Deut 6:4 Shema Yisrael, YHVH Elohaneu YHVH echad.

Status
Not open for further replies.

YeshuamySalvation

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2005
985
30
44
Miami Lakes
✟1,336.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
This is the battle we've been having for over 2,000 years. I wanted to bring up a very interesting subject. Judaism has always taught a monotheistic view of the eternal. That is until the books of the Zohar were written:D. The following are [FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]Maimonides words, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]God is one; not two and/or a joining of two or more, but strictly one. [/FONT][/FONT]
Maimonides said:
[FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]This oneness is not like any of the onenesses that exist in the world -- not like the oneness of a category which includes many other ones, and not like the oneness of a body which is divided into parts and dimensions, but a oneness like no other oneness in the world... Knowing this is a positive commandment, as it is said: Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God, YHVH is One... And since it is clear that God is without a body or physicality, it is clear that nothing physical can happen to God: no joining and no separation...
(Mishneh Torah, Yesodei HaTorah, 1:7, 1:12[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Now we are going to see that the Rabbis in the Zohar are in direct opposition to Maimonides view by considering that ONE as stated in the Shema is not just one entity, but a union of many, that is more then one brought into unity.

Rabbi Shimon said:
The following is how Rabbi Shimon views it from the Zohar >[FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva] The coupling of male and female is called One. Where the female dwells, it is called One. For what reason? Because male without female is called half a body, and half is not one. But when they join as one, two halves of a body become one body, and then it is called One.[/FONT][/FONT]
The above Monotheistic understanding is unique. Rabbi Shimon is proposing to us that a unity can actually be one as is the case with a man and woman unity. We will see that this is the same understanding that is applied to the Shema.

Rabbi Abba said:
[FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva] "Hinei ma tov uma na'im shevet achim gam yachad -- Behold, how good and how pleasant for siblings to dwell, also, together".

Privileged are Israel, for the Blessed Holiness has not given them to a ruler, or to an emissary. Israel cling to Him, and He clings to them.

And because of love for them, the Blessed Holiness calls them "servants". As it is written, "For the Children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants". Going further, He calls them children, as it is written, "You are children of YHVH your God". Going still further, He calls them siblings, as it is written, "For the sake of my siblings and friends..." And because He calls them siblings, He wanted to place His dwelling with them, and never depart from them. So it is written, "Behold, how good and how pleasant for siblings to dwell, also, together."

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]Unity is the theme of this text. It begins with unity between the Jewish community and God. "The Blessed Holiness" at the beginning of this passage may simply mean God; later, it will refer specifically to Tif'eret.[/FONT][/FONT]
The Rabbis also contend from the Zohar that the Shema is a clear indication that God is a unity and not just a single entity. The argument is not weak, considering that Deut 6:4 is read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Elohaneu YHVH Echad. If the passage would have been a singular it would have read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Echad. The way this passage reads in Hebrew has lead me to believe that God has plural manifestations of himself. But then sometimes i consider that as the Rabbis argue in the Zohar, God may be a plural period consisting of a unity. This to me remains a Chuqquat, cannot be explained, not by the best philosophers, nor anyone. I guess God will explain this to us in the Olam Haba. [FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is the battle we've been having for over 2,000 years. I wanted to bring up a very interesting subject. Judaism has always taught a monotheistic view of the eternal. That is until the books of the Zohar were written:D. The following are [FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]Maimonides words way before the writings of the Zohar > [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]God is one; not two and/or a joining of two or more, but strictly one.


[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Originally Posted by Maimonides
[FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]This oneness is not like any of the onenesses that exist in the world -- not like the oneness of a category which includes many other ones, and not like the oneness of a body which is divided into parts and dimensions, but a oneness like no other oneness in the world... Knowing this is a positive commandment, as it is said: Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God, YHVH is One... And since it is clear that God is without a body or physicality, it is clear that nothing physical can happen to God: no joining and no separation...
(Mishneh Torah, Yesodei HaTorah, 1:7, 1:12[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]



[/FONT]
[/FONT]Now we are going to see that the Rabbis in the Zohar are in direct opposition to Maimonides view by considering that ONE as stated in the Shema is not just one entity, but a union of many, that is more then one brought into unity.



Originally Posted by Rabbi Shimon
The following is how Rabbi Shimon views it from the Zohar >[FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva] The coupling of male and female is called One. Where the female dwells, it is called One. For what reason? Because male without female is called half a body, and half is not one. But when they join as one, two halves of a body become one body, and then it is called One.[/FONT][/FONT]

The above Monotheistic understanding is unique. Rabbi Shimon is proposing to us that a unity can actually be one as is the case with a man and woman unity. We will see that this is the same understanding that is applied to the Shema.



Originally Posted by Rabbi Abba
[FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva] "Hinei ma tov uma na'im shevet achim gam yachad -- Behold, how good and how pleasant for siblings to dwell, also, together".

Privileged are Israel, for the Blessed Holiness has not given them to a ruler, or to an emissary. Israel cling to Him, and He clings to them.

And because of love for them, the Blessed Holiness calls them "servants". As it is written, "For the Children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants". Going further, He calls them children, as it is written, "You are children of YHVH your God". Going still further, He calls them siblings, as it is written, "For the sake of my siblings and friends..." And because He calls them siblings, He wanted to place His dwelling with them, and never depart from them. So it is written, "Behold, how good and how pleasant for siblings to dwell, also, together."

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]Unity is the theme of this text. It begins with unity between the Jewish community and God. "The Blessed Holiness" at the beginning of this passage may simply mean God; later, it will refer specifically to Tif'eret.[/FONT][/FONT]


The Rabbis also contend from the Zohar that the Shema is a clear indication that God is a unity and not just a single entity. The argument is not weak, considering that Deut 6:4 is read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Elohaneu YHVH Echad. If the passage would have been a singular it would have read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Echad. The way this passage reads in Hebrew has lead me to believe that God has plural manifestations of himself. But then sometimes i consider that as the Rabbis argue in the Zohar, God may be a plural period consisting of a unity. This to me remains a Chuqquat, cannot be explained, not by the best philosophers, nor anyone. I guess God will explain this to us in the Olam Haba. [FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]


Excellent! I made a copy of that post to my PC.


Grace and peace! GeneZ
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is the battle we've been having for over 2,000 years. I wanted to bring up a very interesting subject. Judaism has always taught a monotheistic view of the eternal. That is until the books of the Zohar were written:D. The following are [FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]Maimonides words, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva][FONT=Arial,Geneva]God is one; not two and/or a joining of two or more, but strictly one. [/FONT][/FONT]Now we are going to see that the Rabbis in the Zohar are in direct opposition to Maimonides view by considering that ONE as stated in the Shema is not just one entity, but a union of many, that is more then one brought into unity.

The above Monotheistic understanding is unique. Rabbi Shimon is proposing to us that a unity can actually be one as is the case with a man and woman unity. We will see that this is the same understanding that is applied to the Shema.

The Rabbis also contend from the Zohar that the Shema is a clear indication that God is a unity and not just a single entity. The argument is not weak, considering that Deut 6:4 is read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Elohaneu YHVH Echad. If the passage would have been a singular it would have read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Echad. The way this passage reads in Hebrew has lead me to believe that God has plural manifestations of himself. But then sometimes i consider that as the Rabbis argue in the Zohar, God may be a plural period consisting of a unity. This to me remains a Chuqquat, cannot be explained, not by the best philosophers, nor anyone. I guess God will explain this to us in the Olam Haba. [FONT=Arial,Geneva]
[/FONT]
Yes absolutely! :amen:

We had a Hebrew speaker do some classes at our church a few years back on the Trinity that I unfortunately had to miss out on.
But he came straight out of Israel and taught from the OT scriptures why God is one yet plurally one. A Unit.

The 2 main attacks on Christianity come by way of biblical authority and then the Trinity as I view it. It only shows me how vital the truth is as to scripture authority and that God is One God comprised of 3 distinct 'persons'.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
The argument that the hebrew word for one, 'echad" means a plural one and therfore means that God is a plural one is unfounded, for echad means one, and occurs 687 times in the OT as one. No one says an echad horse is a plural singular horse cause it says echad, or an echad donkey, or an echad river, or an echad road, only with reference to YHWH do trinitarians say that echad is a plural one, which disproves it as being merely a false reasoning to support trinity.

strongs said:
[SIZE=+1]dxa [/SIZE]'echad (ekh-awd'); Adjective, Strong #: 259

  1. one (number)
    1. one (number)
    2. each, every
    3. a certain
    4. an (indefinite article)
    5. only, once, once for all
    6. one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
    7. first
    8. eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)
KJV Word Usage and Countone 687 first 36 another 35 other 30 any 18 once 13 eleven 13 every 10 certain 9 an 7 some 7 misc. 86

how come no one says there are 687 singular plural things in the OT? Just YHWH is singluar plural.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: debi b
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Rabbis also contend from the Zohar that the Shema is a clear indication that God is a unity and not just a single entity. The argument is not weak, considering that Deut 6:4 is read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Elohaneu YHVH Echad. If the passage would have been a singular it would have read Shema Yisrael, YHVH Echad. The way this passage reads in Hebrew has lead me to believe that God has plural manifestations of himself. But then sometimes i consider that as the Rabbis argue in the Zohar, God may be a plural period consisting of a unity. This to me remains a Chuqquat, cannot be explained, not by the best philosophers, nor anyone. I guess God will explain this to us in the Olam Haba.
I would say Deut 6:4 lines up perfectly with Mark 12:29.

When translating God in the NT, is it referring to Elohiym at anytime, as Jesus would in essence be an "Elohiym" just as YHWH made Moshe an "Elohiym" to Pharaoh. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear-thou Yisra'el--YHWH, Elohiym-of-us, YHWH one. [Mark 12:29]

Mark 12:29 The yet JESUS answered him "that first of all the commandments 'be thou hearing! Israel-- LORD, the God of us, LORD one is'". [Exodus 6:4]

Here is the Greek:

Mark 12:29 o <3588> {THE} de <1161> {YET} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} apekriqh <611> (5662) {ANSWERED} autw <846> {HIM} oti <3754> {THAT} prwth <4413> {FIRST} paswn <3956> {OF ALL} twn <3588> {THE} entolwn <1785> {COMMANDMENTS} akoue <191> (5720) {BE HEARING,} israhl <2474> {ISRAEL:} kurioV <2962> {LORD} o <3588> {THE} qeoV <2316> {GOD} hmwn <2257> {OF US} kurioV <2962> {LORD} eiV <1520> {ONE} estin <2076> (5748) {IS.}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

oldsage

Veteran
Nov 4, 2005
1,307
70
55
Pinellas Park, FL
✟1,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
But ya'll keep coming at the Shema with the idea it is somehow trying do defend Trinitarianism or Unitarianism. When those were not even an issue yet. The Shema has nothing to do with the otological nature of God. It is simply talking about God being the Only God and there being no other. Our God is to be our only god we are not to worship or go after any other gods.

I have no idea why people want to make it more than what it means.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
But ya'll keep coming at the Shema with the idea it is somehow trying do defend Trinitarianism or Unitarianism. When those were not even an issue yet. The Shema has nothing to do with the otological nature of God. It is simply talking about God being the Only God and there being no other. Our God is to be our only god we are not to worship or go after any other gods.

I have no idea why people want to make it more than what it means.
well it doesn't say YHWH is the only god, that is your interpretation. only means one anyway. Jews today counter trinity with deut. 6.4.

It says YHWH is one, echad. so for unitaraians echad always means one not 3. for trinitarians echad means 3, if talking about YHWH, everywhere else echad means one.
Ask a triniataian, "how much is One?" Trinitarian answer "3 is one and one is 3."..
Ask a unitarian "how much is one?' answer "1."

that's why.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]well it doesn't say YHWH is the only god, that is your interpretation. only means one anyway. Jews today counter trinity with deut. 6.4.

It says YHWH is one, echad. so for unitaraians echad always means one not 3. for trinitarians echad means 3, if talking about YHWH, everywhere else echad means one.
Ask a triniataian, "how much is One?" Trinitarian answer "3 is one and one is 3."..
Ask a unitarian "how much is one?' answer "1."

that's why.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]So typical of you. The ONLY way you can ever discuss the Trinity is to misrepresent it and what Trinitarians believe. I have NEVER encountered any anti-Trinitarian who could/would correctly state the Trinity. Therefore all such arguments mean absolutely nothing and will always be just so much straw man.[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
[SIZE=+1]So typical of you. The ONLY way you can ever discuss the Trinity is to misrepresent it and what Trinitarians believe. I have NEVER encountered any anti-Trinitarian who could/would correctly state the Trinity. Therefore all such arguments mean absolutely nothing and will always be just so much straw man.[/SIZE]
Well it could mean something to the Jews and Muslims if "Churchianity" could indeed explain it to them.

Look at how the Catholics and Orthdox view the Eucharist as the "Real Presence" for example, just because of that discourse by JESUS concerning "eating His flesh".. :)

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=718
Sacramental/Ordinance Theology

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7149501&page=16
Real Presence in the Eucharist

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 6:50 This is the bread, the out of the heaven is descending, that any one out of him may be eating and no be dying.
51 `I am the bread, the living, the out of the heaven descending. If ever any-one may be eating out of this, the bread, he shall be living--into the age. And the bread yet which I shall be giving, the flesh of Me, is for sake of the world, Life.
52 Striving then toward one another, the Judeans, saying, `How is able He to us to give the flesh to be eating?
60 Many then hearing out of the disciples of Him say:, "Hard is this the Word, who-any is-able of it to be hearing?"

1 corin 11:26 For as often ever ye may be eating the bread, this, and the drink-cup ye may be drinking, the death of the Lord ye are according-messaging until which ever He may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632) [Revelation 19:11]


Reve 19:11 And I perceived the heaven having be opened and Lo! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Well it could mean something to the Jews and Muslims if "Churchianity" could indeed explain it to them.

Look at how the Catholics and Orthdox view the Eucharist as the "Real Presence" for example, just because of that discourse by JESUS concerning "eating His flesh".[/SIZE]
.

[SIZE=+1]First, if you wish to have a discussion with me then I suggest you keep insulting, demeaning terms like "Churchianity" out of it.

Second, I fail to see what your post has to do with the correct explanation of the Trinity.

Third, the views of some number of people on a forum espousing it, does NOT necessarily represent any widely held doctrine.

Fourth, the Trinity is explained in many, many writings and if someone wishes to discuss it then they have the obligation to actually read and learn what it is they are talking about, before making pronouncements about it.[/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
[SIZE=+1]So typical of you. The ONLY way you can ever discuss the Trinity is to misrepresent it and what Trinitarians believe. I have NEVER encountered any anti-Trinitarian who could/would correctly state the Trinity. Therefore all such arguments mean absolutely nothing and will always be just so much straw man.[/SIZE]

I like James whites explanation. The one here in CF where he says God is a rock, or cat like being (no personality, doesn't know anything a what) and the 3 persons of God are his personalities, or his personal beings like angels or god, or humans. You know the one what (a rock like being) and 3 whos (persnal beings). course in another place James White says human words can't explain Jesus and God.

is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being,
Uh Jim put your thinking cap on please. defining the diference between a person and a being isn't going to prove anything about your contradiction of three beings within one being. Uh Jim, person is not in the equation, three beings within one being.
but lets move on anyway.
james white said:
or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.
So he is saying a rock is just a what, but God is a what and a who.

jameswhite said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.[/FONT]

http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html


Now James changes his story and says that the eternal infinte God is just a rock like being not knowing anything and the 3 persons of God are the three whos who are the personality.

Which is a pretty good confusing typical contradictory explanation of Trinity, I can see why James said in antoher place that human words are inadequate.after reading this explanation of trinity of his. But I have to admit I've seen explanations so confusing no one can fgigure it out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]I like James whites explanation. The one here in CF where he says God is a rock, or cat like being (no personality, doesn't know anything a what) and the 3 persons of God are his personalities, or his personal beings like angels or god, or humans. You know the one what (a rock like being) and 3 whos (persnal beings). course in another place James White says human words can't explain Jesus and God.

Uh Jim put your thinking cap on please. defining the diference between a person and a being isn't going to prove anything about your contradiction of three beings within one being. Uh Jim, person is not in the equation, three beings within one being.

but lets move on anyway.

So he is saying a rock is just a what, but God is a what and a who.

http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

Now James changes his story and says that the eternal infinte God is just a rock like being not knowing anything and the 3 persons of God are the three whos who are the personality.

Which is a pretty good confusing typical contradictory explanation of Trinity, I can see why James said in antoher place that human words are inadequate.after reading this explanation of trinity of his. But I have to admit I've seen explanations so confusing no one can fgigure it out.
[/size]

[SIZE=+1]As I said before you are not capable of correctly, accurately quoting anything that proves you wrong. I won't even try to point out how you have DELIBERATELY quoted White out of context and misrepresented what he says. You do not know the meanings of basic English words such as "person,""being,""what,""who," etc.

And of course none of this responds to my previous post.[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
[SIZE=+1]As I said before you are not capable of correctly, accurately quoting anything that proves you wrong. I won't even try to point out how you have DELIBERATELY quoted White out of context and misrepresented what he says. You do not know the meanings of basic English words such as "person,""being,""what,""who," etc.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]And of course none of this responds to my previous post.[/SIZE]
you 've said that before, "I can explain it but of course I won't bother." couse you won't cause james white epalantion is silly as I showed. James said 3 beings in one being is a contradiction because theres a differeence between a person and a being. I explained that a person has nothing to do with whether 3 beings in one being is a contradiction or not. your explanation? "OOh I can explain that but of course i won't." Course you could say only your sources are g ood and everyone elses sources are no good except I'm using your source so that won't work, oh well.

OR pehaps you would like to explain who is a what and what is a who? I know, "I can explain that but of course I won't bother." another person I know debates like that over the trinity.

Then there is the spurious 1 john 5.7 where they tried to put trinity in the bible. I said trinity teaches 3 is one and one is three. the spurious 1 john 5.7 says 'these three are one." so if 3 are one then one are 3. so the only difference between my explanation of trinity and the one that was put in the bible by trinitarians is you guys say are i say Is. Not a big difference.

Can't wait to see what kind of bluster you come up with to avoid what I've said here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]you 've said that before, "I can explain it but of course I won't bother." couse you won't cause james white epalantion is silly as I showed. James said 3 beings in one being is a contradiction because theres a differeence between a person and a being. I explained that a person has nothing to do with whether 3 beings in one being is a contradiction or not. your explanation? "OOh I can explain that but of course i won't." Course you could say only your sources are g ood and everyone elses sources are no good except I'm using your source so that won't work, oh well.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Actually there is nothing for me to explain here. You just made a bunch of meaningless accusations about James White, misquoting and misrepresenting him.

And as you have indicated we have had this same discussion a few years ago where I quoted several paragraphs from White, and even posted the definitions of the words person, being and others, you still could not understand, even when repeatedly shown the definitions.

OR pehaps you would like to explain who is a what and what is a who? I know, "I can explain that but of course I won't bother." another person I know debates like that over the trinity.

Quote White IN CONTEXT and we'll discuss. Your only response before was a what is a who, is a person, is a being, or something like that.

[SIZE=-1]Then there is the spurious 1 john 5.7 where they tried to put trinity in the bible. I said trinity teaches 3 is one and one is three. the spurious 1 john 5.7 says 'these three are one." so if 3 are one then one are 3. so the only difference between my explanation of trinity and the one that was put in the bible by trinitarians is you guys say are i say Is. Not a big difference.[/SIZE]

Irrelevant chasing a rabbit which has nothing to do with anything here.
[SIZE=-1] Can't wait to see what kind of bluster you come up with to avoid what I've said here.[/SIZE]

The only blustering here is you, quote White, back it up or pack it up.[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
[SIZE=+1]Actually there is nothing for me to explain here. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Just like I said.[/SIZE]
deralter said:
[SIZE=+1]You just made a bunch of meaningless accusations about James White, misquoting and misrepresenting him.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]And as you have indicated we have had this same discussion a few years ago where I quoted several paragraphs from White, and even posted the definitions of the words person, being and others, you still could not understand, even when repeatedly shown the definitions.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=+1]Quote White IN CONTEXT and we'll discuss. Your only response before was a what is a who, is a person, is a being, or something like that.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] ? [/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
[SIZE=+1]Just like I said.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]? oh please all you do is bluster like here or say "Only my sources are good everybody else is lieing."[/SIZE]
Sounds like he would make a good Catholic ;)
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Just like I said.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] ? oh please all you do is bluster like here or say "Only my sources are good everybody else is lieing."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Evidently you are terrrified of being exposed and rebutted yet again. You are the one who brought White into the discussion. So quote whatever of his writings your think are relevant, and I will the explain all the big words that are too complicated for you, like; "person,""being,""who,""what," etc. I realize that may be too difficult for you. It is easier to make stuff up.[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
[SIZE=+1]Evidently you are terrrified of being exposed and rebutted yet again.
you're kidding right? [/SIZE]
[qutoe=deralter]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]You are the one who brought White into the discussion.[/qutoe] you are the one who wanted an explanation of Trinity. you seem to have a short attention span.[/SIZE]
deralter said:
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] So quote whatever of his writings your think are relevant, and I will the explain all the big words that are too complicated for you, like; "person,""being,""who,""what," etc. I realize that may be too difficult for you. It is easier to make stuff up.[/SIZE]
Are you capable of speaking without being obnoxious? No. But everybody but you knows that.
I already quoted him several posts back (#12) and commented on what he said. I'm sure you will explain the big words, but what you won't do is explain what he is saying. See I can explain in a nutshell what James White is saying, He is saying that God is both a rock like being or a cat like being that knows nothing (a what) and a personal being like a person or God, (a what and a who). then he contradicts himself and says God is just one what, or a rock like no nothing being, and 3 who's or personal being called persons. ., First he says god is a what and a who, then he changes his story and says god is one what and the 3 whos (who's are the persons of God).

all you have done in the past is repeat what he said and define words. you can't explain in a nutshell what he is saying as I have. It sinks your ship if you do. James White's explanation of the Trinity is totally nonsensical. His major failing was not making it confusing enough so that no one could figure out what he was saying. I think he thought he had it sufficently confusing that no one could figure anything out from it, but he wasn't quite confusing enough, but he did try , I'll give him that.

deralter said:
Irrelevant chasing a rabbit which has nothing to do with anything here.
First I said Trinity is 3 is one and one is three, your response was basically that I know nuttin bout trinity. I replied that trinitarians tried to put trinity in the bible with 1 john 5.7 with "these three are one", Which is the same thing as how I described trinity except I said is and you guys say are. trinity teaches '3 are one" I say trinity teaches " 3 is one". If 3 are one, then one are 3. my explanation is 3 is one, one is 3. Either way you have a problem choosing the right verb number. That hardly qualifies as "not knowin nuttin bout trinity." Now I know you are the same age as me, maybe it was just a senior moment, I have to admit I have them too. on the other hand every time your ridiculous bluster is exposed you just go to another even more ridcuolus bluster hopeing everyone will forget your last one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]I already quoted him several posts back (#12) and commented on what he said. I'm sure you will explain the big words, but what you won't do is explain what he is saying. See I can explain in a nutshell what James White is saying, He is saying that God is both a rock like being or a cat like being that knows nothing (a what) and a personal being like a person or God, (a what and a who). then he contradicts himself and says God is just one what, or a rock like no nothing being, and 3 who's or personal being called persons. ., First he says god is a what and a who, then he changes his story and says god is one what and the 3 whos (who's are the persons of God).

all you have done in the past is repeat what he said and define words. you can't explain in a nutshell what he is saying as I have. It sinks your ship if you do. James White's explanation of the Trinity is totally nonsensical. His major failing was not making it confusing enough so that no one could figure out what he was saying. I think he thought he had it sufficently confusing that no one could figure anything out from it, but he wasn't quite confusing enough, but he did try , I'll give him that.

First I said Trinity is 3 is one and one is three, your response was basically that I know nuttin bout trinity. I replied that trinitarians tried to put trinity in the bible with 1 john 5.7 with "these three are one", Which is the same thing as how I described trinity except I said is and you guys say are. trinity teaches '3 are one" I say trinity teaches " 3 is one". If 3 are one, then one are 3. my explanation is 3 is one, one is 3. Either way you have a problem choosing the right verb number. That hardly qualifies as "not knowin nuttin bout trinity." Now I know you are the same age as me, maybe it was just a senior moment, I have to admit I have them too. on the other hand every time your ridiculous bluster is exposed you just go to another even more ridcuolus bluster hopeing everyone will forget your last one.[/SIZE]

See this post,
[SIZE=+1]Evidently you are terrrified of being exposed and rebutted yet again. You are the one who brought White into the discussion. So quote whatever of his writings your think are relevant, and I will the explain all the big words that are too complicated for you, like; "person,""being,""who,""what," etc. I realize that may be too difficult for you. It is easier to make stuff up.[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.