₦airaland Forum

It is now evident that Plaetton's challenge has been sufficiently met. Case closed

mazaje: I repeat if I do there will be very minor differences not like the major differences we have in the gospels. . Where almost every thing is different. . .

Lol, I wonder what you mean by minor and major. Bear in mind that Matthew and Mark for instance are 90% similar. I think you should really do the experiment with your friends. The results would interest you very much.

Your second point is false because many people in antiquity wrote about people they knew and had been with. . . .

Lol, "many" is a very vague word. If I said "most Nigerians are civilians", telling me that many Nigerians are soldiers does not refute my claim at all. 1 million military Nigerians counts as many but it is still less than 1% of the Nigerian population. So of course many people wrote about people they knew but this is not what I said. Here is what I said:

"almost all the ancient history you know was written by people who never met those they wrote about."

All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide examples of ancient historical characters (excluding Church history) from before the time of Christ up until around the end of the Roman empire written by people who actually knew these characters. I'll wager that I can provide two characters for every one character you produce.

I'll even push further to argue that based on your contentions, you are equally discounting the works of modern historians working today because almost all of them definitely weren't born and don't personally know the people they are writing about. In fact according to your argument, we must also reject any modern day historian that writes anything about events that happened in 1800 for instance.

According to your argument criticizing the New testament writers for writing in Greek and not Hebrew, How about those modern day historians who are currently writing African history in English? Should we discredit their work too?

Let us play fair with the evidence here and stop being irrational. If you are going to apply some lofty unreasonable standard to one text, then please apply the exact same same standard to all other texts.

Where does it say he went to mount of olives?

Lol, it says it right there in the text. Did you miss it?

Mark 11:1-3 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.

It just said they drew nearer to Jerusalem and listed the cities around. . .How do you know he was not trying to tell the readers which city came first?. . .

That burden of proof is yours to bear and not mine. You are the one who was claiming that Mark did not know which cities came first on the way from Jordan to Jerusalem. It is up to you to tell us how you knew that he was trying to tell us which city came first especially with the verse and the map I've shown you. Don't shift try to shift your burden to me

Just as the gospel is a theological book for religious belief. . .And not to record history. . .According to the bible when Jesus was arrested all his disciples ran away. . .

Apparently, not all ran away...

John 18:12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.
John 18:13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.
John 18:14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.
John 18:15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest,
John 18:16 but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.

Even the story was embellished, according to Mark the fist gospel very little was written but in John the conversation was embellished. . .

I hope you know that in order to claim that a story is embellished, you must be able to demonstrate that the extra added details are actually false either by providing and defending what the truth ought to be or by showing logical incompatibility in the account. Failure to do that and you cannot make that claim.

Where did the author of John claim to have been an eyewitness himself?. . .From John 21:24 It says "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

Clearly you can see that this is an interporlation and was NOT written by the original writer of the book. Some one not even the author of the book of John said the part in bold, trying to give credibility to the stories that were written in the book. No where in the whole book does the writer claim to have meet Jesus any where or known him. . .Just some some where adding some claims later on. . .Some one other than the author. . .The author himself does NOT claim to be an eye witness any where. . .The gospel of John was written way too late to be of any value and importance. . .It brings its own theology and portrays Jesus in a different light than the other gospels. . .it embelishes almost every account reported in the other gospels. .

.
Lol, interesting. So your modus operandi is to start by claiming that there is no eyewitness because you find nobody that claimed to witness the event. But then when shown one: someone clearly claiming to have witnessed the event you claim that it is an interpolation. How exactly do you know this? or is it just something that stems from your anti-bible bias? So far all I have seen from you is "it is false because I say so".

You have made the claim that it is an interpolation and therefore have inherited the burden of proof. If you fail to conclusively show that it is an interpolation. I'll just have to disregard your comment as an empty rant.

Luke is studied in theoligical circles, not in historical classes. . . The claim the Luke wrote anything remains an assumption, since, Luke himself does not claim to have written anything any where. . .

I repeat, who is Luke?. .. Where did he claim to have written anything down?. . .pls show me where he claimed to have written anything at all. . .What is his complete name?. . .Where was he born? Where was he living when he wrote down the book attributed to him?. . .Is he a Jew or a gentile?. . .Is he married or not?. . .Who is he and where did he claim to have written anything down?. . .You can not compare the names mentioned about to Luke because you do not even know Luke's complete name talk more about where he was born or who he was. . .All you know is that some people claim he wrote a book. . .A claim he himself never made. . .You just have an anynimous book going round with claims which was later attributed to a person called Luke and you are here insiting its true. . A claim Luke himself never made. . .

I listed a few names of historical characters for you. Look them up on wikipedia and you will see that the writings of Luke are cited among the sources for their life stories. That puts an end to your claim that Luke is not studied in historical circles.

About Luke not naming himself in his work, I have explained how that doesn't change anything about the authenticity of his story. You can argue about the authenticity of the author but that is an entirely different argument from the authenticity of his story. For instance, did you know that the earliest copy of Josephus works that we have is dated at least 700 years after Josephus is supposed to have died? Also by the way, Josephus wrote in Greek to Jews about Jewish history. (I hope you realize that this firmly refutes your contention that the writers of the New testament were not writing to a Hebrew audience)
Did you know that Plato never names himself in his most famous work The Republic coupled with the fact that the earliest copy of the republic that we have is dated at least 1000 years(one complete millennium) after Plato's death yet it is unthinkable for anyone to say that Plato didn't write The Republic. Let play fair with the evidence here.

If you want to criticize the gospel texts, then be ready to criticize every other text with the same standard let us see how well they do. Don't use a double standard and claim "interpolations" and "embellishments" especially when you haven't provided an ounce of proof anywhere

To claim the point is moot is not true, no body gives credibility to any book whose author is unknown any where. . .That is why the church fathers decided to give authorship to those books to give them credibility. . .

The bold is false because it would mean we'll have to throw a lot of classical writings down the toilet.
Secondly, I hope you know that the Church fathers you are talking about, some of them were actual contemporaries of the apostles or at most 1 generation apart; especially the ones who gave these books their names.

In the same way we know about Socrates from Plato, Plato from Aristotle and so on. So do we know about Christ from His disciple John, and John from his disciple Polycarp and so on.
(note that at each stage of the chain, these guys had contemporaries like Paul, Ignatius, Clement e.t.c. all corresponding in a very rich chain network of information - in fact it is said that one can build up the entire New testament just by the citations in the writings of the early church fathers). If you apply one measure to one thing, be sure to apply the same measure to another. No double standards here.

Its possible that Socrates and all never said those things, so my position still remains, the bible is purely a work of men and has nothing to do with any divine source. . .

I notice that now you are beginning to play down the authenticity of ancient history just to keep your attack alive. Your argument that the bible is not divinely inspired only makes me laugh at this point because now you have seen that to deny the gospel truth will lead you into the dangerous waters of denying history itself, you cannot possibly make that claim anymore.
The New Testament account has passed the test of what will normally pass as historically true. By any measures you use to fault it, we must apply the same measures to other historical accounts and see if they pass. If they don't pass, then we must declare them false as well.
It is only after you have successfully proven that the gospels and epistles have failed as a historical truth that you can make the claim that it cannot possibly be divinely inspired. Until then, you have no basis upon which to make that claim.

It is actually worse than many other book written by men that lived at that time. . .

And by "worse" you mean? Please be sure to name the other books it is worse than and in what sense it is worse other than merely your subjective opinion.

Mark 4:11-12And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

But the people Christ is referring to here are Jews. Can't you see how this destroys your claim that Jesus came exclusively for the Jews and didn't want non-Jews to be saved?

Deep Sight: Thank you for your very robust final response on D1, which I am still digesting. As per our rules, I can have no further comment until our concluding remarks at the end of the thread.

D1 has now been fully treated.

I would like to make a proposal on your treatment of A2. It seems to me to be similar in character to A1 - in that it is like a list of three. As such, I feel that you might end up repeating yourself. Can we take your comments on A1 to be mirrored in A2, and as such move on straight to the more substantive A3?

Nevertheless, I might be jumping the gun. Perhaps you might have an angle or a spin on A2 that I have not anticipated. I await you sire.

You know what, I agree with you. A2 isn't normally the kind of verse I would have selected if I wanted to defend Trinity anyway. If it is ok with you, I would like to substitute A2 to explore something I touched on towards the end of my last response i.e. the Lordship of Christ. If this is not alright with you, I'm happy to move on to A3 with no problems.

mkmyers45: Will they be re-meet? i can't make the 4th but from 20th will do

I'm hoping this meeting wouldn't be the last of our meetings... God willing, we'll have more times to hang out if Jesus tarries.

dorox: Good idea anony,August 4th looks great for me, all that is left is a perfect venue and time.

Cool cool, let's wait and see what frosbel says. Once everyone agrees, then we can suggest a venue. I personally would suggest we meet in a nice pub in central london and chat over a few drinks and some decent grub.

Deep Sight: Well, I proposed the rules, and for a reason too. I suppose that it would be inappropriate to dishonor the rules now, at least, not without anony's consent. We are not tutors o, (not by a mile!) we are all putting our heads together to see if we can unravel the trajectory of biblical teaching on this controversial matter.

You raise a valid concern about other participants throwing in questions. I feel that such questions may lead to unending responses from discussants and as such we may have trouble reaching closure on each verse and proceeding to the next verse.

I suggest we await Anony's suggestion on this problem. While I see how the rules stifle extra participation, I also fear that this will lead to a disintegration of the flow and the speedy progression. If I begin to answer your question for example, i may raise issues that Anony will have to respond to, and so on and so forth.

My suggestion will be that discussants be permitted, after each verse has been treated, to answer questions only by referring the questioner to the portions of their treatment of the verse that they believe address the question, if any.

I think I agree with you. I believe responding to questions will drag this exercise in all sorts of directions. I'm afraid it's the price we might just have to pay here. There are countless threads on Trinity that have gone round and round and back and forth to no avail. I wouldn't want this thread to be one of them.

A2 coming up soon....ok, not so soon. it took me a whole day and half to type up my last post (if only I had the same dedication when writing my dissertation. lol)

D1 - Response to Response to Rebuttal Part 2.

RESPONSE TO YOUR REFERENCES

Also interesting were those references you cited who gave reasons why they think Romans 9:5 doesn't say Jesus is God.

1.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"Rom. 9:5 is disputed...It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), Vol. 2, p.80.

Now this text here is very interesting because the author here concedes a few things
1. It is linguistically perfectly possible for Romans 9:5 to refer to Christ. but then he goes on to say
2. That it wouldn't prove that Christ is equal to the Father but it would prove that Christ is divine. What he missed was that to say that Christ is divine in nature is to say that Christ is worthy of worship ascribed to a deity (i.e Paul's doxology in that verse). According to Christian theology, there is only one being worthy of worship and that is God. To say that Christ is a divine being from Romans 9:5 is to say that Christ is indeed equal to God.
But then he goes on to write that this description of of majesty i.e. Paul referring to Christ as theos does not occur anywhere else in Paul's writings and he is wrong because Paul does exactly this in Titus 2:13 "looking for the blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of our great God(theos) and Savior Jesus Christ,"

So you can clearly see that the opinion presented here is really quite wrong

We move on to your second reference

2.

John Ziesler in his book Pauline Christianity (Revised edition 1990, Oxford University Press 'Oxford Bible Series') comments:

"In facing the question of the relationship of Christ to Yahweh we must not outrun the evidence and read into Paul's language the Fourth Century definition of Christ as God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal, of one substance with the Father. Paul's language is one of the factors leading to that definition, and also part of the problem it attempted to solve, but it would be anachronistic to interpret his language in such later terms. Perhaps he preferred 'Lord' as a title because of its ambiguity, because it established Christ's relation to humanity, church, and cosmos, without too closely defining his relation to Yahweh. As a Jewish monotheist Paul would wish neither to be accused of believing in two Gods, nor that Yahweh died on the cross. The only place in the undisputed letters where he may equate Christ with God is Rom.9:5 if a full stop is not placed after 'Christ', so that it reads '...of their race...is the Christ who is God over all...' More probably it should read '....of their race...is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed....' -p.44

Notice the part in bold, Zeisler sneaks his belief that Christ was not seen as God the Son until the 4th century. This is simply a false belief that comes from the urban myth that it was at the council of Nicaea that Christ began to be seen as God. We can trace Christ being referred to as God right back to the earliest church fathers for instance, Ignatius of Antioch(AD 35 - 107) opens his letter to the Ephesians by saying:

"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be forever and unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is at Ephesus (of Asia), worthy of all felicitation; abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

While I welcomed in God [your] well beloved name which ye bear by natural right, [in an upright and virtuous mind], by faith and love in Christ Jesus our Savior--being imitators of God, and having your hearts kindled in the blood of God, ye have perfectly fulfilled your congenial work--"

Notice he even goes as far as to use the phrase the "blood of God" (in case you missed who he meant) and guess what; he is said to have written like this because he contended against the heresy of docetism which held that Christ did not come in the flesh but was God merely appearing as if He was a man and he tried to emphasize things like God bleeding because he wanted to make it clear that God was actually in the form of man(note that this is the same heresy contended against by John in 1 John 4:2).

Now why is that interesting? It is interesting because the heresy of docetism can only spring up if there is a prior belief that Jesus Christ is indeed God. Mind you this heresy is as early as the time of the apostles themselves. So to argue that by reading Romans 9:5 as the Son is God we are reading from a 4th century lens is simply false. The belief that the Son is God dates right back to the apostles themselves and hence Romans 9:5 identifying Christ as God fits perfectly.

3.

Anthony Buzzard, a Unitarian, in his book "The Doctrine of the Trinity--Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" wrote on page 268 quoting the great Catholic Renaissance writer, Erasmus; and note what Erasmus has to say regarding Romans 9:5:

"Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture, deny all understanding to the Arians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father."
(Quoted by Buzzard, but taken from "Works", ed. Jean Leclerc, 10 vols. Leiden)

Here I suspect Buzzard is quote-mining Erasmus. I couldn't find Erasmus' original text but as far as I know, Erasmus was not an Arian (Arians believed that Christ was a created being and therefore was not God). Since we know that Erasmus believed in the Trinity and would obviously be arguing against the Arians we should read the quote to mean:
Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture (I think there are other passages of scripture that clearly prove Christ is God better than Romans 9:5), deny all understanding to the Arians (don't underestimate the Arians) or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father." (According to Paul's style of writing, we can see that the clause eulogetos in 2Corinthians 11:31 clearly points to the Father therefore we should assume that when used in Romans 9:5 it also points to the Father)
Please note that Erasmus was contending against the Arians in the 16th century but let us look at someone who contended against the Arians in the time of Arius himself.

I present to you Athanasius(think athanasian creed) - who by the way wrote in the same Kione Greek as Paul - contended with Arius at the council of Nicaea in 325AD and he had this to say:

10. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and 'over all blessed for ever,' is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, 'knows not that giants perish with her, and reaches the depths of Hades ?' … (Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians)

1. The Word is God from God; for 'the Word was God,' and again, 'Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable.... (Discourse 4 Against the Arians)

10. For this reason they also will henceforth keep silence, who once said that He who proceeded from Mary is not very Christ, or Lord, or God. For if He were not God in the Body, how came He, upon proceeding from Mary, straightway to be called 'Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us ?' Why again, if the Word was not in the flesh, did Paul write to the Romans 'of whom is Christ after the flesh, Who is above all God blessed for ever. Amen?' Let them therefore confess, even they who previously denied that the Crucified was God, that they have erred; for the divine Scriptures bid them, and especially Thomas, who, after seeing upon Him the print of the nails, cried out 'My Lord and my God !' For the Son, being God, and Lord of glory, was in the Body which was ingloriously nailed and dishonoured; but the Body, while it suffered, being pierced on the tree, and water and blood flowed from its side, yet because it was a temple of the Word was filled full of the Godhead. For this reason it was that the sun, seeing its creator suffering in His outraged body, withdrew its rays and darkened the earth. But the body itself being of mortal nature, beyond its own nature rose again by reason of the Word which was in it; and it has ceased from natural corruption, and, having put on the Word which is above man, has become incorruptible. (Letter 59. To Epictetus)

Recognize the arguments he is making? they are from Romans 9:5 (note that he didn't read it in English, He read it in the same native Kione Greek that he spoke)

Just in case you think the Greek may have changed by 325AD, I'll show you even earlier church fathers who wrote natively in the very Kione Greek and therefore wouldn't have the punctuation problems we have today but yet they made the same arguments using Romans 9:5.

Tertullian (160-225)

...For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as children of light, adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as the light of the world. Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr’s sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father God, and invoke Jesus Christ as Lord. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him God, as the same apostle says: Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. (Chapter 13, Against Preaxas)


Hippolytus (170-235)

6. Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." And well has he named Christ the Almighty.... (Against the Heresy of One Noetus)


I hope you have noticed from the above that as early as the second century AD people who were reading Romans 9:5 in the original language understood it as a confirmation of Christ's deity. They did not have the translator's problem we have today. In fact when read in context you would find that Hippolytus was arguing against Noetus, they were both agreed on the deity of Christ (in fact it was Noetus that first brought up the verse because he believed that the verse meant that the Father is the same person as Christ) Hippolytus was only correcting Noetus that the Father was not the same person as the Son but the Father and Son are two persons of one God.

It is remarkable how those who actually spoke the original language knew that Paul was clearly identifying Christ as God in Romans 9:5


4.

The Expositor's Greek Testament by W. R. Nichol on pp 658, 659 states: "If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, could express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to be almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an asserion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at SARKA, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father."

Once again we see another author running free with his assumptions. How can he say even talk about knowing the mind of Paul from his writings when he has interpreted the writings to his own tastes? He even willing to ignore the irregularity in the grammar just to force his conclusion from his special "knowledge" of Paul's mind. Isn't this precisely what you have accused me of doing in 1Tim 2:5? Wouldn't you agree that he has broken the literal rule especially since those who actually natively spoke the original language read it clearly as an affirmation that Paul was definitely referring to Christ as deity?

Also consider Tertullian's statement about using "Lord"(Kyrios) for Christ and "God"(theos) for the Father in order to differentiate between the two. Consider Ignatius' disregard for this convention, read through the New testament and notice how often Christ is referred to as The Lord (not "a lord" or "one of the lords" but "the Lord of Lords" himself) consider also who else bears that title (compare 1Tim 6:15 and Revelations 17:14). Read the old testament and see who else is exclusively referred to as The Lord. Finally pay close attention to how Paul refers to Christ as The Lord. By this time, it should be clear to you that Paul could not possibly have seen Christ as something other than God. If it is still not clear, don't worry we have 38 verses more to go to help us clarify it.

I believe that my argument above has shown without a shadow of doubt Paul firmly believed that Christ is God and therefore 1Tim 2:5 could not possibly have meant that Christ is not God unless Paul was shamelessly contradicting himself.

Conclusively, the key point regarding Romans 9:5 is that Paul does not use punctuation as you have seen in the Greek above. Translators therefore liberally punctuate the verse to deliver different meanings. My conclusive point is that the Greek, without punctuation, does not disclose a statement that Jesus is God. This is clear and indisputable.

Kione Greek did not have punctuations like modern English does. Since your whole objection depends on a translator's error, I have taken the pains to go beyond the translators and yet we find that even the native speakers of the language read the statement to mean that Jesus is God. This has rendered your point null and void.

It certainly says that there is one God only, [size=16pt]and[/size] one mediator [size=16pt]between[/size] God and Men, the man Christ Jesus.

It saddens me that your entire rebuttal failed to take cognizance of the key and overriding importance of the meaning and function of the word "mediator" in the context of the words "between God and men"

I did, I understood exactly what that verse said. I have also shown you that the said verse does not contradict Trinity at all. If God is one Being in three Persons, a Person of God can and did take on the form of a man so as to reconcile mankind to God. His name is Jesus Christ

It is in fact all over the New Testament and in the very words of Christ himself.

Lol, It will be interesting to see you show Christ explicitly deny that His Deity from the New Testament. Anyway moving on

The only way you could have read D1 the way you did is the fact that you are starting from a rigid and dogmatic position which holds that regardless of what you see in scripture, and no matter how clearly it is spelt-out, Christ is and must remain God.

I would caution you against this: do not uphold your pre conceived dogma over plain and evident scripture. Remember the Literal rule.

Now that I have shown you that Paul did in fact believe that Christ is God. Will you also follow the literal rule? Or do you believe that the quality of being "literal" is the same as having a prior assumption that Unitarianism is true by default? I would caution you against assuming the initial point which is being disputed.

We have not established that God is one person of one being, we are still disputing it. Please do not assume it by default and then proceed to quoting scripture to prove what you have already assumed initially, that is circular reasoning, my friend.

Their view of Jesus as Messiah justifies such usage, without any necessary implication that they therefore thought that he was God. Today, we refer to Judges in court as "My Lord." Kings, Princes, Dukes, Generals, Popes and Regents throughout history have been referred to by Christians as "My Lord." Also the use of the word 'Theos' does not prove anything here, because they regarded the messiah as being of Divine origin, and theos, as noted above does not carry an article. Being of Divine origin - the monogenes of God, does not make him God. Any more than you and I being of spiritual origin makes me you.

At all events I submit that this point is completely irrelevant to D1 and you are free to bring it up for thorough discussion wherever it is relevant.

That's a fair remark but it should be noted that I posted that as an aside so as to give us some context. I don't agree with your objection here but I will not push it further so as not to throw us on a tangent. I will further employ it as we move along though.

D1 - Response to Response to Rebuttal Part 1. (post was too long I've had to break it)

Deep Sight: D1 - Response to Rebuttal
I respond by saying that the word "Father" whenever ascribed to God, would not contradict the word "God", but the word "mediator" will always contradict the word "God" in so far as it specifically goes on to say that this is a mediator between God and men.

Further, your hypothetical verse substituting the word "mediator" for the word "father' is a very bad mis-application indeed, because the word "father" corroborates the word "God" whereas the word "mediator" does not.

Your hypothetical text would certainly not read - "There is but one God, and one Father between God and Men", would it?

That resolves your rebuttal: your rebuttal is very clearly mis-footed, because it does not subsume the core of that which I pointed out - namely, the function of a role said to be of one between God and men.

I think you missed the entire point I was making there; I wasn't substituting the word "father" for mediator in the same sentence and in the same context as 1Tim 2:5 rather I was pointing out to you that the "and" in the sentence does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God especially if you hold that God is one being in three persons. One of the persons of God can easily play the role of mediator between God and men; even more so since He took the form of a man.

The argument which my rebuttal actually addressed - and which I noticed you didn't contest here - was your argument that a mediator cannot be of either party. This is what I rejected as untrue because a mediator is a role played and not the nature of the player.

By arguing here that"mediator" as used in "mediator between God and man" will contradict the word "God". You will also have to agree that it will equally contradict the word "man" in the same sense. Unless of course you come with a prior assumption that God can only be and only is one person of one being.

The latter part of Romans 9:5 is said to be a doxology, a piece of praise to God. Indeed in many translations, it appears as a separate statement saying "God be forever praised." This would however depend on the punctuation. It should be noted that the original Greek (which I re produce further-on below) had no punctuation therein, and as such is open to a number of varying interpretations depending on the punctuation used in the translation. For this reason, many Trinitarian Scholars do not depend on this verse in proof of the Trinity.

I should draw your attention to the way that this verse is rendered in the KJV - "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."(AV). The latter part of the verse is a piece of doxology to God the Father, praise and blessing on God for the coming of Christ. This is quite clear as you will see below.

You will see from the Scholastic Views and particularly the rendition of the Greek, I have excerpted below, that depending on the punctuation, there are a number of ways to read that verse: my contention will be that the overall thrust of comparative scripture on the deity of Christ must lead us to read it as a follow on doxology to God.

I will leave you with Scholastic views which affirm that which I am saying regarding the punctuation of that verse, and the reality that the latter part of that verse is actually a follow-on doxology, a piece of praise to God -

Scholastic Views:

"However, the Greek grammar of this verse allows for three possible translations and this is admitted by all reputable Trinitarian scholars. The key issue at Romans 9:5 essentially concerns punctuation. Paul did not use the modern punctuation conventions that we use today. He did not provide commas and periods in Romans 9:5 as translators conveniently give us and translators have three options open to them.

1. Christ according to the flesh who is God over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

2. Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen.

3. Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

The actual Greek text reads, "kai ex wn o cristoV to kata sarka o wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn," and comes out word for word in English as, "and out of whom the Christ according to flesh the one being over all God be blessed to the ages amen." No commas, no periods.

The verse can be, and should be, translated as "from whom the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.", or possibly but not likely, "from whom the Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen." The phrase "God be blessed to the ages" is a Pauline doxology."

[Some excerpts from, and more at - http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Rom9_5.html]

This is the EXACT Greek grammar rendition of the verse and its translation -

kai ex wn `o cristoV to kata sarka 'o
and out of whom the Christ the [one] according to flesh the [one]

wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn
being over all God be blessed to the ages Amen

You can see very clearly that indeed, there is no punctuation and as such the natural reading should be that the latter part of the verse is a doxology to God.

This is VERY clear from the Greek word-for-word above.

This reading is further backed up by the fact that the term "the blessed one" is only ever used as a reference to God in the NT - The word eulogetes is variously translated as "be praised" or "be blessed." The "Blessed be" is the Jewish berakah, an ascription of praise to God the Father. (Mark 14:61), (Luke 1:68), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 1:3), (Ephesians 1:3), (1 Peter 1:3), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 11:31).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"Rom. 9:5 is disputed...It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), Vol. 2, p.80.

John Ziesler in his book Pauline Christianity (Revised edition 1990, Oxford University Press 'Oxford Bible Series') comments:

"In facing the question of the relationship of Christ to Yahweh we must not outrun the evidence and read into Paul's language the Fourth Century definition of Christ as God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal, of one substance with the Father. Paul's language is one of the factors leading to that definition, and also part of the problem it attempted to solve, but it would be anachronistic to interpret his language in such later terms. Perhaps he preferred 'Lord' as a title because of its ambiguity, because it established Christ's relation to humanity, church, and cosmos, without too closely defining his relation to Yahweh. As a Jewish monotheist Paul would wish neither to be accused of believing in two Gods, nor that Yahweh died on the cross. The only place in the undisputed letters where he may equate Christ with God is Rom.9:5 if a full stop is not placed after 'Christ', so that it reads '...of their race...is the Christ who is God over all...' More probably it should read '....of their race...is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed....' -p.44

Anthony Buzzard, a Unitarian, in his book "The Doctrine of the Trinity--Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" wrote on page 268 quoting the great Catholic Renaissance writer, Erasmus; and note what Erasmus has to say regarding Romans 9:5:

"Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture, deny all understanding to the Arians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father."
(Quoted by Buzzard, but taken from "Works", ed. Jean Leclerc, 10 vols. Leiden)

The Expositor's Greek Testament by W. R. Nichol on pp 658, 659 states: "If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, could express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to be almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an asserion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at SARKA, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father."

[Excerpts From - http://onlytruegod.org/defense/romans9.5.htm]

[Excerpts From - http://onlytruegod.org/defense/romans9.5.htm]

This is quite interesting except that Romans 9:5 is not the only place that Paul clearly identifies Jesus as God, he does the same thing in Titus 2:13.

It is interesting to note that what you resorted to was an appeal to ignorance namely: "the new testament Greek had no punctuations and therefore we really cannot tell exactly which translation is proper. But then if this is true and Trinitarian translators have just given themselves freedom to put punctuations wherever they like in order to promote their doctrine, wouldn't the same be said about Unitarian translators putting a full stop where they like in order to promote their doctrine too?

For instance, after you laid out the Greek word for word transliteration, you said and I quote:

You can see very clearly that indeed, there is no punctuation and as such the natural reading should be that the latter part of the verse is a doxology to God.

My question to the part in bold is WHY? How do you make the jump from "there is no punctuation" to "therefore you should put a full stop where I tell you to".
I hope you can see that you are doing the exact same thing you accuse trinitarians of doing. You cannot recommend that the last part ought to be a doxology without having a prior assumption that Christ is not God.

---

RESPONSE TO YOUR ARGUMENT ON THE PROPER USE OF EULOGETOS AS ONLY IN REFERENCE TO THE FATHER.

Now let us move further to the reason you gave i.e. that eulogetes means "blessed" and corresponds to the Hebrew berakah and is only used in reference to God the Father.

I am happy to tell you that that is simply not true. The word eulogetos simply means blessing or to bless or blessed or adore or to speak a good word of e.t.c. it also appears in the forms eulogeo and eulogia. It is the word from which we derive the English word eulogy.

"eulogetos" in particular only appears 8 times in the New testament and they all refer to God (not necessarily exclusively the Father). But is this because eulogetos is reserved solely for God? or is it simply because that is just Greek grammar depicting different shades of meaning and that's how it happened to show up in the New Testament. Well let us see.

Consider these verses:

Eph 1:3 Blessed(eulogetos) be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed(eulogeo) us in Christ with every spiritual blessing(eulogia) in the heavenly places,

Rev 7:12 saying, "Amen! Blessing(eulogia) and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen."

Notice that in Ephesians, eulogetos is used to denote blessed in adjective form as ascribed to God, but then down the line when blessed is as a verb (i.e. God acting the blessing upon man), we now have eulogeo, even further down, we have blessings as a thing eulogia.

Note that in Revelations we see eulogia ascribed to God. This makes it clear that "eulogetos" is not some special divine word, it is only an adjective form of "blessed"

Compare also with "freedom" (eleutheros)

1Pe 2:16 Act as free(eleutheros) men, and do not use your freedom(eleutheria) as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

Rom 8:21 that the creation itself also will be set free(eleutheroō) from its slavery to corruption into the freedom(eleutheria) of the glory of the children of God.

free men(adjective) = eleutheros
freedom (noun) = eleutheria
to set free (verb) = eleutheroo

Also compare

philia = friendship
phileo = to befriend
philos = friend (noun)

Notice a pattern yet?

I bet I could also show you the same with the Hebrew berakah but I think I've done enough foreign language studies for one day however let me show you somewhere berakah is used.

Gen 32:26 Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."

Now compare with this with:

And he said, Let me go, for shachar breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, unless thou make a berakah upon me. (Othordox Jewish Bible)

Notice here that Jacob is asking for berakah for himself and he is granted by God. This further proves that berakah and eulogetos simply mean blessing and are not necessarily restricted to God in Greek and Hebrew grammar.

What you really want to look for if you were to make that argument properly is to show that God is eternally blessed in the sense that He is worthy of adoration eternally. And if you had tried to do that, you will once again be accosted with the person of Christ having this same eternal blessings, honor glory and might ascribed to the father as seen in Revelations 5:13

And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:

“Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

---

To be continued...

DrummaBoy: LOL!!!

no wahala.

Atleast dem no collect your doctrine.

We await your response to Deep.

Lol, no dem no fit collect that one. Na to kill me be that.

DrummaBoy: Welcome Anony

Wetin you buy come for us?

Lol, Bros no vex, I buy plenty plenty things but Ekelebe block me for road seize am.

frosbel: will be nice to meet a few nairalanders, but security is always paramount.

I have spoken to a few of us but only met one of us in real person a few weeks ago when I was in Nigeria.

All the same, let me know nearer the time.

Let's talk about our meetup here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1167082/religion-section-nlers-living-uk#16660921

What do y'all say to Sunday August 4th?

bump

Rebuttal of D1

I'll address what I believe to be the summary of your argument (correct me if I am wrong)

Your argument is basically that from 1Tim 2:5 we ought to conclude about Jesus Christ that:-

1. He was a man

2. He certainly was not God

3. But being the mediator, could not possibly of normal mankind, otherwise, he is no mediator. A mediator cannot be either of the parties.

My response is :

I agree with 1 that Christ was a man, I also somewhat agree with 3 that He could not possibly be normal mankind and that's because I hold that Christ while on earth was both God and man (note that by this, I don't mean half God and half man)

I do not agree with number 2 that Jesus is not God because that is simply not what the text says. Let us read the text again.

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ[a]and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.


Remember that I pointed out to you that the Trinity is NOT 3 Gods. It is one God in three persons. Remember also that I pointed to you the subtle difference between form(nature) and function. This is very important because when describing someone as God or a man, you are describing his/her nature however when describing someone as a mediator, you are describing the person in terms of his/her function (what he/she does). Saying that the mediator can neither be God or man simply does not follow because being a mediator is a role that is played and not the nature of a thing.

For instance, assuming you had read a verse that said. "We have one God and one Father of all creation...." You would immediately understand that despite the "and" in the sentence, God and the Father of creation are not different entities but one and the same because "father" as used in the sentence shows the role God is playing therein.
In fact as you continue reading, 1 Timothy 2:6 says "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time..." further showing us that "mediator" is as a result of what He did and not a definition of what He is.

To further prove to you that Paul couldn't possibly mean that Christ is not God, remember it was the same Paul who said in Romans 9:5

"....of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen" (NKJV).

So my dear friend, from what we have read, that verse does not say that Christ is not God. Nowhere in the New testament says this. In fact we have parts of the New testament like Romans 9:5 which I have just shown you explicitly saying that Christ is God (theos)

This affirms the doctrine of the Trinity which is that The Father is God, The Son is God and yet they are not two Gods but one God.

The only way you could have read that Christ is not God in 1Tim 2:5 was if you started from a prior assumption that God is only and can only be one person of one being.
If you believed in the doctrine of Trinity and the fact that Christ was both God and Man, the verse would fit right into your theology with absolutely no problems.



P/s: One small point to take note of: The new testament writers usually would use "God"(Theos) to represent the Father and "Lord" (Kurios) to represent the Son though on a few occasions, they would switch the terms, referring to the Father as Kurios and the Son as Theos. Interestingly, they called Jesus Christ the Lord in the very same way old testament writers called the Father the Lord. It is also interesting to note that when new testament writers translated the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHVH (Jehovah) they almost always translated it as Kurios (The Lord) a term they used to refer to Christ.

Deep Sight: D1 - I Tim. 2:5: - For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a man Christ Jesus…”

History and Authenticity:

The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, usually referred to simply as First Timothy and often written 1 Timothy, is one of three letters in the New Testament of the Bible often grouped together as the Pastoral Epistles, along with Second Timothy and Titus. The letter, traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, consists mainly of counsels to his younger colleague and delegate Timothy regarding his ministry in Ephesus (1:3).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

Although there are modern day challenges as to the question of whether this epistle was actually written by St. Paul, it remains authentic for the purpose of this discussion given that it forms part of the normal and orthodox Bible and it has no verses alleged to be inserted or modified, and the verse in question is not in controversy in terms of being an authentic part of the bible.

Context

The context reads -

1 Tim 2: 1 - 7

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ[a]and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Logical Critique

We can see that the preceding verse speaks of the desire of God being that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. We notice that he refers to God as "God our Saviour" and this is something many Trinitarians seize upon.

But the reality is that he instantly clarifies exactly what he is talking about, exactly which God, and the relationship between God, Man, and the Lord Jesus Christ - he says -

For there is one God [size=16pt]and[/size] one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus!

I have placed in bold the key elements of this verse which completely dash away any notion of the deity of Christ whatsoever.

He states clearly and conscisely that there is but one God.

He then says "And"

This word is very important and that is why i enlarged it above.

"There is one God and one mediator" - This conclusively discloses that aside from the one God, there also exists another entity which he is referring to there.

But the most important word in that verse is the word "mediator"!

A mediator, by definition, serves as a go between between two parties!

A mediator cannot be one of the parties itself: that is firmly illogical and destroys the very meaning of the word "mediator." This is undeniable, and absolutely inescapable.

I therefore assert that Jesus is here described as a mediator between two parties - God and Man. As such, he cannot be one of the parties. That word "mediator" hammers this down.

And finally, the mediator is described as "the man Jesus Christ" - which shows that indeed -

1. He was a man

2. He certainly was not God

3. But being the mediator, could not possibly of normal mankind, otherwise, he is no mediator. A mediator cannot be either of the parties.

Linguistics and Scholastic Views -

I cull the following from Bible Education.com -

Collins English Dictionary (1974) tells us that the word ‘mediator’ is the noun of the verb, ‘to mediate’ which means ‘to bring peace or an understanding (usually between people who are not on friendly terms).’ This meaning approaches but does not fully reach the meaning assigned to the Greek word, mesites - ‘a go-between, reconciler or intercessor’. A mediator is some one who effects, or attempts to effect, reconciliation between two estranged parties.

WHO IS GOD’S MEDIATOR?

But we are interested here in the necessary one mediator who can bring about peace and unity between God most holy, and us frail, sinful, mortal people. Who is God’s mediator? Only the Holy Scriptures, written by inspiration of God can reveal this. In the New Testament the Greek word for mediator, mesites, occurs some seven times. Three times in Galatians 3/19,20, where the Apostle Paul speaks of a mediator to whom God gave the Law-Covenant at Sinai (the Law of Moses) to Israel, God’s chosen people. That mediator was the High Priest of Israel. Under the Mosaic Law, Aaron of the tribe of Levi and his successors mediated between God and Israel so as to effect atonement. This at-one-ment was necessary for both himself and Israel, and was effected annually on the Day of Atonement, (Leviticus ch. 16). Paul’s point in the Galatians references above is that the High Priest’s Law mediation did not and could never bring about true unity with an holy God. This is only possible through "the faith of Jesus Christ", v. 22 - emulated, or copied by all who like Jesus, believe God’s promises and are baptized, vv. 22-29. The other four times ‘mediator’is used in the N. T. are in 1 Timothy 2/5, quoted above, Hebrews 8/6; 9/15; and 12/24. The Apostle reveals who is God’s true Mediator - "the man Christ Jesus" - our risen Lord, who mediates a new covenant which is better than the old Law-covenant of Moses because it involves faith in God’s Word and trust in His redeeming grace.

Jesus Christ our Lord is the one and only Mediator between God and men. He represents God because, as the Son of God, God sent Him to live an exemplary life of holiness and be obedient unto death. He represents mankind because he is "the man Christ Jesus" and once bore the same mortal nature with all its weaknesses as we now bear, and he died as an acceptable offering for our sins. God raised Him from the dead, granted Him God’s own nature, immortality, and made Him "high priest after the order of Melchisedec",(Hebrews 5/5-10), and "the one mediator between God and men", (1 Timothy 2/5).

http://www.bibleed.com/bibleteachings/jesusandthepromises/onemediator.asp

I should place a caveat here. I extract this as a Christian view for your benefit. I do not say that I agree wholly with it - for I know that you may ask why the High Priest of Israel is designated a mediator if he is a man. To that, I say that he is a man, but is not the whole nation of Israel, who form one party in the mediation - in the same way that even where Christ is a man, he is not mankind as a whole, who form one party in the mediation referred to in D1. I also point out that when it is said - "One God AND one mediator", this still, inescapably, refers to two entities, two evidently separate entities. - [Edit: And it is clear therein that the Mediator is not the God]

As such, I conclude my Proposition on D1, by saying that it multiply denies the doctrine of the trinity or the idea that Jesus is God himself.

Wow, nice one. Someone came prepared. I'll respond to this in a bit.

Deep Sight: A1 - Rebuttal
I need only mention that -

1. As you have admitted, the verse does not prove the mentioned persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to be one

If you recall at the beginning of this discourse, I said that I will contend that scripture altogether only really makes sense in the light of the doctrine of Trinity. This applies especially for this verse. To illustrate what I mean; I'll use something analogous - Scripture altogether makes sense when read in the light of God being omnipotent. For this reason a verse that says "God created the heavens and the earth" may not necessarily "prove" that God is omnipotent however, the verse fits right in and makes sense in the light of God's omnipotence

2. The verse does fit better into a Unitarian view than it does into a Trinitarian View: FOR if God were indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, there would be no need to baptize by mentioning these entities separately. Baptism would be sufficient in the name of God. The fact that these entities are being listed separately in a rite, shows clearly that they are indeed separate Entities.

Lol, I could say the exact same thing in opposite which is that
"FOR if God were indeed only the Father, there would be no need to baptize by mentioning these entities separately. Baptism would be sufficient in the name of God. The fact that these entities are being listed separately in a rite, shows clearly that they are indeed three distinct persons of God."

3. It still makes sense under a Unitarian view which sees God as the Almighty, Jesus as his instrument of Redemption, and the Holy Spirit as his all pervading power. Indeed, it would then make sense to do the baptism rite mentioning all these.

Notice that here you have had to add meanings(in red) that we wouldn't normally get from the text by plainly reading it.

Do you have a response to this rebuttal, or, given that you have said already that the verse does not prove the Trinity, do we move on to A2?

I would rather we did D1 next and go back and forth that way.

Deep Sight: Great.

Now let us begin.

I await your proposition on A1.

A1. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19

Now, what is interesting about this verse? Basically Christ is telling His disciples to baptize people based on His authority and that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Now while this does not explicitly "prove" God is Trinity, It fits right into the doctrine in the sense that it names the three persons of God as the authority by which a person is saved.

A strict unitarian doctrine will have to further explain why God the Father isn't a sufficient authority by which men are baptized

I personally won't build a case for Trinity from Matthew 28:19 however, if The doctrine of Trinity is true, then Matthew 28:19 makes much more sense than if it were otherwise i.e. The doctrine of Trinity is the best explanation for the verse.

Deep Sight: But surely, their acts of wearing sackcloth and ashes, denying themselves food and water, and all that - surely those acts served as penance and atonement which the Lord saw before averting the disaster.

But God didn't demand of them to fast. Their fasting showed the extent of their remorse.

Remember plaetton's challenge was:

I challenge any and all christians to show anywhere in the bible where Yahweh forgave anyone or group without punishment.

Unless you think that the extent of person's remorseful pleading actually counts as punishment for a crime in which case you would have turned the whole idea of forgiveness upon it's head. Surely you of all people should know better than that.

Deep Sight: O sorry, I thought I had posted it, turns out I forgot that tab in my browser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule

So Rules 1 & 2 have been rejected and Rule 3 is endorsed. Rule 4, I still await your endorsement of after you read the link. Mind you, only the first rule of interpretation (literal [and literary, as you said] sense, that is, the plain meaning on the face of the grammar used) is the main rule. The others are emergency rules where a manifest absurdity has to be avoided.

I've read it now.
Rule 1 accepted now that we have both laid out our case,
Rule 2, I can't accept for the previously given reasons
Rule 3 accepted
Rule 4 accepted

Deep Sight: I agree with this.



I believe that the Bible teaches ALL THROUGH that God is ONE and indivisible. I believe that this has always been the strict monotheist view of God right from the Old Testament.

The Unitarian God, is the Father.

I further believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the firstborn of God, God's monogenes - only begotten son, the light from God through which creation spawned, and that son of God sent into creation for the teaching and salvation of mankind. I believe that Jesus is not God, did not claim to be God, and is not equal to God, and said so plainly.

I further believe that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is the force or power of God, and emanates from God, just as sunlight emanates from the sun, but is not the sun.



It needn't necessarily be incoherent. It is possible to conceive God being the Almighty Father who descends into his creation as a man (Jesus) and whose spirit permeates all things (the Holy Spirit). It does, of course, become difficult when you say that that man, is not the father, but is still God, but my answer is no: I will not be bothering with the inherent or otherwise incoherence of the doctrine itself. This thread is dedicated not to the incoherence of the doctrine in and of itself, but to see whether or not the bible in fact teaches such a doctrine at all, and to see if scriptural references do not render the doctrine illogical in light of scripture.

So I could, for example, allow that the doctrine as conceived needn't be incoherent, but I would then argue in my arguments that it is illogical to say that the three persons are equal in light of D2, where Jesus says that the Father is greater than him.



This is fine.

Good. Sorted

plaetton: Ha ha ha.
See Anony gloating because he thinks Dougvilla has done his hack job for him.
Sorry sir, you gloating is quite premature.

I read everything that Dougvilla and the other poster wrote, and I understand exactly where they are coming from.
They are still off the mark.

While Jesus was exercising the perogative of forgiveness in those few instances, he was definitely not acting in those capacities as god.
Now, If the posters are trinitarians, and therefore believe that jesus was acting as The God at all times, then let them make that point. That, ofcourse would be yet another debate between trinitarians and anti-trinitarians.

Until the trinitarian and anti-trinitarian conflict is resolved,
thus far, none have shown or proven that Yahweh/God had ever forgiven anyone without punishment and recompense.

Show me the proof, not mere assumptions and wishful thinking.

Lol, ok then here you go...

For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, "May the good LORD pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, the LORD, the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness." And the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people. 2Chronicles 30:18-20

Does this satisfy you now?

Even more:

Jonah chapter 3

Jon 3:1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying,
Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you."
Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth.
Jon 3:4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day's journey. And he called out, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"
Jon 3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.
Jon 3:6 The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
Jon 3:7 And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, "By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water,
Jon 3:8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands.
Jon 3:9 Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish."
Jon 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.


Now as deSika has suggested, be a gentleman, acknowledge your ignorance and tender respectfully your apologies.

Deep Sight: Lolz, well Anony has not accepted all the rules, for now he has only accepted Rule 3, and I am still awaiting his endorsement of Rule 4, after he acquaints himself with the Mischief Rule on the link I provided.

How have you been. Its been such a long time.

I haven't seen the link.

Deep Sight: So the definition is firmed up as the Athanasian Creed and as expanded in your summary in the above. We will work with this definition for the thread.

Now, I am not being tiresome, please, but before we proceed, I want to introduce one more thing: I introduce this on account of the large amount of verses to consider, (you have 20, and I have 20, making 40, plus others that may come up). If we debate each verse extensively without end, the thread will go no where and we will never arrive at a point whereby all verses have been addressed and we, and readers, can take a snapshot or bird's eye view of the totality of biblical direction on the matter. For this reason I propose that our posts on each verse should be limited to -

Proposition
Rebuttal
Response to Rebuttal
Response to Response.

After these 4, the verse is concluded and we proceed to the next verse. That way, we do not go on forever. Also, that way, one person starts and the other person finishes, one person has the first say, the other person the last, and both in between says, would have had opportunities to respond. Any further comment intended for the last response should be saved for our concluding remarks when all verses have been treated. Also, we should make an effort to keep the treatment of each verse as short, clear and concise as possible, in light of the large amount of verses to be treated.

So for example, let us take my D2, which is John 14:28 - "The Father is greater than I"

I will start with my Proposition, quoting the verse, and saying why it disproves the Trinity. In so doing, I may factor all the elements mentioned earlier, regarding the verse, such as History, authenticity, context, linguistics, comparative scripture, logical interpretation, and scholastic views.

You will then rebut my Proposition.
I will respond to your rebuttal.
You will respond to my response.

And then, without further ado, we strictly proceed to the next verse. Anything that is left out should remain left out, until our concluding remarks after all verses have been dealt with.

This is fair enough, but first before you proceed to do that I will require that you make a post properly defining your position and describing exactly what you believe to be the nature of God according to the bible. Be sure also to make it plain which of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost you believe the Bible means by One unitarian God

Secondly, before we jump into a verse by verse analysis, I am taking it that you are granting that the Trinity is not an incoherent concept to you. If it is I'll suggest we sort it out first before proceeding because I don't want us to go half way into a verse and then you suddenly reply "how can 1+1+1 be = 1?"

Yes, I substituted it for the the appropriate Athanasian Creed (which is what you quoted). You accept that definition, I take it?

I think the Athanasian Creed goes into much more depth and i agree with it. However I have edited my post to add in a small word of caution which I'll suggest you give a look.

frosbel: ^^^
all this mumbo jumbo just to prove that GOD is 3 .

btw , when are we meeting for our summer drink ?

Lol, when would you like to meet up?

Hey I just noticed that you switched the Nicene creed to the Athanasian creed half way and I mistakenly quoted it.

Edit: Nevermind, I agree with the creed but bear in mind that equality in form/nature is what is in question here and not funtion. i.e. one person of the Trinity 'sending' another person of the Trinity does not make the sender greater nor the sent less God. The functions of each person of the Trinity does not translate to a hierarchy in "Godness". I just want to point this out from the onset

Deep Sight: DEFINITION.

I further propose that to have a coherent discussion, we must both be working with a given standard definition of the trinity and the deity of Christ.

I propose that we use the standard definition as articulated in the Athanasian Creed, which is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated.

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

We take this definition to render that -

God is ONE

The Father is GOD

Jesus is GOD

The Holy Spirit is GOD

If this definition is not okay for you, please propose one.

I see you have gone ahead to render the definition for me. Good I accept. To expand further I'll state it like this.

1. God is One
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father is not the Son
6. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
7. The Son is not the Father
8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit
9. The Holy Spirit is not the Son
10. The Holy Spirit is not the Father
11. God is one being and three persons.

I will contend in this debate that the whole of what scripture says about God can only make sense when read through the light of this doctrine and that a doctrine of a unitarian God cannot maintain coherence for all of scripture.

Edit: I have added the second part of the Athanasian creed to your post just to have it all together at one place.

Forgive me but I'll have to disagree with some of your rules

Rule 1 only works if you know the case I am actually making in the first place and vice versa. For this reason, I suggest that the first step should be an introductory post properly defining the position to be held and properly laying out the case. Subsequent posts i.e. the verses presented can now therefore be judged by how they show this.

Rule 2 I cannot accept because it will lead us into the trap of cancelling out one verse by another rather than seeking to find what all scripture points at together.

Rule 3 I agree with

Rule 4 I agree as long as by literal sense you mean literary sense i.e. A poem will be interpreted as a poem, a letter as a letter, e.t.c. also bearing in mind the context and setting of the text. For instance when reading Jesus words, we must bear in mind who was being spoken to and what His words would mean in a Jewish context.

Lastly, I didn't quite understand what you meant by "mischief rule". Perhaps some examples might help me understand.

^^^Good work so far. Now how would you like us to proceed?

plaetton: Another good effort.
Aside from assumptions , No one has shown where God actually forgave anyone without punishment or recompense.

Are you blind? Did you actually bother to read the passages he laid out? What did you expect forgiveness to look like?

In your references, Jesus, just like priests all over, arrogated to himself the perogative of forgiveness, something that would contradict his earlier spoken words of " Do not be deceived, god cannot be mocked: for surely as man soweth, so shall he reapeth".
There is no evidence that god forgave.
Show me any biblical evidence that God forgave anyone.

I'm afraid your ignorance of the bible is much - even after you have been corrected. I would suggest you actually sort that out first before attempting to criticize it.

deSika: @ plaeton
dougivilla(m) has done the job for you, now tender your apologies, acknowledge your ignorance like a gentle man

DougVilla has finished work here. If plaetton had any self-respect, he would just quietly put that in his pipe and smoke it. But alas he didn't.

Frank4YAHWEH: The Scripture is corrected by those who understand. They are perverted by those like you who don't understand in that you add unto Father Yahweh's prophetic word what it simply does not say.

Lol, it is interesting to note that even in accusing me of perverting the scripture, you have conceded that it is those who actually understand a language that can correct it. Both of us who don't understand Greek and Hebrew will simply have to rely on the English translations that we actually understand.

I do not believe that he literally meant that he came down from heaven for the simply fact that he did not literally pre-exit his birth in heaven as an actual being, but he did literally exist here on earth when he came into existence and so in turn he could literally asend to heaven.

This is what we call circular reasoning. You are arguing that "Christ coming from heaven is not literal because you believe He didn't pre-exist His birth and that Christ did not pre-exist His birth because you believe that the passages that say He came down from Heaven are not literal". That's fallacious reasoning my friend.

You twisted it in falsely suggesting that when Yahshua spoke parabolically about coming down from heaven that he meant this literally. Those present who took Yahshua coming down from heaven literally are those who these parables are hidden.

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of Yahweh has been given to you, but not to them. ... This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand (Mattithyah [Matthew] 13:10-13).

John 6:62 destroys this argument. . . .or do you also want to suggest that Jesus Christ was also trying to deliberately confuse His disciples too by also telling them that He will ascend back to Heaven where He was before?

The bread of life is FATHER Yahweh's word that Yahshua His SON spoke in this last time period and the prophets of old most certainly did speak the bread (His word) of life as Father Yahweh directed them.

Interesting. Yet this Word has seen the Father and only does what He has seen the Father do. Also in John 3, This Word has been in Heaven and seen and heard things which He now testifies.

Yes, I do seriously demand for the exact phrase "Jesus pre-existed His birth" to be provided, since you believe that your so-called "Holy Bible" actaully says this. The fact is, there is no mention in Scripture that Yahshua pre-existed his birth. Yahshua could not have pre-existed his birth, since he had to be a man just like us in every way. Since he had to be like us in every way, he did not pre-exist his birth, but was born (came into existence) in the flesh as a mortal man just like us. We did not pre-exist our birth, so Yahshua did not pre-exist his.

Lolol, wow was that really what you wanted? perhaps I should have demanded that you show me where the bible uses the exact phrase "Jesus did not pre-exist His birth".