Jehovah is our Father...

[Ratiocination]

To Trinitarians:

The Son is Jehovah
Jehovah is our Father
Therefore the Son is the Father?

But now, O Jehovah, you are our Father.
We are the clay, and you are our Potter; We are all the work of your hand.

It seems the bible never says "O Jehovah, you are our Son", or "O Jehovah, you are our Holy Spirit", or similar... So why is the Trinity [Aka Jehovah] called the Father?

Regards

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To Trinitarians:

The Son is Jehovah
Jehovah is our Father
Therefore the Son is the Father?



It seems the bible never says "O Jehovah, you are our Son", or "O Jehovah, you are our Holy Spirit", or similar... So why is the Trinity [Aka Jehovah] called the Father?

Regards

But neither would Jesus be "our" son. You should be saying that nowhere is Jehovah said to be Jesus' son.

 

[Ratiocination]

But neither would Jesus be "our" son. You should be saying that nowhere is Jehovah said to be Jesus' son.

So my point wasn't really what the Bible doesn't say, entire denominations have sprung up with theologies based on what is never stated. My point was what the Bible does say, and here it calls Jehovah the Father.
Jehovah is the Trinity, each of the persons of the trinity are one God called Jehovah, it's the God Jehovah who is singular (Hence monotheism [cough]). So that means that Jesus is The Son, as well as the Father. The Father is the Father, as well as The Father, the Father gets to be the Father twice !

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So my point wasn't really what the Bible doesn't say, entire denominations have sprung up with theologies based on what is never stated. My point was what the Bible does say, and here it calls Jehovah the Father.
Jehovah is the Trinity, each of the persons of the trinity are one God called Jehovah, it's the God Jehovah who is singular (Hence monotheism [cough]). So that means that Jesus is The Son, as well as the Father. The Father is the Father, as well as The Father, the Father gets to be the Father twice !

The trinity fails just fine all on its own. I think if you were to just take a moment to debunk it properly, rather than falling on your face here like you've done in both posts, then the world would be a better place.

 

[Ratiocination]

The trinity fails just fine all on its own. I think if you were to just take a moment to debunk it properly, rather than falling on your face here like you've done in both posts, then the world would be a better place.

I assume English isn't your first language... "The Trinity fails just fine all on it's own" followed by "just take a moment to debunk it properly"! What exactly do you want? You sound like my wife

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I assume English isn't your first language...

You're wrong.

"The Trinity fails just fine all on it's own" followed by "just take a moment to debunk it properly"! What exactly do you want? You sound like my wife

Read your OP again:

"It seems the bible never says "O Jehovah, you are our Son", or "O Jehovah, you are our Holy Spirit", or similar... So why is the Trinity [Aka Jehovah] called the Father?"

That's a bit of a strawman. No Christian who adheres to the trinity would expect the Bible to say that, and would be shocked if they somehow found that in the Bible.

The trinity is nonsensical not because Christians say a bunch of random gibberish (which is what you are doing), but rather because their well-defined statements simply cannot be true. There is a difference.

For example, what you're saying is basically like this:

"I think that Wednesday is the best tasting color!"

While Christians who support the trinity are doing this:

"A implies B, and B implies C, but A does not imply C."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to donate some blood.

 

[Ratiocination]

You're wrong.

Read your OP again:

With pleasure...

"It seems the bible never says "O Jehovah, you are our Son", or "O Jehovah, you are our Holy Spirit", or similar... So why is the Trinity [Aka Jehovah] called the Father?"

That's a bit of a strawman.

Nope, a strawman fallacy requires me to actually make an argument [a false argument] on their behalf. All I did we preface a question. Are you having a bad day?

No Christian who adheres to the trinity would expect the Bible to say that, and would be shocked if they somehow found that in the Bible.

You presume to understand the Trinity better than it's 'adherents' it seems. My OP was intended to raise the issue of 2 Fathers, and Jesus by logical progression becoming the Father.
My question was simply that IF the bible CAN call Jehovah our Father, then it can also call Jehovah our Son, and this would be exceptable terminology.
Yes, I agree the Trinity is not logical. No, my argument still isn't what the Bible doesn't say.

The trinity is nonsensical not because Christians say a bunch of random gibberish (which is what you are doing), but rather because their well-defined statements simply cannot be true. There is a difference.

I'm questioning whether their statements are well defined, that's the point. How many Fathers do the Trinity adherents believe in? My arguments are exactly that their statements are not, and have never been, well defined! Every occurrence of the word "god" for example needs an explanation as to what is meant, that is not "well defined" my friend, just the opposite!
Amazing that an atheist would defend their definitions. You know the difference between "well defined" and "[demonstrably] untrue", yet all my OP was about was definitions, not whether the Trinity is true or untrue specifically.

For example, what you're saying is basically like this:

"I think that Wednesday is the best tasting color!"

Not even close... Logic is not your strong suit!
It's more like;
Why does Wednesday follow Thursday in this verse", shouldn't the statements at least be consistent throughout the Bible if the doctrine were true?

While Christians who support the trinity are doing this:

"A implies B, and B implies C, but A does not imply C."

Whatever they are doing it's not consistent, hence my OP

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to donate some blood.

Don't forget to have a biscuit...

 

[gaara4158]

Jehovah can be the Father of both mankind and the capital S Son. We would be the "other" sons. The harder obstacle to overcome with a "trinity" is the concept of being three persons at once. That part does not compute.

 

[Ratiocination]

Jehovah can be the Father of both mankind and the capital S Son. We would be the "other" sons. The harder obstacle to overcome with a "trinity" is the concept of being three persons at once. That part does not compute.

I would agree. I would go further and point out that if the Bible was the word of God, a God that is perfect in knowledge, then use of the term 'Son' on any level would mean 'offspring' in the literal sense.
My point with this thread was that words have meaning, 'Father' means something, 'son' means something, and these terms shouldn't be muddled up for the sake of doctrine.

 

[gaara4158]

I would agree. I would go further and point out that if the Bible was the word of God, a God that is perfect in knowledge, then use of the term 'Son' on any level would mean 'offspring' in the literal sense.
My point with this thread was that words have meaning, 'Father' means something, 'son' means something, and these terms shouldn't be muddled up for the sake of doctrine.

Muddling up definitions is often the name of the game with religion, isn't it? I've still yet to even hear a coherent definition of "God."

 

[gaara4158]

[Double post removed]

 

[Nihilist Virus]

With pleasure...


Nope, a strawman fallacy requires me to actually make an argument [a false argument] on their behalf. All I did we preface a question. Are you having a bad day?

I'm having a great day, thank you very much. I'd share the details, but they aren't PG-rated.

By the way, your reasoning fails. If I said, "Do you believe your great grand daddy had sex with a monkey?" then I would be strawmaning evolution.

This is because the tacit argument is understood: "Evolution is false *because* your great grand daddy didn't have sex with a monkey."

That is an argument - I'm sure you can't deny that - and it's a strawman.

Like if I said, "Can't be bothered" it would be understood as "*I* can't be bothered."

So I take your argument to be, "By the Trinity model, Jesus is our son... but he isn't! QED."

You presume to understand the Trinity better than it's 'adherents' it seems.

Indeed I do because I understand it is nonsensical. While some Christians accept this, or perhaps most, some do not.

Also, comprehension and belief are not interdependent.

My OP was intended to raise the issue of 2 Fathers, and Jesus by logical progression becoming the Father.

Jesus never became the father.

My question was simply that IF the bible CAN call Jehovah our Father, then it can also call Jehovah our Son, and this would be exceptable terminology.

Looks like you're the one having the bad day.

Oops, do I need to say that *it* looks like you're the one having the bad day?

First of all, you meant acceptable, not exceptable.

And you asked me if English is my native language? Lol.

Secondly, if Jehovah is our father, and if Jesus is his son, that doesn't make Jesus our son. Ever heard of this thing called a brother?

And... yeah... early Christians were called brothers in/of Christ/the Lord.

I'm wondering now if you denied beating up a strawman because you legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I agree the Trinity is not logical. No, my argument still isn't what the Bible doesn't say.

So now you do have an argument? Which is it? You said you were only asking a question.

The only sentence in the OP that is not a question is a statement of what the Bible doesn't say. But your argument is not about what the Bible doesn't say. And your argument, according to you, is not in the form of a question.

And yet you have an argument?

I'm thinking of an integer that is neither even nor odd. Good luck guessing!

I'm questioning whether their statements are well defined, that's the point.

Short answer: no. Long answer: yes, but... problems.

How many Fathers do the Trinity adherents believe in?

1.

My arguments are exactly that their statements are not, and have never been, well defined!

By your reasoning, the OP contains no argument.

Every occurrence of the word "god" for example needs an explanation as to what is meant, that is not "well defined" my friend, just the opposite!

Not my problem. Not your problem.

Amazing that an atheist would defend their definitions.

I said that the Trinity is nonsense. That's defending their definition?

You know the difference between "well defined" and "[demonstrably] untrue", yet all my OP was about was definitions, not whether the Trinity is true or untrue specifically.

Ok... so why did you fail spectacularly?

Not even close... Logic is not your strong suit!

Lol, yes, just like English isn't my native language.

It's more like;
Why does Wednesday follow Thursday in this verse", shouldn't the statements at least be consistent throughout the Bible if the doctrine were true?


Whatever they are doing it's not consistent, hence my OP


Don't forget to have a biscuit...

 

[ViaCrucis]

To Trinitarians:

The Son is Jehovah
Jehovah is our Father
Therefore the Son is the Father?

No. The Son is not the Father. The Son is the Son.

It seems the bible never says "O Jehovah, you are our Son", or "O Jehovah, you are our Holy Spirit", or similar... So why is the Trinity [Aka Jehovah] called the Father?

Regards

Also, "Jehovah" is a medieval scholarly mistake. The Name is the Tetragrammaton or "four letters", consisting of Yod, Hah, Vav, and Hah, or transliterated into Latin characters: YHWH/YHVH. The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is lost to history, but one pronunciation we can definitely exclude is "Jehovah", which is the result of medieval Christian scholars not understanding the way the Masoretes (a group of medieval Jewish scribes) used niqqud in the Tetragrammaton.

As noted, the Tetragrammaton is YHWH. The Masoretes, who are responsible for the creation of niqqud, or vowel marks, used the niqqud for the word ADNY (adonai), meaning "lord"; so that the reader would know to substitute the word Adonai. Using substitutes for the Name had been standard Jewish practice since before the time of Jesus, and continues to be standard Jewish practice--which is why HaShem ("the Name") is often used by observant Jews today. The niqqud here are patah ("a" as in far), cholam ("o" as in vote), and qametz (again "a" as in far). The patah, due to morphology, however becomes a sheva ("e" as in men); as such it looks as though it is something like YeHoVaH (or YeHoWaH). It was Latinized as Iehova, and eventually Jehovah in English. It is, however, wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ratiocination]

I'm having a great day, thank you very much. I'd share the details, but they aren't PG-rated.

Oh pleeease, it would make my day....

By the way, your reasoning fails. If I said, "Do you believe your great grand daddy had sex with a monkey?" then I would be strawmaning evolution.

This is because the tacit argument is understood: "Evolution is false *because* your great grand daddy didn't have sex with a monkey."

That is an argument - I'm sure you can't deny that - and it's a strawman.

Like if I said, "Can't be bothered" it would be understood as "*I* can't be bothered."

So I take your argument to be, "By the Trinity model, Jesus is our son... but he isn't! QED."

This is lunacy!
And more straw manning...

My simple question in the OP was not a representation of Trinitarian positions. It was simply a question. The argument was laid out in a fairly simple format at the begging of the post.

"It seems the bible never says "O Jehovah, you are our Son", or "O Jehovah, you are our Holy Spirit", or similar... So why is the Trinity [Aka Jehovah] called the Father?"

That's a bit of a strawman.

Why? Because I asked a question? Where in this question have I mis-represented anyone's position?

Indeed I do because I understand it is nonsensical. While some Christians accept this, or perhaps most, some do not.

I'm suprised you don't accept it, with your logic I think it would be right up your street!

Jesus never became the father.

He did in the 4th century AD when the Trinity doctrine arrived on the scene.

Looks like you're the one having the bad day.

Not when I have you as my little ray of sunshine brightening up my day.

Oops, do I need to say that *it* looks like you're the one having the bad day?

First of all, you meant acceptable, not exceptable.

I did.

Secondly, if Jehovah is our father, and if Jesus is his son, that doesn't make Jesus our son. Ever heard of this thing called a brother?

Strawman

And... yeah... early Christians were called brothers in/of Christ/the Lord.

Red Herring

I'm wondering now if you denied beating up a strawman because you legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm wondering why I'm wondering you're wondering about the simple argument I laid out in the beginning!

So now you do have an argument? Which is it? You said you were only asking a question.

Haha, the argument was always there, you chose to only look at the question!

The only sentence in the OP that is not a question is a statement of what the Bible doesn't say. But your argument is not about what the Bible doesn't say. And your argument, according to you, is not in the form of a question.

And yet you have an argument?

"you you" is a repeated word too many in my opinion!

the rest of what you said...

Sorry gotta dash... No doubt it's just you saying stuff that is disconnected from reality...

Love you...

 

[Ratiocination]

No. The Son is not the Father. The Son is the Son.

Contrary to popular belief in this thread there was an argument laid out in the OP. It involves the verse at Isaiah 64:8 where Jehovah is called the father. Maybe you could comment on that?

Also, "Jehovah" is a medieval scholarly mistake. The Name is the Tetragrammaton or "four letters", consisting of Yod, Hah, Vav, and Hah, or transliterated into Latin characters: YHWH/YHVH. The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is lost to history, but one pronunciation we can definitely exclude is "Jehovah", which is the result of medieval Christian scholars not understanding the way the Masoretes (a group of medieval Jewish scribes) used niqqud in the Tetragrammaton.

As noted, the Tetragrammaton is YHWH. The Masoretes, who are responsible for the creation of niqqud, or vowel marks, used the niqqud for the word ADNY (adonai), meaning "lord"; so that the reader would know to substitute the word Adonai. Using substitutes for the Name had been standard Jewish practice since before the time of Jesus, and continues to be standard Jewish practice--which is why HaShem ("the Name") is often used by observant Jews today. The niqqud here are patah ("a" as in far), cholam ("o" as in vote), and qametz (again "a" as in far). The patah, due to morphology, however becomes a sheva ("e" as in men); as such it looks as though it is something like YeHoVaH (or YeHoWaH). It was Latinized as Iehova, and eventually Jehovah in English. It is, however, wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

The name Jehovah is indeed "wrong", but it's an acceptable way to say the name of God.

May I ask... How do you pronounce YHWH?

and do you also think the name "Jesus" is wrong?

Regards

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh pleeease, it would make my day....


This is lunacy!
And more straw manning...

My simple question in the OP was not a representation of Trinitarian positions. It was simply a question. The argument was laid out in a fairly simple format at the begging of the post.

Your argument was laid out in a fairly simple format at the beginning of the post? Do you mean this part?

To Trinitarians:

The Son is Jehovah
Jehovah is our Father
Therefore the Son is the Father?

That's a question. Do you always express your conclusion as a question? Also, you said this:

Nope, a strawman fallacy requires me to actually make an argument [a false argument] on their behalf. All I did we preface a question. Are you having a bad day?

So which is it... are questions arguments or are they not?

Why? Because I asked a question? Where in this question have I mis-represented anyone's position?

The son is not the father.

I'm suprised you don't accept it, with your logic I think it would be right up your street!

I think all observers would say that you're the one who is absolutely bonkers.

He did in the 4th century AD when the Trinity doctrine arrived on the scene.

No.

Not when I have you as my little ray of sunshine brightening up my day.





I did.



Strawman


Red Herring


I'm wondering why I'm wondering you're wondering about the simple argument I laid out in the beginning!

Your so-called argument is impossible to identify for the reasons that I laid out in the previous post. You refused to respond.

Haha, the argument was always there, you chose to only look at the question!

All I saw was drivel.

"you you" is a repeated word too many in my opinion!

I made no grammatical mistake in the section you're quoting. It's not edited and you can see the timestamp. I did not repeat the word "you." Even if I did, you should only be pointing it out as a footnote in your response because this is where I demonstrated that the OP contains no argument whatsoever. Your only response to the backbreaker leveled upon you is this gibberish that seems to be mocking a grammatical error that does not even exist.

Basically, if this was a boxing match it would be accurate to say that you were unconscious for most of it.

Sorry gotta dash... No doubt it's just you saying stuff that is disconnected from reality...

Love you...

Lol.

 

[Ratiocination]

Your argument was laid out in a fairly simple format at the beginning of the post? Do you mean this part?

To Trinitarians:

The Son is Jehovah
Jehovah is our Father
Therefore the Son is the Father?

That's a question. Do you always express your conclusion as a question? Also, you said this:

Nope, a strawman fallacy requires me to actually make an argument [a false argument] on their behalf. All I did we preface a question. Are you having a bad day?

So which is it... are questions arguments or are they not?



The son is not the father.



I think all observers would say that you're the one who is absolutely bonkers.



No.



Your so-called argument is impossible to identify for the reasons that I laid out in the previous post. You refused to respond.



All I saw was drivel.



I made no grammatical mistake in the section you're quoting. It's not edited and you can see the timestamp. I did not repeat the word "you." Even if I did, you should only be pointing it out as a footnote in your response because this is where I demonstrated that the OP contains no argument whatsoever. Your only response to the backbreaker leveled upon you is this gibberish that seems to be mocking a grammatical error that does not even exist.

Basically, if this was a boxing match it would be accurate to say that you were unconscious for most of it.



Lol.

Are you going to make a counter argument this side of Christmas?
Quibbling is a special case of Red Herring so please make a counter argument. I'm not interested in deep philosophical questions surrounding the purpose of debate forums. Saying in effect "ya mum!" to everything I say is a sign that you don't want to engage in the discussion like an adult.

If you support the Trinity then make a sensible non quibbling rubbutle...

If you can't respond to the thread in the spirit of intellectual debate then please refrain from posting. My fingers become red with embarrassment every time I respond to you!

Regards

 

[ViaCrucis]

Contrary to popular belief in this thread there was an argument laid out in the OP. It involves the verse at Isaiah 64:8 where Jehovah is called the father. Maybe you could comment on that?

Sure. We call God "Father" because He's the Father of Jesus Christ. He is Christ's Father, He becomes our Father by grace, which is why St. Paul says in places like Galatians 4:6 that we have received the Spirit of God's Son who in us cries out "Abba! Father!", and speaks of our adoption as children of God. Jesus' Father has become our Father by adoption, by grace, by our participation in and with Jesus. It is Jesus who reveals God as Father, because Jesus--the Son--can uniquely do so (John 1:18).

In another sense God is a father, or fatherly, toward His creation. In this sense St. Paul appeals when he quotes the Greek poet Aratus in Acts 17:28, though Aratus had been speaking of Zeus, Paul appropriates the language to speak of the God of Israel, that "we are His offspring". God, as the Creator of all things, is fatherly toward the creation, this is the sense Isaiah captures: the fatherly, creative agency of God, "But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are the work of your hand." It is also an important juxtaposition to the preceding passages in which the Prophet has spoken of the hidden face of God, turned away from the wicked, desiring God again to act wondrously as He had in the past. The Prophet, in the midst of God's hiddenness during Israel's distress, recognizes God as a father, and appeals to God's fatherly heart.

One might also point to the traditional appropriation of Isaiah 9, which was likely about King Hezekiah, but is applied by the Evangelist Matthew to speak of Christ's wondrous conception (Matthew 1:23); in which that which is conceived from the young woman (Hebrew: almah) or virgin (Greek: parthenos) is called אֲבִיעַד (avi'ad) "forever father", "eternal father", "everlasting father" or "father of eternity", etc (Isaiah 9:6).

The name Jehovah is indeed "wrong", but it's an acceptable way to say the name of God.

That seems like an interesting thing for someone to say who insists that it is really important that we get God's name right. You are more than welcome to call God "Jehovah" if you want, but then I don't think it is a particularly important matter to begin with.

May I ask... How do you pronounce YHWH?

I don't.

and do you also think the name "Jesus" is wrong?

No, because "Jesus" isn't a mistake, it's simply a product of language evolving over time. The Aramaic name, which may have been pronounced something like Yeshu' or Yesho' (similar to the Hebrew equivalent, Yeshua) is transliterated into Greek as Iesous, and into Latin as Iesus, and with consontantal 'I' becoming 'J', written as Jesus, and pronounced with a hard 'J' in English due to changes in English pronunciation over the centuries. These aren't comparable. It's no different than the fact that we say "Moses" instead of "Moshe".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you going to make a counter argument this side of Christmas?
Quibbling is a special case of Red Herring so please make a counter argument. I'm not interested in deep philosophical questions surrounding the purpose of debate forums. Saying in effect "ya mum!" to everything I say is a sign that you don't want to engage in the discussion like an adult.

If you support the Trinity then make a sensible non quibbling rubbutle...

If you can't respond to the thread in the spirit of intellectual debate then please refrain from posting. My fingers become red with embarrassment every time I respond to you!

Regards

A counter argument? To what?

 

[Ratiocination]

A counter argument? To what?

The OP?