Pope Death Watch... WITH A PRIZE!!! Quart of Maple Syrup to the winner!

[cgbills]

I am going to give an analogy here for the Trinity. Almost always these types of things are actually the modalism heresy. Like the water being liquid, solid, gas is actually modalism. It is modalism because it is one thing taking 3 forms, and each of the three states is not fully the water in every way. This is not the right understanding of the trinity. The trinity rightly understood is one God having 3 persons, all equally God and fully God, yet distinct from each other.


However this is maybe the closest analogy I have come across using human terms.

Image a dry erase board. You grab three dry erase pens of Red, Green, and blue. Now you perfect draw a red circle on top of a green circle, on top of a blue circle. Now you have all three colors making one perfect circle, however the red circle is not the green or blue circle, the green circle is not the red or blue circle, and the blue circle is not the red or green circle. However, each individual colored circle is perfectly the circle. The red circle is the circle, the green is the circle, and the blue is the circle. Also too all three together are the circle

Obviously there are some problems , like wouldn’t the colors mix? But this is the closest analogy to the trinity I have found using material ideas.

 

[cgbills]

Easy to answer. Daniel was seeing not just into the spirit world, he was seeing into the future. Of the beasts he saw we know that one was Alexander the Great and so on. The ancient of days he saw was obviously God. He also saw the son of man which is obviously a man, and that is the Man Christ Jesus. Not duality. He saw God and he saw the flesh that God would put on to save us. Read revelation 1. John describes the same thing as Daniel but calls it the Son of man. When we get to heaven we will see God. He will be sitting by himself on ONE throne. He will have scars in His hands, feet, and brow. And we will bow down and worship him.

But that is not how Daniel reads. And I am not worried about the prophetic part. I want you to read it carefully and pay attention to the context. Specifically this:

““I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.”
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭7‬:‭13‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/dan.7.13.ESV

There is a fixed scene, it is a throne room. It is not seeing the same person just in the past then in the future like you said. It is not seeing God, then seeing the flesh in the future. This is happening all in one moment, this is import. You have the Son of Man come to the Ancient of Days and he is presented before. Then you have the Ancient of Days giving the Son of Man all of his power glory and dominion.

There are two distinct people here, this is happening in the same moment. How could God be presented before himself if he does not have distinct persons? How could God give something to himself, if he does not have distinct persons? If this was a vision of God with no persons, it would just be the ancient of days going down and become the Son of Man, that is not what is happening. Here The Son of Man is not the Ancient of Days, and The Ancient of Days is not the Son of Man, yet both are given attributes of God.

Additionally, the long standing understanding of this verse in the early church was these were two distinct persons yet one God. So your argument falls flat linguistically (again) as well as historically (again).

You always have this problem when you try to apply the modalism heresy to scripture the New Testament there are numerous examples that show Jesus interacting with the Father even Praying to Him. Why would Jesus be praying to himself. When he is dying on the cross, why would he call out to Himself, ABBA Father. I will go more into one specific verse deeper because it was used to refute the modalism (sebalianism) heresy by Origen and others in the 100s (yes way before Nicea, way before Constantine this heresy was handled with Trinitarian thought straight from the Bible)

Please answer also to the Garden before his crucifixion.

“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,” John 17:1
‭‭
Jesus isn’t praying to himself. Why would he ask himself (father) to glorify himself (son) in turn so he could glorify himself (son)

“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭5‬ ‭

Jesus is very clearly not talking about his own presence, he is asking to be glorified in someone else’s presence (the Father). This point is super clear in Greek by the way it is conjugated, but it is also plain in English. If Jesus is praying to himself, why would he be asking to be in someone else’s presence?

I could go on and on, but go read all of John 17 and Jesus prayer here to the Father. The distinct persons here are self evident in English, but in the Greek it is even clearer and linguistically impossible (as well as logically impossible) for Jesus to be praying to himself.

The fact is your position is the one that goes against the plain reading of scripture.

 

[CaptNkllm]

Possibly Melchizedek “ Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life”. Who could that be since no man has seen God the Father?

Also here in Daniel
“ Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God”

GOD was in there with them... Again God didnt have a body so How was he in a body and how was he seen? a

Old Testament evidence of the Trinity

In psalm 110 David said:

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Talking about the Right hand or the Strength of God Which is Jesus Christ and the Only Body

The Holy Ghost as part of the Godhead is described in 1 John 5-7
""For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Yes and the are all the Same Person.. Jesus.. One Body and One Spirit...

Romans 10 9
“ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”.
God the Son died on the cross and God the Father raised him from the dead.

Also in Mathew 11 Jesus said

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son“

No again.. There is Only One Lord that is through all and in you all.. Jesus is presented as the ultimate High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. This is to Show us to Christ.


The Door is Jesus ( way into Heaven) through his blood which is tied to his name JESUS. Through the NAme the Water is Turned into the Blood through Baptism.

HEnce the Name, Blood and The Godhead.. Unless you believe that he is The I AM then you will die in your sins.. Old Testament I AM is the God almighty in the Old Testament and the Flesh in the New Testament

 

[mtrmn]

GOD was in there with them... Again God didnt have a body so How was he in a body and how was he seen? a

Talking about the Right hand or the Strength of God Which is Jesus Christ and the Only Body

Yes and the are all the Same Person.. Jesus.. One Body and One Spirit...



No again.. There is Only One Lord that is through all and in you all.. Jesus is presented as the ultimate High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. This is to Show us to Christ.


The Door is Jesus ( way into Heaven) through his blood which is tied to his name JESUS. Through the NAme the Water is Turned into the Blood through Baptism.

HEnce the Name, Blood and The Godhead.. Unless you believe that he is The I AM then you will die in your sins.. Old Testament I AM is the God almighty in the Old Testament and the Flesh in the New Testament

You are actually trying to convince us that the same GOD that created this entire universe and everything in it is totally incapable of manifesting himself in 3 different but equal persons.
I have edited this post. I should not throw a stumbling block out there for any brethren. Mtrmn

 

[cgbills]

Unless you believe that he is The I AM then you will die in your sins.. Old Testament I AM is the God almighty in the Old Testament and the Flesh in the New Testament

This leads me to believe, again that you do not understand the trinity. Trinitarians do believe Jesus is the great I AM, for he even says it “before Abraham was, I AM”

In the OT the I AM is YHWH in Hebrew BTW. As with most understandings of the OT, we are not fully told what they all mean and they are Veiled. Then we have Jesus come along and show us, he builds on the Two Powers in Heaven and shows more fully how it works, as a Trinity.

Just like you Trinitarians believe Jesus is fully God, the Father is fully God, and The Spirit is fully God. We believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God; so we believe the shema in Deuteronomy that you have quoted many times. (Arians or JWs are the ones that believe Jesus isn’t God) So by your salvation metric above, we as trinitarians are good to go

We just believe as the NT and Church history shows that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all distinct persons based on what role they play in salvation and how they relate to each other. The Father is not the Son or Spirit, but is fully God. The Son is not the Father or Spirit but is fully God. The Spirit is not the Father or Son, but is fully God.

Part of the problem is you do not understand what trinitarians are saying and you misrepresent/strawman what we do believe. Despite what you say, we do not believe in 3 gods, but only one. And despite what you say we do believe the Jesus is the only way onto salvation. That is why so much of your ranting and raving is dismissed, because sometimes you say things we agree with. The central issue is if the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons based on their relationship with each other.

I would like for you to address what was said above about Daniel again, but more importantly John 17 and Jesus prayer:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,” John 17:1
‭‭
Jesus isn’t praying to himself. Why would he ask himself (father) to glorify himself (son) in turn so he could glorify himself (son)

“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭5‬ ‭

Jesus is very clearly not talking about his own presence, he is asking to be glorified in someone else’s presence (the Father). This point is super clear in Greek by the way it is conjugated, but it is also plain in English. If Jesus is praying to himself, why would he be asking to be in someone else’s presence?

 

[CaptNkllm]

This leads me to believe, again that you do not understand the trinity. Trinitarians do believe Jesus is the great I AM, for he even says it “before Abraham was, I AM”

Their own statement of Faith says it cant be understood.. Thats the whole point is to keep it as confusing as possible.. Still Cant get Passed is the Jews beieve in 1 God.. SO how does it go from One God in the Old testament to 3 Gods? All Omni present and Omni potent and so on... There can only be one.. Jesus was made when the Fulness of Time came... He was Made Under the Law (birthed, Fathers blood came from the Holy Ghost). 1 Body 1 Spirit

In the OT the I AM is YHWH in Hebrew BTW. As with most understandings of the OT, we are not fully told what they all mean and they are Veiled. Then we have Jesus come along and show us, he builds on the Two Powers in Heaven and shows more fully how it works, as a Trinity.

But the Veil was Rent.... All has been exposed and the Apostles understandings were opened... Now they had just seen the Father and the Son in One body... Again the I and My Father Are ONE!!

John 10:30-33

King James Version

​

30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus made himself God? Or was he God? Of course he was and is and will always be.

Just like you Trinitarians believe Jesus is fully God, the Father is fully God, and The Spirit is fully God. We believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God; so we believe the shema in Deuteronomy that you have quoted many times. (Arians or JWs are the ones that believe Jesus isn’t God) So by your salvation metric above, we as trinitarians are good to go

Negative again.. You cant Twist the Bible.. Scriptures speak on their own.. AS you see my posts are full of scripture... I like it.

We just believe as the NT and Church history shows that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all distinct persons based on what role they play in salvation and how they relate to each other. The Father is not the Son or Spirit, but is fully God. The Son is not the Father or Spirit but is fully God. The Spirit is not the Father or Son, but is fully God.

They are First off TITLES Father Son and Holy Ghost are all Title of the Same GOD.. Jesus was in the Beginning with God? Yes but not in a human form just yet but all things are made by him who was nothing made.. Jesus.. In the Mind of GOD.. Jesus the Flesh is what laid the plans for us.. We were all made in the Image of GOD... That IMAGE WAS JESUS. Very simple. One Body on SPirit

The Image of God was pulled from the Future LOGOS of God and he new he would have to Come and save the worlds from SIn.
I have the pieces needed to make 1 person in the bible.. Show me the material for 3 separate people.. as you claim

I already showed you the Trinity Belief on the Trinity and they say it cant be understood but yet the Bible says it can..

Part of the problem is you do not understand what trinitarians are saying and you misrepresent/strawman what we do believe. Despite what you say, we do not believe in 3 gods, but only one. And despite what you say we do believe the Jesus is the only way onto salvation. That is why so much of your ranting and raving is dismissed, because sometimes you say things we agree with. The central issue is if the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons based on their relationship with each other.

I have Accepted a agreed Plateform for you to explain it (using the bible ) to show me the GOD HEAD.. One Body one Spirit... You claim the bible is wrong on this and other theories of Jesus and who God is.

Explain the Purpose in your Father (still waiting to see who he is the Father of) the Son and then GOD>> WHo makes the Decisions? How do you approach each one? aren't you afraid One will get jealous of the other? Confusion.

I would like for you to address what was said above about Daniel again, but more importantly John 17 and Jesus prayer:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,” John 17:1

Again these examples are for the Faithful .. Showing Obedience The FLesh Speaking to its spirit. and the Spirit Speaking to the Flesh.. Again one body and one spirit.. How would Men have known that Jesus(flesh of God) Obeyed.. Giving Praise as we Should die daily

IF you Glorify the Son you GLorify the Father and the Spirit. as they are just Titles of God.. But this is not the name.

What is the name of the Father?

John 17

King James Version

​

17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.. only one name Given Among men
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. Yes God Talked to himself and so on. Its shows that the Flesh can Obey Gods laws and Live Sin Free but you cant get passed the Transfer of Sin through the Blood... That is why the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she Conceived (The Father is the Holy Ghost).

‭‭
Jesus isn’t praying to himself. Why would he ask himself (father) to glorify himself (son) in turn so he could glorify himself (son)

“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭5‬ ‭

Jesus is very clearly not talking about his own presence, he is asking to be glorified in someone else’s presence (the Father). This point is super clear in Greek by the way it is conjugated, but it is also plain in English. If Jesus is praying to himself, why would he be asking to be in someone else’s presence?

When he said it was Finished the Spirit qualified it. Why Wouldnt God Talk to his body in any matter? You think Jesus needed Guidance? He wrote the Book and astonished those Scholars around him as he new the Word Through and through..WHy? He was the Word made FLesh

1 John 1

King James Version

​

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

How was they able to Hear him and see him (Word of Life.. Jesus was the Word incarnate
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. WHere is the Father?
Obedience

 

[cgbills]

Still Cant get Passed is the Jews beieve in 1 God.. SO how does it go from One God in the Old testament to 3 Gods?

You have been told multiple times and shown with multiple scripture that the Jews had a belief in a plurality in God. You just choose to ignore the verses or completely mis interpret them. I’ll give you the KJV this time since you ignorantly believe only it is scripture and only it is inspired (this is not in the Bible anywhere BTW) For someone who talks so much about things being revealed, it seems you would understand that these passages only show 2 people, but that God revealed the three persons of the Trinity with the coming of Jesus.

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.”
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭7‬:‭13‬ ‭KJV‬‬
Here you have two distinct figures in a fixed place and one is brought before and draws near to each other. That means there is two different people, both given the aspects of God. The son of man is not “the flesh” or just “a man” as you said. The Son of man was always interpreted as a divine figure. That’s why they crucified him in the courtroom sene, he said he was The Son of Man:

“And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭14‬:‭62‬-‭64‬ ‭KJV‬‬


Back to OT passages:

“Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭19‬:‭24‬ ‭KJV‬‬
Here we have one of the divine beings from earlier in Ch19 who ate with Lot being called LORD (which is YHWH in the Hebrew) and he is raining fire down from the LORD (YHWH) in heaven. Again these are two different people and one at least appears to be in the flesh


“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭3‬:‭2‬-‭4‬ ‭KJV‬‬
‭‭
Again we have two separate figures. The first part says the Angle of the LORD (YHWH) is in the bush. Then it says when the LORD (YHWH) saw Moses turn aside, God called to Moses from the bush. So we have the Angle of the Lord Being Called God and YHWH being called God, yet both are different people.

Judges 6:8, Exodus 20:2, and Leviticus 11:45 say that the LORD (YHWH) brought Israel out of Egypt. Yet judges 2:1 says the LORD (YHWH) brought Israel out of Egypt. That is two separate people and the Angle of the LORD is being called YHWH

“that the LORD sent a prophet unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of bondage;”
‭‭Judges‬ ‭6‬:‭8

“I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭11‬:‭45‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.”
‭‭Judges‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I know you are going to rant and rave and say something about “flesh” about all these verses, but the fact is you are absolutely wrong. The Jews understood this as the two powers in heaven and this is what Jesus builds upon in the NT, further revealing the trinity. History and Linguistic is on my side with this one, not your 19th century Pentecostal/Apostolic rantings

John 10:30-33​

30 I and my Father are one.

Jesus uses similar language to address marriage

“and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

So husband and wife become one Person? It says they become one. No because one is a reference to the closeness and intimacy. It does not mean numerically one. Jesus here can say I and the Father are one, and still be speak of them as two distinct persons. In fact, this makes more sense, because why doesn’t he just say I am the Father if there is no distinction.

(Insert here some rant from CptNk here about flesh. He really isn’t logically consistent is he)

They are First off TITLES Father Son and Holy Ghost are all Title of the Same GOD..

Can you give me the Bible verse that says they are titles and not persons? Seems like you aren’t pulling this from the scripture. I want to see EXACTLY where it says each of these names are TITLES. Then exactly where it says they are just titles for Jesus. Also you have to show me where all three are titles (I show you two persons and plurality, yet you dismiss this because it’s not all three, you need to show specifically where it says all three agree titles in scripture. You need to keep your own standard to be honest and consistent)

You say the same think about persons. I show you were the Father and Son INTERACT with each other and have relationship, which is what persons do. Yet you say it doesn’t say persons, so it’s not true.

The fact is all the scenes of Jesus talking with the Father only make sense if they are Two Persons, Yet one GOD. In your theology you make Jesus look like he is schizophrenic talking to himself that way. (Though by the way you type and rant I am starting to wonder if you are…)

The Image of God was pulled from the Future LOGOS of God

Where does it say that in the Bible? John 1 says the Logos (in my view the eternal Son) made everything, but it doesn’t say that we got our image from the Logos. Especially since you have said before that the Logos is an idea. How could we be made in the image of an idea, Gen 1 says we were made in the image of God.

I already showed you the Trinity Belief on the Trinity and they say it cant be understood but yet the Bible says it can

Show me in the Bible it says we can fully understand God. In fact I think it says the exact opposite

“Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?”
‭‭Job‬ ‭11‬:‭7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This sounds like mystery to me, we can’t know God unto perfection, yet you seem to claim that you can.

“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭29‬:‭29‬ ‭KJV‬‬

God has secret things that belong to him that we do not know. He has revealed some but not all. What he has revealed is Father, Son, and Spirit by nature of their interactions in scripture reveal themselves to be three separate people.

I have Accepted a agreed Plateform for you to explain it (using the bible ) to show me the GOD HEAD.. One Body one Spirit

Again I have posted multiple trinitarian verses. But here is some:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Again Three in One. One God Three persons. No this is not another veiled reference to the name of Jesus, the text does not lend itself to that.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Again not a veiled reference to the name of Jesus. The text does not lend itself to that

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. 2 Corinthians‬ ‭13‬:‭14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

All three persons being prayed to, not the name of Jesus. All three having different things to give us

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Here the Spirit is clearly called he. That makes him a person. If it was a force, it would say “it” shall teach you. Also we have the Father sending, not Jesus. All of them are referred to as different people

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Again all three are present. All three are not the same

Explain the Purpose in your Father (still waiting to see who he is the Father of) the Son and then GOD>> WHo makes the Decisions? How do you approach each one? aren't you afraid One will get jealous of the other? Confusion.

You again seem to be attributing human attributes to God. But here is a verse

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭30‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That is Jesus saying he does not seek his own will, but the will of the Father. So it’s the Fathers will. Also that show the Father and Jesus as different persons. Here it is shown that He/Jesus has a will and the Father has his own will. Here Jesus says he doesn’t seek his own will but the will of the Father. Though they have two distinct wills, because they are two persons, they have one unified will because Jesus does the will of the Father. Again only makes sense if there are two people.

How would Men have known that Jesus(flesh of God) Obeyed..

Who did Jesus obey? Whose will was he following? I say the father as John 5:30 says, he follows the will of the Father

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭30‬ ‭KJV‬‬

IF you Glorify the Son you GLorify the Father and the Spirit. as they are just Titles of God.. But this is not the name.

Nope the text does not say that. Again you say I distort the Bible, yet you can’t even read and do simple exegesis. (Also again nowhere in the Bible does it say Father, Son, Spirit are all titles of God)

“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:”
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Even a four year old can see that there are two separate people here. The Jesus is asking the Father to do something to him. You don’t ask yourself to do something to yourself

John 17​

​

Again this whole chapter shows Jesus praying and asking the Father for things. Doesn’t make sense if it’s just Jesus

Yes God Talked to himself and so on. Its shows that the Flesh can Obey Gods laws and Live Sin Free

Buddy, this is beyond just talking with himself. When people talk to themselves, they don’t ask themselves for things or ask themselves to do things to themselves. He is communicating with the separate person of the Father.

Also you keep referring to the flesh and have said that Jesus just put on flesh. Now here I am addressing another heresy other than modalism, but how can flesh obey? Don’t you have to have a mind or a will to obey? See Jesus was also fully man. As Hebrews says 2:17 Jesus was made like us in every respect. That means he had a complete human nature, he didn’t just take on flesh

Also, only Jesus could live sin free, we as humans in this state cannot live sin free. As 1 John says, if we say that the truth is not in us (maybe that is part of your problem)

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

1 John 1​

​

King James Version​

​

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

How was they able to Hear him and see him (Word of Life.. Jesus was the Word incarnate

Yes I agree

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. WHere is the Father?
Obedience

Again you do not say that something is with itself. That is not how language works, not even in English. You are BY yourself not WITH yourself. Again you completely fail to see how you quote Trinitarian language and miss the point. You are distorting the plain reading of scripture.

But seriously you are doing eisegesis and not exegesis and you need to learn what those two things mean. You need to read the scripture word for word, paying attention to the context. You constantly skip over many words and ignore the context, distorting the meaning. You are doing this to try and fit it in your theology. If you are sincere, try doing the inductive Bible reading method. It simple, makes you pay attention to context, and doesn’t allow you to skip over things like you have done

 

[Necessary 3vil]

Let’s see what happens when the Anunnaki come back and everyone realizes the Popes have done nothing but lied about everything including laying down false hope. The Catholic Church knows ALL of the truths yet hide it from the world.

 

[cgbills]

I have addressed it with Scripture. Agian the Holy Ghost overshaddowed Mary and she Conceived (which by chance makes him the Father) So God is Holy so that makes God the HolyGhost (which again makes him the Father)

Admittedly I went back through some of your posts to try and make sense of your wacky heresy. This is false, the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Let’s address the Spirit overshadowing Mary and saying that that makes him the Father.

First no gospel account says that. Here is the account from Matthew:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Here it says Jesus is of the Holy Ghost, not the Father. I know you are trying to equate the Father with the Spirit because of the Name Father and the fact the Spirit came over her. I’ll address this more below and show logical why that doesn’t work, but here in the gospels that doesn’t work. It says Jesus is conceived of the Spirit, not the Father

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭1‬:‭35‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Again the Spirit came upon her and Matthew says it is conceived of the Holy Spirit, not the Father

Now your argument hinges on the idea that the Father is called the Father because he conceives Jesus. Other than the problem of how can a person conceive themselves, and the problem that the text says the Spirit conceived, the Father is not called the because he conceived Jesus. How do we know? He is called the Father in the OT

“Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our Father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭63‬:‭16‬

“But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭64‬:‭8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

God was the Creator of every human being, not just of Israel, but he had not established a covenant relationship with everyone. It is clear from the way that Isaiah addressed him that he regarded Israel’s connection to God as something special, and different from what could be said about the entire human race. For him to call God Father was to acknowledge a particular relationship with him. In these verses, God is addressed as Father, not because he is Israel’s Creator, but because he is its Redeemer, which reveals the nature of the special relationship that God has with his chosen people. So the Father was called Father before the incarnation and he is called the Father because of his Relationship and not his role in conception

The Blood Comes from the Father .....Hello? you are trying to mess up one of Gods Greatest works? If the Blood Comes from the Father and the Father which is the Holy ghost!!! The Blood is pure from Jesus and Baptism works through the Name of Jesus and now you have been buried with Christ (God).

Again in addition to what was said above, there is many NT verses that show the Spirit is not the Father and is His own person. I won’t re-post all the passages you outright dismissed. What I want to address is you saying the blood comes from the Father. I am going to assume you are getting that from Ephesians. (We won’t even address the Trinitarian language in v1-2)

“6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬-‭7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Prior to this Paul is talking about how the Father is accomplishing salvation, then we get to the bold portion. You seem to think that it is the Father who’s blood we have redemption, the problem is that is not how the language works. The “beloved” referred to at the end of v6, the sentence before the “in whom”, is referring to Jesus. The “beloved” is the Fathers beloved and he/Jesus was just mentioned previously in v5 saying “through Jesus Christ”. The “in whom we have redemption through his blood” in vs 7 is referring to the Son/Jesus and not the father. The “in him" in v7 is following on from this reference to the Beloved and expanding it. This is called an antecedent. It is even more clear in the Greek (which for some odd reason you don’t recognize even thought that is the language Paul wrote in). It’s Jesus blood, not the Father. No you can’t just say well the Father and Jesus are the same so there is no problem. The issue here again is your interpretation does not work linguistically. Here it is rendering the inserting the names

6 to the praise of the glory of his (Father) grace, wherein he (Father) hath made us accepted in the beloved (Jesus). 7 In whom (Jesus) we have redemption through his (Jesus) blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬-‭7‬ ‭KJV

The Spirit is not the Father and “the blood” is not from the Father

 

[Rthur]

LOL


R

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Sirhr

 

[CaptNkllm]

Admittedly I went back through some of your posts to try and make sense of your wacky heresy. This is false, the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Let’s address the Spirit overshadowing Mary and saying that that makes him the Father.

Really? really?

Matthew 1:18-25​

​

King James Version​

​

​

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

No need to respond to the rest of your Dream... ...The BIBLE Says the Holy ghost is the Father

First no gospel account says that. Here is the account from Matthew:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Here it says Jesus is of the Holy Ghost, not the Father. I know you are trying to equate the Father with the Spirit because of the Name Father and the fact the Spirit came over her. I’ll address this more below and show logical why that doesn’t work, but here in the gospels that doesn’t work. It says Jesus is conceived of the Spirit, not the Father

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭1‬:‭35‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Again the Spirit came upon her and Matthew says it is conceived of the Holy Spirit, not the Father

Now your argument hinges on the idea that the Father is called the Father because he conceives Jesus. Other than the problem of how can a person conceive themselves, and the problem that the text says the Spirit conceived, the Father is not called the because he conceived Jesus. How do we know? He is called the Father in the OT

“Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our Father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭63‬:‭16‬

“But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭64‬:‭8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

God was the Creator of every human being, not just of Israel, but he had not established a covenant relationship with everyone. It is clear from the way that Isaiah addressed him that he regarded Israel’s connection to God as something special, and different from what could be said about the entire human race. For him to call God Father was to acknowledge a particular relationship with him. In these verses, God is addressed as Father, not because he is Israel’s Creator, but because he is its Redeemer, which reveals the nature of the special relationship that God has with his chosen people. So the Father was called Father before the incarnation and he is called the Father because of his Relationship and not his role in conception


Again in addition to what was said above, there is many NT verses that show the Spirit is not the Father and is His own person. I won’t re-post all the passages you outright dismissed. What I want to address is you saying the blood comes from the Father. I am going to assume you are getting that from Ephesians. (We won’t even address the Trinitarian language in v1-2)

“6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬-‭7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Prior to this Paul is talking about how the Father is accomplishing salvation, then we get to the bold portion. You seem to think that it is the Father who’s blood we have redemption, the problem is that is not how the language works. The “beloved” referred to at the end of v6, the sentence before the “in whom”, is referring to Jesus. The “beloved” is the Fathers beloved and he/Jesus was just mentioned previously in v5 saying “through Jesus Christ”. The “in whom we have redemption through his blood” in vs 7 is referring to the Son/Jesus and not the father. The “in him" in v7 is following on from this reference to the Beloved and expanding it. This is called an antecedent. It is even more clear in the Greek (which for some odd reason you don’t recognize even thought that is the language Paul wrote in). It’s Jesus blood, not the Father. No you can’t just say well the Father and Jesus are the same so there is no problem. The issue here again is your interpretation does not work linguistically. Here it is rendering the inserting the names

6 to the praise of the glory of his (Father) grace, wherein he (Father) hath made us accepted in the beloved (Jesus). 7 In whom (Jesus) we have redemption through his (Jesus) blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬-‭7‬ ‭KJV

The Spirit is not the Father and “the blood” is not from the Father

 

[cgbills]

Really? really?

Matthew 1:18-25​

​

King James Version​

​

​

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Dude the text does not say that AT ALL! No where in that verse or in Luke does it say Father. Nowhere in either text does it say the Holy Spirit is the Father. What you are doing is reading your theological position into the text, you are eisegeting. Reading your theological position into the text is distorting it. The plain reading, especially in Luke, is the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus. Try this, read every passage I posted and try to just let the text say what it says, do not read your position into it. That is called exegesis and that is how you are supposed to read the Bible.

No need to respond to the rest of your Dream... ...The BIBLE Says the Holy ghost is the Father

Again WHERE does it say that. That verse does not say that.

You won’t address the other points because you have no defense for your position, other than to read your view into it. If you just read the text at face value, you would see you are incorrect.

This is why you have been accused multiple times of just going around in circles. You are committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. Every textual interpretation you have mentioned is based on your theology and not on the text. It’s like an atheist. You bring them all the evidences for God and they continue to say there is no God. When asked why they say that, they say it’s because God doesn’t exist. The reason for denying the evidence can’t just be your presupposed belief. That is not considering the evidence and letting it lead to the truth.

Or it’s like people who don’t believe in miracles. You bring them evidence of miracles. They continue to say those aren’t miracles. When asked for their reason they say it’s because miracles don’t happen. Do you see the error in that thinking?

It’s like this:

Your Claim: The Holy Spirit is the Father

My Response: How do you know that?

Your Claim: Matthew 1:23 says so

My Response: The text doesn’t say that, why do you think the text says that?

Your Rational: Because it says the Holy Spirit conceived and the Spirit is the Father.

This is the definition of circular reasoning! It’s the equivalent of two year olds saying back and forth “I know you are but what am I”.

 

[232593]

The BIBLE Says the Holy ghost is the Fathe

No

 

[CaptNkllm]

No

Ok a last Remark .. God is a Spirit? God is HOLY So that makes God and the Spirit the Same...1 body 1 spirit

 

[mtrmn]

"...a last Remark..."

We can only hope so...

 

[232593]

Ok a last Remark .. God is a Spirit? God is HOLY So that makes God and the Spirit the Same...1 body 1 spirit

Close

 

[doubloon]

Ok a last Remark .. God is a Spirit? God is HOLY So that makes God and the Spirit the Same...1 body 1 spirit

I've had it explained to me different ways by different sects. They will all swear their way is the truth and everybody else has it wrong. Some will point to bible passages to back up what they're saying and some will say "you won't see it even if I show you".

I won't be getting this exactly right so it probably won't help.

People in one sect tell me they are three separate "beings" but share "power". Jesus is the son, god is the father and the holy spirit is the "essence" or "will" of god moving/acting through people/mortals. This one seems to fit best into Kevin Smith's "Dogma" interpretation.

Another way is Jesus was god incarnate walking the earth, god is god and the holy spirit is god moving/acting through people/mortals. In other words god is "modal" and changes form to suit his needs.

Yet another way is Jesus, god and the holy spirit are simultaneously three separate "persons/individuals" but one "being" or one "power". So not entirely separate and not modal. Existing in all three forms simultaneously but as one. I assume all those forms look like us, like the jebus, since god said "let us make man in our image/likeness".

The ones that aren't into the "one dude many bodies theory" more or less settle on god the father was first and the father begat the son. It gets twisty between them on the spirit part because one will say the spirit is only "of god" (the father) and another will say the spirit is "of god" and "of jesus" saying scripture shows where the spirit was directed separately by both the father and the son.

If it's not one of those then it's a new one for me.

 

[cgbills]

Ok a last Remark .. God is a Spirit? God is HOLY So that makes God and the Spirit the Same...1 body 1 spirit

Interesting that you would call that a remark and not be quoting scripture. Yet that conclusion you have made and the statement “one body one spirit” has been all throughout your reasoning and has been the rationale for many of your conclusions. Here you are admitting that part of your position is based on something that is not from scripture. When we seek truth we have to realize the difference between what scripture says and what presuppositions we are bringing to the scriptures.

 

[cgbills]

Yet another way is Jesus, god and the holy spirit are simultaneously three separate "persons/individuals" but one "being" or one "power". So not entirely separate and not modal. Existing in all three forms simultaneously but as one.

All this shows that we need to have a metric for understanding truth other than someone's sole interpretation. The validity or “truth” of an interpretation depends on how close the interpretation is to what the other of the text meant, better know as the author’s intent. This venture of trying to understand this is called herminutics.

Also it is not one dude in many bodies. The only person of the Godhead that had a body was the Son/Jesus, and that is because he joined his nature/substance to our human substance. That is why Jesus is both God and Man. Also it is the only way salvation makes sense. Jesus as man lived a perfect life as a man thus redeeming us. Yet he wasn’t able to do it solely as a man and his divine nature is what allowed him to live a sinless life

Also what is valuable in understanding the right interpretation know what the interpretation of the text was at that time and through history. There have been a lot of movements called Christianity in the US over the past few centuries. Problem is they are not really Connected to what the church has believed through time. Yes there has been schisms and breaks through the 2000 year history, but what all Christian denominations and sects have believed through time is the Trinitarian understanding. This is a historically verifiable fact. I would encourage you to study more on this: church history and historical theology. I’ll post a link to something below with a whole series on this.

Also what I quoted from you is close to what what a Trinitarian view is, as articulated by the church through time. Articulating with precision is important as specific language was chosen for a reason. But the idea of three persons in one power is not the right understanding. God is not a power, he is a personal being with a will. If you are up for it, watch this guys series on the councils.

 

[Marinevet1]

This has went a long, long way from a quart of maple syrup ...................

 

[cas6969]

Show me the unedited version!

 

[doubloon]

truth

You keep using that word.

No one has yet proven there is or is not a god. Evidence isn't proof although it can be substituted for proof in a court.

If someone manages to prove "god" exists there's still the sticky wicket of proving the messiah. If I understand it correctly the jews believe in essentially the same god, believe in the essentially the same messiah and believe in the jebus was a prophet but they don't believe the jebus was the messiah. I could have that wrong, it's been a while since I looked into it.

Without actual proof there can be many philosophical "truths" and everybody gets a trophy.

 

[cgbills]

You keep using that word.

No one has yet proven there is or is not a god. Evidence isn't proof although it can be substituted for proof in a court.

If someone manages to prove "god" exists there's still the sticky wicket of proving the messiah. If I understand it correctly the jews believe in essentially the same god, believe in the essentially the same messiah and believe in the jebus was a prophet but they don't believe the jebus was the messiah. I could have that wrong, it's been a while since I looked into it.

Without actual proof there can be many philosophical "truths" and everybody gets a trophy.

Let me preface this by the fact I used to be an atheist and my bachelors degree was in philosophy. I used to be the king of being an eternal skeptic. What you are getting into now is what we call Apologetics. I have spent many years of my life on the question of the existence of God. I can go down a huge rabbit hole here (again). But I will try to sum up what you said and give an answer.

Correct. Evidence concerning the big questions of existence, the nature of the universe, and God do not necessarily equate to a 100% verifiable. But that means neither the Theistic nor the atheistic position are 100% verifiable. That means that both positions (as well as the agnostic position) requires faith. You either have faith that the evidence is more in favor of God, or you have faith that the evidence is not in favor of God. Whatever path you choose requires faith, despite what the atheists say. This is a reality that Lee Strobel came to as a devout atheist who came to the scriptural evidence in an attempt to disprove the Bible (see Case for Christ). This is a reality that is drawn out by Frank Turek and Dr. Norm Geisler draw out in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Claiming to be an atheist or an agnostic does not absolve you from faith, you just have faith in things other than God. However I will say after looking at all the evidence and all the arguments for the existence of God (the moral argument maybe being the most compelling), I think it takes far less less faith to believe in God than it does to be an atheist.

Also your assessment of Christianity and Judaism is not really that accurate, because Christians were part of Judaism and was a sect for the first century

 

[375fan]

This has went a long, long way from a quart of maple syrup ...................

True...but this is the hide, so not surprising,.

 

[UKDslayer]

This has went a long, long way from a quart of maple syrup ...................

Thx for letting it continue.

 

[doubloon]

Correct

Thanks.

Also, I'm not an atheist.

 

[cgbills]

Thanks.

Also, I'm not an atheist.

You misrepresent my usage of “correct” as it was not a blanket statement about your claims on truth. I was only saying correct to a specific part of what you were claiming, mainly 100% verifiability. Truth is definitely something that can be known and understood, because truth claims can be measured against how well they represent reality. Truth does not mean 100% verifiability, and no one lives their life in that was. Truth does not mean 100% certainty. See the Correspondence Theory of Truth

With that regarding the big questions of the universe, even agnosticism requires faith despite what they claim.

Finally, I will say this. Though none of the positions you mentioned above are 100% verifiable, there are some positions that comport better with the available evidence and reality than others. Also some are more internally consistent than others. With that, if you are a theist of some type, look into the evidences of the resurrection. The Case for Christ is a good start. If you are agnostic, do not use it as way to justify your moral choices as I once did, effectively trying to make myself my own God.

 

[doubloon]

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions ...

I didn't misinterpret it. I chose it.

Correspondence Theory of Truth

Which, boiled down, says a statement is true if it accurately describes the current reality. Basically if the statement agrees with the current facts.

As I write the following statement it is the truth.

My mostly full coffee cup is on my desk next to my computer mouse.

Now, in 15-20 minutes when someone reads this statement, for the first time or again, it will no longer be wholly the truth because my coffee cup may still be in the same place but will no longer be mostly full. Does the original statement, still mostly true, still represent the truth? No, because it is no longer entirely factual. There's a big difference between mostly true and all true.



accurate, reality, facts, truth ... you keep using these words (even if only referencing them indirectly)

Thank you for the advice on life choices. In reciprocation I'll say maybe you should consider investing in a dictionary.

 

[cgbills]

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions ...

I didn't misinterpret it. I chose it.


Which, boiled down, says a statement is true if it accurately describes the current reality. Basically if the statement agrees with the current facts.

As I write the following statement it is the truth.

My mostly full coffee cup is on my desk next to my computer mouse.

Now, in 15-20 minutes when someone reads this statement, for the first time or again, it will no longer be wholly the truth because my coffee cup may still be in the same place but will no longer be mostly full. Does the original statement, still mostly true, still represent the truth? No, because it is no longer entirely factual. There's a big difference between mostly true and all true.



accurate, reality, facts, truth ... you keep using these words (even if only referencing them indirectly)

Thank you for the advice on life choices. In reciprocation I'll say maybe you should consider investing in a dictionary.

Your example of a coffee cup does not hold water when we are addressing things with permanence and really is a strawman argument. Your statement about your coffee cup is a statement tied to a state of reality that is subject to change, so it is loaded. If you had said “at 10am my coffee was full and sitting on my desk”, just because your coffee has now moved or is less full does not change the “current” and unchanging reality that it was on your desk at 10am and full.

Like if I said 10 years ago “my Grandpa is alive”, then he dies five years ago, yes it would be no longer true that my “grandpa is alive today” currently. However it does not mean that grandpa wasn’t alive 10 years ago. That means “currently” it is a historically verifiable fact that your grandpa was once alive, and that truth doesn’t change. So yes it would be “accurate” to say that “fact” is “true” because it corresponds to “reality” (no dictionary needed). Your coffee cup analogy and its wording is word play with loaded language. It would not be wise to use it to come to conclusions about the nature of truth or reality. If you ask the wrong questions, you will get the wrong answers.

This discussion reminds me of people who say “all truth is relative”, yet not realizing in saying that they are making an absolute truth claim.

 

[doubloon]

does not hold water when we are addressing things with permanence

It absolutely does since the truth of the statement is derived from facts and reality. Reality isn't static, facts sometimes change.

Let's try it out on something with. "permanence". A hydrogen atom contains one proton.

Look at that. Facts in a statement communicating a truth about something that arguably has "permanence". Looks like it does work when addressing things with permanence.

You forgot to add a timezone to your 10am qualifier. Without all the facts it's just ambiguous not true.

Maybe it's your perception of "permanence" that is questionable. Seems there are more things in this reality we regularly interact with that lack real permanence than possess it.

Like if I said 10 years ago “my Grandpa is alive”,

All you did here is prove that once your grandpa dies you can no longer truthfully use that statement and refer to him as alive. The statement "my Grandpa is alive" is no longer true.

Like the 10am edit you keep moving the goalposts attempting to manipulate the "truth" of your statements to suit your needs. You did it again with the grandpa statement, the word "today" is superfluous to the truth of your original statement. The word "today" isn't necessary to the truth of the original statement in the original reality in which it was made. Assuming, of course, the statement was true 10 years ago.

Trying to claim something you never said isn't true anymore to prove your point ... doesn't.

“grandpa is alive today”

“my Grandpa is alive”

Even though these are not the same statements they both possess the same capacity for truth because stating either one of them on any day your grandpa is alive makes them true and stating either one of them on a day he isn't alive makes them false.

 

[cgbills]

It absolutely does since the truth of the statement is derived from facts and reality. Reality isn't static, facts sometimes change.

Let's try it out on something with. "permanence". A hydrogen atom contains one proton.

Look at that. Facts in a statement communicating a truth about something that arguably has "permanence". Looks like it does work when addressing things with permanence.

I don’t think you get what I was saying. Yes, some facts change, I never said they didn’t and that is the point of what I was saying. In your analogy about coffee, you intentionally worded it about a mutable/changeable fact, and then conditioned the truth of your statement on time. What I was saying is that just because you highlighted a mutable fact about your coffee, that doesn't mean there is not such a thing as an immutable fact.

You confirmed my point about there being absolute/ immutable facts with your statement about a hydrogen atom. Questions about God and the nature of the universe are more on par with you atom analogy than your coffee analogy.

You forgot to add a timezone to your 10am qualifier. Without all the facts it's just ambiguous not true.

I hope you realize how sophomoric this is. Again you conditioned you truth statement temporally on purpose to try and illustrate no such thing as absolute truth.

Maybe it's your perception of "permanence" that is questionable. Seems there are more things in this reality we regularly interact with that lack real permanence than possess it.

Again never said that there are not things that change. There are. My point was there are things that don’t. Additionally (in reference to the previous theological discussions), if things are subject to change or are mutable, one can still measure if they can change by comparing it to the immutable facts of history.

All you did here is prove that once your grandpa dies you can no longer truthfully use that statement and refer to him as alive. The statement "my Grandpa is alive" is no longer true.

Yes again, that is my point. There is mutable truth statements, like what you said, but that doesn’t mean their is no such thing as immutable/absolute truths. idk what you are trying to argue. Yes one can make a truth claim that seems subjective, but that doesn’t mean there is not absolute truths. Also even if there are mutable truths, one can gauge them using internal consistency

I guess maybe more at the root of this is epistemology vs ontology.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

This has went a long, long way from a quart of maple syrup ...................

Not as far as you think…

Sirhr

 

[Stevo86]

So…. Yea…. @sirhrmechanic who got the syrup??!

 

[sirhrmechanic]

So…. Yea…. @sirhrmechanic who got the syrup??!

No one… he lived past tax day. But that’s OK. We can do a new one eventually.

And a guy did get some maple syrup for helping identify a hybrid.

 

[doubloon]

on purpose to try and illustrate no such thing as absolute truth.

Incorrect. Now you're just pushing your flawed arguments on me as if they're mine. I had no intent to attempt to illustrate there is no such thing as the absolute truth. Why would I even think such an idiotic thing would be possible. You fabricated this, you own it.

There is mutable truth statements, like what you said, but that doesn’t mean their is no such thing as immutable/absolute truths.

I never said there was no such thing as an immutable truth. I provided you with an example of one.

that is the point of what I was saying

You confirmed my point about there being absolute

My point was there are things

that is my point.

You keep using that word. You're not making any points. All you're doing is regugitating the facts I give you as if they are some insightful and revolutionary "point" when all they are is the most basic of facts with regard to truths.

Before we move on to philosophy let's revisit the foundation for this particular romp into a mental wilderness where you opined there was a need for some metric for understanding "truth". The metric exists. Now, repeat back to me how a metric exists and tell me it was your "point".

All this shows that we need to have a metric for understanding truth

 

[doubloon]

Hey @sirhrmechanic , I don't feel like scrolling back 3 or 4 pages to look for it. Who got the syrup?

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Hey @sirhrmechanic , I don't feel like scrolling back 3 or 4 pages to look for it. Who got the syrup?

So scroll up one post… for the answer!

 

[doubloon]

So scroll up one post… for the answer!

Sorry, I'll have to search the interwebs for a bigger chain emoji

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Sorry, I'll have to search the interwebs for a bigger chain emoji

 

[Makinchips208]

Here is a verse thats in the spirit of the thread…
Psalm 104:16
The trees of the Lord are full of sap.

Jesus wants us to all have syrup.

 

[LuckyLuke80]

Wait! The pope died?!

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Wait! The pope died?!

Not the new one.

Is it me, or is his brother going to be like the “Pope Billy Carter?”

I have a hunch…

Sirhr

 

[LuckyLuke80]

Not the new one.

Is it me, or is his brother going to be like the “Pope Billy Carter?”

I have a hunch…

Sirhr

Sorry. My sarcasm was too obscure. I was joking because we hijacked your thread.

 

[LuckyLuke80]

Here is a verse thats in the spirit of the thread…
Psalm 104:16
The trees of the Lord are full of sap.

Jesus wants us to all have syrup.

I thought you were going to start quoting from Song of Solomon

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Sorry. My sarcasm was too obscure. I was joking because we hijacked your thread.

This thread is awesome! It’s like a front row seat at the Council of Niciea where a rugby scrum decided the next 1000 years of Europe!



Sirhr

 

[doubloon]

This thread is awesome! It’s like a front row seat at the Council of Niciea where a rugby scrum decided the next 1000 years of Europe!



Sirhr

On St. Patrick's day.

 

[cgbills]

Incorrect. Now you're just pushing your flawed arguments on me as if they're mine. I had no intent to attempt to illustrate there is no such thing as the absolute truth. Why would I even think such an idiotic thing would be possible. You fabricated this, you own it.

If I miss read your intent, then I apologize.

However, right before this line of discussion you said “No one has yet proven there is or is not a god”. That is why I discussed that there is no such thing as 100% verifiable proof on the big issues (something apparently we both agree on). That is why I said anyone, theist, atheist, and agnostic all have faith concerning their conclusions on such issues. (Go back to post #724 and read it). Then I said that several Christian apologists speak of this reality, i.e. the reality that we cannot have 100% proof about the big issues and any position we take requires faith. Then I stated that that I think the evidence for God makes more sense to have faith in them then the evidence against God.

After this you quoted “correct”, the first line of what I said at the beginning of this discussion. I said that as I feel like you were misrepresenting me when I said “correct”. I said this because when I said “correct” it was in no way agreeing with everything you said above that, specifically pertaining to your biblical claims. My “correct” statement was only in reference to my and your statement about 100% verifiability of the big questions. It was not in reference to the issues you were bringing up about what is called “biblical truth”, i.e. the key takeaways of the Bible. That is why I said;

“The validity or “truth” of an interpretation depends on how close the interpretation is to what the author of the text meant, better know as the author’s intent. This venture of trying to understand this is called herminutics” (ref post 720)

So the “metric” for determining “biblical truth” is what we call herminutics, and what I was initially referring to. Herminutics is not a discipline or metric for determining truth outside of scripture and any “biblical truths” can still be measured against external reality.

I never said there was no such thing as an immutable truth. I provided you with an example of one.

Again sorry if I miss understood you, but your initial posts about mutable or changing truths and the coffee seemed to suggest that. That is why I went the route of showing that not all truth is relative.

You keep using that word. You're not making any points. All you're doing is regugitating the facts I give you as if they are some insightful and revolutionary "point" when all they are is the most basic of facts with regard to truths.

I have been using “point” in this discussion in the valid dictionary definition of “give force or emphasis to”. A synonym for this would be “emphasis”. So go back and read where I said “point” and read in the synonym “emphasis”.

I think here we are talking past each other.

Before we move on to philosophy let's revisit the foundation for this particular romp into a mental wilderness where you opined there was a need for some metric for understanding "truth". The metric exists.

Again you are mis quoting and mis understanding me. When I was saying that it was in reference to biblical truth claims and I said “metric” for that was herminutics and authorial intent (ref post 720). I wasn’t referring to to a metric for absolute reality

 

[cgbills]

This is from post 497 and what I was getting at in 720 about “truth of an interpretation”

To an extent this is true; however, that does not mean that just because someone comes up with an interpretation makes it valid. In other words, just because someone reads a passage a certain way does not make it equally as valid. What you are getting at is the question of hermeneutics.

Everything in the Bible was written by man inspired by the spirt. As such, this author had an intent for writing and had a message they wished to convey. This is the term authorial intent. Think about it like this: you write a letter with which you intend to give instruction. You then give that letter to 10 people and have them interpret said letter. What you get back is 10 different interpretations. No one would say that each of these interpretations are equally as valid. What you would do is say that some are more correct then others based on how close they came to your authorial intent. This is the same for scripture, the interpretation that is closest to the author’s intent is the most valid.

Now we do have the issue in that we cannot just go and ask the biblical authors their intent like my above example. However, we can better get at the biblical authors intent by understanding context. This includes the immediate literary context, the contemporaneous literary context, the philosophical/epistemological context, and the cultural context/ milieu of the author. This is why scholarship is so important. If someone just goes at interpretation by themselves disconnected from the context of the author, or worse reads in (eisegete) their own bias or ambitions, interpretation goes astray. So an interpretation is only valid in so far as it approximates the authors intent. Having an interpretation for the sake of an interpretation does not make it valid.

This leads to your quotation from Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormon church. He was completely removed from any kind of biblical scholarship. Additionally he carried a post Enlightenment hermeneutic that is not compatible with the ancient text of the scriptures (ever wonder why off the wall denominations like 7th day adventists and oneness Pentecostals, as well as heretical Christian adjacent faiths like Mormonism and Jehova witness pop up around that same time?) Third he had ambition as motivation for his interpretations. Finally, he made claims that very much contradict the historical realities of scripture. For example his whole idea that scripture was corrupted over time was absolutely blown out of the water with the Dead Sea Scrolls. That isn’t even mentioning his created theology that has no grounding in scripture or Judaism; things like god did good works on a different planet as a man and became a god here, or if we do good works we will become gods of our own planets, or things like wisdom are outside of god and pre-existed him. Smith’s interpretations were rooted in polytheism and Gnosticism, and not the Bible or historical faith. With all that being said, Joseph Smith’s interpretations are not as equally valid as the historic faith and the interpretations of the Apostolic fathers (the guys right after the apostles), because Joseph smith was far far away from the biblical context and the author’s intent

 

[doubloon]

reference to biblical truth

So faith then. Not actually "truth".

Belief in the absence of actual fact based on testimony.

So you're not actually looking for a metric for truth. Because one exists already. Which you said you know about already.

You're looking for a metric for faith.