- May 29, 2005
- 5,876
- 485
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your point?debiwebi said:You mean after he is already an Apostle Already a Bishop and already Head of the Church? HUH? And you are saying this is what the whole of the Church is laid on when Christ said otherwise????????????
Wavy said:Not opinion. Fact based on the plain reading of the text. He calls each individual deity an elohim of other nations, not a replacement of the true Elohim of the Jews.
In addition (can't believe I overlooked this) you have commited a serious anachronistic fallacy.
In its historical context, the Jews would not have understood "Elohim" to be a plurality of persons anyway, so how can they have tried to substitute an Elohim of plural persons with other elohim (assuming your definition is correct)?
So therefore you truly believe the Son of God to literally be the Son of God as in literally begotten and made ....Wavy said:Depends on what you mean the "same entity". When I say the Spirit = Spirit of the Father, I mean that he is not a separate person or co-equal person with the Father.
I believe the Spirit represents the essence, life-giving, power, and personhood of the Father, to which he can also give to other people as he wishes. Thus, it is truly him that is in you.
As far as the Son, he said he also came out from the Father (John 16:27). Therefore he shares that one Spirit, being the "image" and glory and perfect manifestation (Heb 1:3; John 14:9-11) of the Father's being. It was this part of the Father (the Word, his Right Hand -- John 1:1; Psalm 74:11) that was made into a human being, namely, the Messiah Yeshua.
So, the Church is true because it represents the Trinity, and the Trinity is true, because the Church represents it???debiwebi said:Did Christ lay the foundation of the Church He built on the confession or on Peter Himself when He spoke in Matthew? It says nothing of a confession there .... And since we know that the Church represnts God in all things then we know that it represnts the TRINITY .... All aspects of it then, the Church that Christ built and left behind for us is then Built upon what?
XianJedi said:I never said that was something I knew.
It has been presented that those who deny the Trinity deny that Jesus is God or that Jesus is the Savior. The example of Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals demonstrates that that is a false argument.
There are those who DO believe Jesus is the Savior and who DO believe that Jesus is God, but are NOT Trinitarian. My question is are those people then going to hell?
Again, this is IRRELEVENT. We are NOT talking about rejection of Christ, we are talking about rejection of Trinitarianism. They are NOT THE SAME THING!
And Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals believe in that baptism as well.
How? There is no confession in Peter's statement about Jesus being God.
No confession of Trinitarianism. Peter's confession, you must believe then, is one that leaves someone condemned.
First you might want to ask what I mean by Church in that statement .....XianJedi said:So, the Church is true because it represents the Trinity, and the Trinity is true, because the Church represents it???
And I'm not being "obtuse". I really don't get your point.
I was talking about the rejection of TRUTH.
Trinitarian doctrine is truth, do you agree with that statement?
Please answer, for it is difficult to speak of truth if I don't know what you believe is true.
XianJedi said:Fine, it is part of Divine Truth that the Ark of the Covenant was 2 1/2 cubits long (Ex.25:10). Is belief in that required for salvation?
thereselittleflower said:All you are presenting is your personal opinion presented to us as though it was fact.
You are presenting to us your own personal interpretation of scriptures . . that's all.
You are a fallible human being, prone to error, so your personal interpretation of scripture is fallible and prone to error.
So is my personal interpretation of scripture.
I am not presenting my personal opinion of what Elohim means in Genesis where God says
Let us make man in our image.
But you are.
You have not established that your personal opinion is based on fact.
I, and those who present this scripture as one of the scriptures that give evidence that God is a plurality of persons are giving you the interpretation of the Church since Early Chirstianity.
I accept the teaching of the Early Church over someone's personal, fallible, interpretation today.
Whether or not the Jews undersstood or not is not the issues.
The Jews did not understand who Christ was going to be, what He was going to do, etc.
Does that make what was divinely revealed in scriptures about Him any less true?
No.
God chose to reveal something that would not be fully understood until the fulness of the Gospel was revealed.
Your argument is simply based on a logical fallacy.
I have presented scholarly hebrew definitions for elohim .... and even the hebrew scholars agreed that it is a noun in the plural sense .... you did not address that post thank you wavy therefore .... You cannot have it both ways .... So sorryWavy said:
Is everything you say here fact or opinion, lol?
What the Jews understood is imperative. "Elohim" clearly refers to singular beings, and I gave a perfect example with Kings. You appealed to some weak context argument that he was saying the Jews had replaced him (an Elohim of plural persons) with other deities, thus "elohim" can be used in reference to these singular false deities because they took the place of your plural person Elohim.
But this makes no sense. They can't replace a supposed plural Elohim with with plural elohim if there is no understanding of elohim meaning plural persons. The passage is then rendered meaningless. You have ignored scholarly information that accepts that "elohim" can be used in a singular tense in favor of your own opinion simply because you do not want to lose the argument (which is clear from some of the nonsense you have said, no offense).
Anyway, I'd like to know exactly what logically fallacy I have committed and then I'll probably be done with this conversation. It's obviously going nowhere...
debiwebi said:So therefore you truly believe the Son of God to literally be the Son of God as in literally begotten and made ....
Not TRue God from True God begotten not made?
debiwebi said:I have presented scholarly hebrew definitions for elohim .... and even the hebrew scholars agreed that it is a noun in the plural sense .... you did not address that post thank you wavy therefore .... You cannot have it both ways .... So sorry
No you are going to have to explain that one to me....Wavy said:I believe the Son pre-existed in the Father if that is what you are getting at.
When in general it can apply to God when in the speific it is still plural in sense .... therefore, it is a pluralized meaning of the word God ....Wavy said:I don't deny those definitions. But it is not only a "noun in the plural sense". Just because you say it can't be both ways doesn't make it true.
You took me down a sort of little slippery slope there...
Anyway, the overall point is that "elohim" can be used in reference to singular beings. Point blank. "thereselittleflower"'s (who obviously does not know Hebrew) personal opinions about it has little weight when compared to scholarly information to the contrary.
debiwebi said:No you are going to have to explain that one to me....
You say you acknowledge the NT right .....
then what of John 1:1 which clearly states that the Word (Christ) was with God and was God .... does not say the Word was in the Father but that Christ was God.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
Wavy said:This is not proof or a true refutation, this is dogma. Seeing as how you are Catholic, this also limits the credibility of the argument.
XianJedi said:Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
Go here:
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
Lookup 1 John 5:7, and read the notes on that verse (footnote #27).
Wavy said:Ad hominem. Who says I do not accept the Greek NT?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?