings, many of which have made themselves out to be gods to various people groups over the millennia, demanding worship and bribes and the works.

---

And that is your opinion with no support. I provided support from the Bible text and meanings of the Greek to support my opinion that the Bible doesn't completely support the idea that there are absolutely no other divine beings. Meaning of the word "God"

quote:

---

There is nothing in the Bible that is fiction. When you say such things I realize I'm up against someone who can say anything at all and believe anything at all, and what's the point of wearing myself out debating such a bottomless pit?

---

I wasn't referring to the Bible as fiction, I was referring to your comments as fiction. You provided no support, Biblical or otherwise, for your opinion.

quote:

---

The Father is one of the Persons, again you are confounding the Persons with the Godhead. The Persons are independent of one another. Jesus is not God the Father, Jesus is not God the Holy Spirit, He is God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit is not God the Father etc., while ALL THREE are Jehovah.

---

Saying it, doesn't make it so. That all three are YHWH is what needs to be shown and is what is being debated. Pre-Nicene Writings

I love puzzles, but Greek is giving me a headache! This is just me working through this. I looked at the pros and cons on Sharp's rules and looked at sites on Greek grammar. Sharp's rules deal with nouns used as personal description of another noun. The other rules are variations of Rule 1.Now Sharp considered John 20:28 to be an exception to the rules. My guess is it wasn't considered a description of a previous noun in the sentence.I think the Trinity Delusion argument is that it is a description going back to the word "him", which is Jesus. After what I've read, I think they are stretching it. I still feel Thomas probably considered Jesus a deity in his own right as some of the early Church Father's did and didn't consider him to be YHWH. Pre-Nicene WritingsThe grouping in Psalms 35:23 isn't a description. Even the English translation of the Septuagint doesn't render it as a description. David is calling to YHWH. The English translation of the Hebrew is different. There are variations. Even from the Hebrew, my God and my Lord are not describing another noun in the sentence. Psalm 84:3 is the same issue as in 35. Here is the English translation of the Greek. They are all references to YHWH, but aren't describing a previous noun in the sentence.Here is the English rendering of the Hebrew. That's what I came up with this morning and now I'm going to eat lunch. No Greek food.

quote:

---

If your position is that anything anyone said in the Bible was correct, simply because it's in the Bible, then you will have to apply that to all of the acts of rebellion and false statements made by various ones in the Bible, including the lies the Jewish religious leaders used against Jesus, that resulted in Jesus' execution.

---

In the OP (Message 1) you asked: Scriptures from the Bible that supposedly support the Doctrine of the Trinity (No, the word Trinity is not in the Bible.) were provided. Some of us proceeded to argue that these scriptures did not support the 3 in 1 God idea.Proclaiming that Thomas is imperfect, so what he says doesn't count, or that nothing in the Bible is correct is unsupported and out of line for someone who claims to have the deepest respect for God's inspired Word. The fruit doesn't seem to match the tree.

quote:

---

Not only that, you are ignoring the fact that the context to John 20:28 where Thomas said "My Lord and my God" does not indicate Jesus was also Jehovah.

---

Actually you haven't been paying attention. The article I linked to was not in support of the Trinitarian position and my position has been that Jesus is not YHWH.

quote:

---

An eternal person cannot die. Jesus Christ ceased to exist when he died. At the moment of his death, his claim to eternity disappeared forever.

​

The nonsensical argument by Faith that Jesus the Man died but "Jesus the God" cannot die is pure fallacy. Jesus the Man and Jesus the god are not two different entities. They are one and the same individual. When Jehovah transferred the life force of the pre-human Jesus into the womb of Mary, Jesus the god no longer existed. Therefore, when Jesus the Man died, so did "Jesus the God" because they were not separated from one another at the time that Jesus the Man died--unless a Trinitarian could successfully argue that Jesus the God continued to exist when Jesus the Man died. In that case, the Trinitarians would end up with a 4-prong god instead of a 3-prong god.

---

You haven't provided Biblical support for this opinion.I think the general idea is more along these lines: When YHWH transferred the life force of the pre-human Jesus into the womb of Mary, Jesus lost his divine powers and become fully human. YHWH gave him the power to do certain things when necessary. So after Jesus the man died, he was given life again by YHWH and his divine powers were restored. Then we have YHWH and his son Jesus. (I can write stories too.)

quote:

---

I don't thing you've grasped the nature of the proposed rules. The two "descriptions" referred to are those which are conjoined by καὶ. Read the rule again:

---

Wow, I did all that work and all you can say is read it again?Sharp found the patterns in the NT.

I addressed all those issues in Message 138, why are you repeating yourself?

quote:

---

So not only does the context of John 20:28 clarify that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah, meaning he is not Jehovah (John 20:31), but the context further says Jesus Christ died (John 20:1-3 and 9). The trinity dogma says the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is eternal. According to John 20:1-3 and 9, Jesus Christ literally died. So even if one were to argue that Thomas really assumed Jesus was also Jehovah, Thomas was clearly in error and his error was due to his imperfection.

---

Actually in John 20:1-3 and 9, Jesus died. In the scriptures he wasn't deemed Christ until he had risen.Deeming Thomas to be in error due to his imperfection is something you can't support. You're just battling fiction with fiction.YHWH is a supreme being, do you really know what he can and can't do? He could be like the Changelings in DS9, which I think is kinda what the Trinity idea is like.

quote:

---

Well, since you did in fact misread it, I thought that was apter advice than: "Rub yourself repeatedly with a small marsupial while singing My Way". I pondered my options carefully.

---

I didn't misread it and I said Sharp considered John 20:28 to be an exception. The "Trinity Delusion" argument (Message 158) is incorrect. Thomas was not referring to two different beings. He was referring to only Jesus, but that doesn't mean he was calling Jesus YHWH.Your other examples would fall under the same exception.