The Problem With The Trinity

[bbyrd009]

but meanwhile you might look into that Hegelian dialectic thingy ok

 

[Dave L]

ha see if you had paid any attn Dave you would understand what you are asking me.
But sure Dave, you won ok, the race is all yours bro
we have a winna

I think I understand what you just said.

 

[bbyrd009]

I think I understand what you just said.

ok well if that prevents you considering those Qs it works for me Dave

 

[Dave L]

ok well if that prevents you considering those Qs it works for me Dave

Why make people decode what you say? Why not speak plainly so all can understand.

“And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” (1 Corinthians 14:7–9)

 

[bbyrd009]

Why make people decode what you say? Why not speak plainly so all can understand.

“And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” (1 Corinthians 14:7–9)

ya, i have issues huh Dave, nice safe subject change there i guess
deflectdeflectdeflect huh

ok, have a nice weekend

 

[bbyrd009]

guess it's been discussed to death already, scribes scribing scribes,
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...6lZPeAhVsxFkKHcRlCyYQBQgqKAA&biw=1280&bih=625

"kurios in the lxx"

 

[Dave L]

ya, i have issues huh Dave, nice safe subject change there i guess
deflectdeflectdeflect huh

ok, have a nice weekend

Is your manner of written communication a choice or condition you live with?

 

[bbyrd009]

Is your manner of written communication a choice or condition you live with?

imo means in my opinion, Dave, and if there is anything else in the post below that you cannot interpret then really all you have to do is search or ask ok. It is kind of both, but it would be hard to explain right now. I'm not even supposed to be talking to you i guess, so it is an accommodation, let's say.

well, it is used by Ruth for Boaz too. If you start with a premise and then seek Scripture to verify it, Scripture will always oblige. I mean worship Jesus if you like, til you find Nehushtan anyway, but there are easier ways to make Him into God than that imo. How might you feel "doing greater things" than the High Priest you worship, though?

 

[gadar perets]

Because I don't think you know that's what you are doing. I don't think you know that you are refusing some of scripture to keep your construct. If I thought you were aware of what you were doing, I would ask you.

What Scripture am I refusing?

 

[gadar perets]

That's precisely what I'm saying. God lifted Him up and you try to push Him back down. God ascribes all honor and glory to Him and you say it is too much. God magnifies the Son and you magnify the law even though that law spoke of Him who was to come. Wherever your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The law has nothing to do with our discussion of the trinity. I never said the Son is glorified and honored too much. Those are your words. YHWH magnified His Son above all EXCEPT HIMSELF (1 Corinthians 15:27). Yet, Christians make the Son to be the Father and they give the glory the Father deserves to the Son. The worst case of this is to declare the Son to be the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Yeshua's Father, Almighty YHWH, is THE ONLY TRUE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISSAC, and JACOB (John 17:3).

 

[justbyfaith]

It is a matter of opinion, I suppose, whether we should continue to "love" those who purport false doctrines enough to continue to engage with them, or whether we should instead choose to be obedient to Romans 16:17.

 

[gadar perets]

ok well if that prevents you considering those Qs it works for me Dave

I just reviewed your entire discussion with Dave and only found one inconsequential question asked by you; "How might you feel "doing greater things" than the High Priest you worship, though?" While I disagree with Dave's position, I agree with him about you being so unclear. I also don't understand your refusal to quote the "questions" you are referring to. I can only assume you won't quote them because you never asked them. All you asked was one irrelevant question.

 

[gadar perets]

If the LXX says YHWH is Kurios, what is a first century Jew to think when Lord (kurios) is used of Jesus too? Have you considered Nestle Aland 27 (in the critical apparatus) and 28 (directly) call Kurios Jesus?
“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)

The Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th editions, read ‘Lord’ in this verse. It was only in the recently released edition, the 28th edition, that the reading ‘Jesus’ was used. Yet, rather than accepting ὁ Ἰησοῦς the editors of the NA 28 edition actually went with ὅτι Ἰησοῦς. It seems to me they realized how impossible the reading ὁ Ἰησοῦς ("the Jesus") seemed so they tried to make it more palatable by changing ὁ to ὅτι.

Interestingly (and telling?), the previous edition of NA 27 was edited by three Protestants (Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Bruce Metzger), one Roman Catholic (Carlo Martini), and one Greek Orthodox scholar (Ioannes Karavidopoulos). Clearly a cooperative effort across denominational lines. Yet, NA 28 lists as its editors only “the Institute for New Testament Textual Research… under the direction of Holger Strutwolf.”

 

[Dave L]

The Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th editions, read ‘Lord’ in this verse. It was only in the recently released edition, the 28th edition, that the reading ‘Jesus’ was used. Yet, rather than accepting ὁ Ἰησοῦς the editors of the NA 28 edition actually went with ὅτι Ἰησοῦς. It seems to me they realized how impossible the reading ὁ Ἰησοῦς ("the Jesus") seemed so they tried to make it more palatable by changing ὁ to ὅτι.

Interestingly (and telling?), the previous edition of NA 27 was edited by three Protestants (Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Bruce Metzger), one Roman Catholic (Carlo Martini), and one Greek Orthodox scholar (Ioannes Karavidopoulos). Clearly a cooperative effort across denominational lines. Yet, NA 28 lists as its editors only “the Institute for New Testament Textual Research… under the direction of Holger Strutwolf.”

Still, they are the pros. And if Jesus is God, they are spot on in calling YHWH Jesus.

 

[Dave L]

imo means in my opinion, Dave, and if there is anything else in the post below that you cannot interpret then really all you have to do is search or ask ok. It is kind of both, but it would be hard to explain right now. I'm not even supposed to be talking to you i guess, so it is an accommodation, let's say.

If you cannot make yourself clear it is either an act or a condition. If it is an act, I'm not impressed. If it is a condition, I'll make more of an effort to understand what you say.

 

[gadar perets]

It is a matter of opinion, I suppose, whether we should continue to "love" those who purport false doctrines enough to continue to engage with them, or whether we should instead choose to be obedient to Romans 16:17.

To you, what I teach is false doctrine because you are so indoctrinated into trinitarianism or something similar that you can no longer discern the truth.

 

[gadar perets]

Still, they are the pros.

How is it that the "pros" can change the Greek from ὁ to ὅτι? Anyone who changes the Greek text is untrustworthy.

And if Jesus is God, they are spot on in calling YHWH Jesus.

"IF" is the operative word. Yeshua is NOT "God". He is an "elohim", but the the "only true Elohim" (John 17:3). He is the SON of the only true Elohim.

If the Son is YHWH, is he a second YHWH or is he the only YHWH? Psalms 2:7 and Acts 13:33 clearly teach that YHWH is the Father and Yeshua is His Son.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If I'm not mistaken dave, he has said he's been diagnosed with mild Aspbergers, which is low on the spectrum of...autism related...disorders?

it doesn't have to do with intelligence but rather with...communi action OF that intelligence. More with a social thing. Hes obviously quite intelligent.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The "social graces" aren't really my cup of tea either, tbh.☺

They're usually just a respectable facade for aggression. Like...You can stab someone, but you must do it "respectably."

 

[Dave L]

How is it that the "pros" can change the Greek from ὁ to ὅτι? Anyone who changes the Greek text is untrustworthy.


"IF" is the operative word. Yeshua is NOT "God". He is an "elohim", but the the "only true Elohim" (John 17:3). He is the SON of the only true Elohim.

If the Son is YHWH, is he a second YHWH or is he the only YHWH? Psalms 2:7 and Acts 13:33 clearly teach that YHWH is the Father and Yeshua is His Son.

Are you an original language expert?