Many souls released from Purgatory on Christmas, pray AND on a commercial flight, Mother Teresa spea

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Taken out of context?


He is saying that people who do those things have responded with hate due to his preaching against those things.


Originally posted by adjensen

No, I did not say that. I likely said that the passage was indicative of two persons, but I did not use the phrase two creators. Basic grammar, again, TrueJew -- "two persons" does not mean "two creators" or "two gods".


You said "more than one creator", not more than one person.

Here is the quote...


Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


Semantically, Genesis 1:26 specifically states that there is more than one creator. Not one creator + one or more observers. The follow on that you point to with its singleton is not relevant, because we are talking about 1:26, specifically.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Taken out of context?


He is saying that people who do those things have responded with hate due to his preaching against those things.

No, he is not saying that -- either he's a terrible writer or you're wrong, as usual, because he says that people who have televisions hate him, he doesn't qualify it the way you claim, in any way.

As far as "hate", all I've seen from his detractors is derision at his foolish claims and embarrassment at being associated with him. Someone with the ego that he demonstrates can probably view all criticism as hate, but it is not.


You said "more than one creator", not more than one person.

Well, I misspoke, at least in the sense that you're inferring.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3 NIV)

We've already clarified that, grammatically, this passage can only refer to two distinct persons, so the underlined passage is indicative of the creator creating through the Word (Christ), so Genesis 1:26 represents two persons involved in the process of creation and semantically, that can be distilled to "two creators", but with different roles in the creation.

Your Arianism leanings probably sees that as a conflict, in that you see Christ as a creation, not a creator, but that doesn't invalidate those passages, which clearly indicate at least two persons involved in the creation, neither of which are angels.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Your Arianism leanings probably sees that as a conflict, in that you see Christ as a creation, not a creator, but that doesn't invalidate those passages, which clearly indicate at least two persons involved in the creation, neither of which are angels.


I do not have "Arianism leanings". Arianism teaches that both Christ's humanity and Spirit were created. I teach Christ's humanity was created, while His Spirit is the everlasting Father.

Genesis 1:27 is clear that only one, a "him", did the creating, not a "them".



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
Genesis 1:27 is clear that only one, a "him", did the creating, not a "them".

Well, you've a bit of a problem there...


Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NIV)

Once again there is a grammatical conflict -- "our image" vs "his own image", being used in the same context. As a non-Trinitarian, you need to misinterpret 1:26 to claim that it means "God and angels", which makes no sense; or you need to reject it and prefer 1:27, which is what you're saying.

A Trinitarian, however, can see 1:26 as the Father and Son, the creator and the means by which the creation was made (referring back to John 1:1-3) and then see 1:27 as being in congruence by that, given that there is one God and one creator (again using the semantic differentiation of "creator" and "means of creation".)

The Trinitarian view is consistent, requires no inference, and requires no selective reading -- ignoring or downplaying some part of the text over others.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Genesis 1:27 is clear that only one, a "him", did the creating, not a "them".

Well, you've a bit of a problem there...


Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NIV)

Once again there is a grammatical conflict -- "our image" vs "his own image", being used in the same context. As a non-Trinitarian, you need to misinterpret 1:26 to claim that it means "God and angels", which makes no sense; or you need to reject it and prefer 1:27, which is what you're saying.

A Trinitarian, however, can see 1:26 as the Father and Son, the creator and the means by which the creation was made (referring back to John 1:1-3) and then see 1:27 as being in congruence by that, given that there is one God and one creator (again using the semantic differentiation of "creator" and "means of creation".)

The Trinitarian view is consistent, requires no inference, and requires no selective reading -- ignoring or downplaying some part of the text over others.



God speaking to the angels does make sense. It is the trinitarian view that does not since it was "he" who created, not "them".



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
God speaking to the angels does make sense.

No, it doesn't, because the plural in that passage refers to who is doing the creating, and in whose image man will be created in. Unless you think the angels did the creating and that we're created in the angels' image, God is clearly not speaking to any angels in that sentence.

As with John 1:1-2, Genesis 1:26 presents a grammatical conflict with Oneness theology that cannot be reasoned through -- you either need to misrepresent it, or ignore it, but it cannot be rationally reconciled with your theology with the words that are present in the passage.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
God speaking to the angels does make sense.

No, it doesn't, because the plural in that passage refers to who is doing the creating, and in whose image man will be created in. Unless you think the angels did the creating and that we're created in the angels' image, God is clearly not speaking to any angels in that sentence.

As with John 1:1-2, Genesis 1:26 presents a grammatical conflict with Oneness theology that cannot be reasoned through -- you either need to misrepresent it, or ignore it, but it cannot be rationally reconciled with your theology with the words that are present in the passage.



The plural in Genesis 1:26 is God speaking to the angels. There was only one who did the creating in Genesis 1:27. Your more than one creator doctrine contradicts the Bible's teaching of one God and Genesis 1:27.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


And about John 1... It says the Word was with God and was God. It does not say a separate god/person was with God and was just part of God.

Trinitarians do not teach that Jesus is God the Father in flesh, as John 1 teaches.
edit on 21-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
God speaking to the angels does make sense.

No, it doesn't, because the plural in that passage refers to who is doing the creating, and in whose image man will be created in. Unless you think the angels did the creating and that we're created in the angels' image, God is clearly not speaking to any angels in that sentence.

As with John 1:1-2, Genesis 1:26 presents a grammatical conflict with Oneness theology that cannot be reasoned through -- you either need to misrepresent it, or ignore it, but it cannot be rationally reconciled with your theology with the words that are present in the passage.



The plural in Genesis 1:26 is God speaking to the angels.

Not unless angels participated in the creating and we are made in the image of angels.


Your more than one creator doctrine contradicts the Bible's teaching of one God and Genesis 1:27.

There is only one God, so no, it does not.


And about John 1... It says the Word was with God and was God. It does not say a separate god/person was with God and was just part of God.

Grammatically, yes, it does. A person cannot be with themselves -- the preposition "with" requires two distinct things.


Trinitarians do not teach that Jesus is God the Father in flesh, as John 1 teaches.

That is not what John 1 teaches, unless you ignored the words and interpret it the way you like, as your theology requires.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Not unless angels participated in the creating and we are made in the image of angels.


It was not a plural who did the creating.

Genesis 1:27 KJV
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Originally posted by adjensen

There is only one God, so no, it does not.


The problem is, even though you claim one God, your teachings show polytheism.


Originally posted by adjensen

Grammatically, yes, it does. A person cannot be with themselves -- the preposition "with" requires two distinct things.


You forget that God is not a man. According to the Scripture, keeping in mind that the Bible teaches one God, God can be with Himself.


Originally posted by adjensen

That is not what John 1 teaches, unless you ignored the words and interpret it the way you like, as your theology requires.


Yes, John 1 does teach that Jesus was the Father in flesh.

The Word was with God the Father and was God the Father.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Not unless angels participated in the creating and we are made in the image of angels.


It was not a plural who did the creating.

Genesis 1:27 KJV
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We were talking about Genesis 1:26, which you claim is God and the angels:


Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness

Plural as to who will be doing the making, and plural as to whose likeness. Both 1:26 and 1:27 work, as written, in Trinitarian theology, 1:26 does not work in Oneness theology without misrepresenting what it says, because angels were not the creator, and we were not created in the likeness of angels.

This is about the fifteenth time that I've said this about these two verses, and you've never responded in a rational manner, so we should likely just drop the subject, unless you do actually have something useful to add.



That is not what John 1 teaches, unless you ignored the words and interpret it the way you like, as your theology requires.


Yes, John 1 does teach that Jesus was the Father in flesh.

The Word was with God the Father and was God the Father.

Unless you think that Jesus was incarnate, in the body, before his birth (before existence, in fact) then "The Word was with God" does not work, grammatically, under Oneness theology, because the preposition "with" requires two distinct things.

Again, I've explained this numerous times, and you've never provided an effective counter, preferring to either misread what is there or to pretend ignorance as regards fourth grade grammar. Unless you have something useful to add that differs from your past arguments, we've probably wrung as much out of John 1:1-3 as we ever will.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

We were talking about Genesis 1:26, which you claim is God and the angels:


Since Genesis 1:27 is a continuation of Genesis 1:26, we are speaking of both.

Genesis 1:26 is God speaking of His plan to the angels. Then in Genesis 1:27 we see it is only one doing the creating, not the more than one creator you speak of.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

We were talking about Genesis 1:26, which you claim is God and the angels:


Since Genesis 1:27 is a continuation of Genesis 1:26, we are speaking of both.

Genesis 1:26 is God speaking of His plan to the angels. Then in Genesis 1:27 we see it is only one doing the creating, not the more than one creator you speak of.

Again, since you have nothing useful to add regarding the grammatical issue of Genesis 1:26, there is no point in attempting to further educate you.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

We were talking about Genesis 1:26, which you claim is God and the angels:


Since Genesis 1:27 is a continuation of Genesis 1:26, we are speaking of both.

Genesis 1:26 is God speaking of His plan to the angels. Then in Genesis 1:27 we see it is only one doing the creating, not the more than one creator you speak of.

Again, since you have nothing useful to add regarding the grammatical issue of Genesis 1:26, there is no point in attempting to further educate you.


Your ignoring of Genesis 1:27 shows you are not interested in truth.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I like Frank Sheed's writings. A good book is Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed, published by Ignatius Press. It devotes more than 30 pages to the Trinity, and has some great lines: eg:

"God, the infinite fullness of Existence, is wholly Himself in one infinite act of being, utterly fulfilled in infinite knowledge and infinite love, utterly simple, utterly single: yet not solitary. Mankind has always feared the solitary God. In flight from that terrifying idea, the Pagans imagined a multitude of Gods: it was the wrong answer ...... The Trinity was the right answer. God is one, but it is not the oneness of infinite solitude: it is the oneness of one infinite Godhead triply uttered: a communication of infinite truth and infinite love among three, infinite self-revelation, infinite self-donation, companionship at the level of divinity." (Page 122)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

We were talking about Genesis 1:26, which you claim is God and the angels:


Since Genesis 1:27 is a continuation of Genesis 1:26, we are speaking of both.

Genesis 1:26 is God speaking of His plan to the angels. Then in Genesis 1:27 we see it is only one doing the creating, not the more than one creator you speak of.


Can you show me the context that shows God is speaking to Angels in Gen 1:26, I fail to see it. 1:27 clearly shows that man is made only in the image of God, not the image of the Angels. 1:26 says in our image. How do you rectify the plurality of 26 with the fact 27 shows that plurality is reflective of God and God alone?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

We were talking about Genesis 1:26, which you claim is God and the angels:


Since Genesis 1:27 is a continuation of Genesis 1:26, we are speaking of both.

Genesis 1:26 is God speaking of His plan to the angels. Then in Genesis 1:27 we see it is only one doing the creating, not the more than one creator you speak of.


Can you show me the context that shows God is speaking to Angels in Gen 1:26, I fail to see it. 1:27 clearly shows that man is made only in the image of God, not the image of the Angels. 1:26 says in our image. How do you rectify the plurality of 26 with the fact 27 shows that plurality is reflective of God and God alone?


Since there is only one God, the only other beings God could be speaking to would be the angels. Trinitarians have a problem with Genesis 1:26. Their response to it either shows that they believe in multiple gods or believe in a god with multiple personality disorder. Again, verse 1:27 shows only a singular creator, not a plurality.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I noticed truejews said "I teach"....really? PO means nothing brother, God's revelation saves you. Look at the source on Polycarp's quote I am sharing. Even our Protestant brothers and sisters believe in the Holy Trinity. Polycarp was/is a bishop which shows a hierarchy in the faith. Polycarp personally knew John the beloved Apostle.

Everyone, what else needs to be shown as proof, non-Trinitarian sects are wrong. Humanity glorifies God.

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna.

"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
I noticed truejews said "I teach"....really? PO means nothing brother, God's revelation saves you. Look at the source on Polycarp's quote I am sharing. Even our Protestant brothers and sisters believe in the Holy Trinity. Polycarp was/is a bishop which shows a hierarchy in the faith. Polycarp personally knew John the beloved Apostle.

Everyone, what else needs to be shown as proof, non-Trinitarian sects are wrong. Humanity glorifies God.

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna.

"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).


I noticed that you do not say which letter this quote is from so that I can check it for myself.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
I noticed that you do not say which letter this quote is from so that I can check it for myself.

It isn't from one of his letters, it's part of the prayer that he said at his martyrdom.

Martyrdom of Polycarp





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join