musterion
Well-known member
He believes Paul's gospel. You don't.
Christians worship Christ; JW's do not!
- Thread starter Apple7
- Start date
He believes Paul's gospel. You don't.
Apple7
New member
All you did was to post a name and a number for Trinitarian English renderings, Trev.
You did absolutely nothing to defend your anti-Trinitarian world view....rather, you just supported mine.
The camp of Israel formed a giant CROSS.
Anything special about The Cross, Trev...?
Instead of addition, use multiplication.
3 * 1 = 1 * 3
1 God (1 WHAT)
3 Persons (3 WHOS)
Apple7
New member
Greetings again Apple7 and Greetings JudgeRightly,
Kind regards
Trevor
I can understand why Trinitarians seek to avoid Psalm 110:1 and Philippians 2:9-11. They also avoid Luke 1:34-35.
My pictorial mental view of the encampment, with the Tabernacle in the centre, appears different to a cross. It is more like a square. Apple7 went out one day with a bucket and picked 100 3-leaf clovers and arrayed them on his desk in groups of three, 16x3 on one side, 1 in the middle, and 17x3 on the other side. Mrs Apple7 went out the same day and picked two 4 leaf clovers. She made a wish with one of these and it was a simple, humble wish and it came true. She then made another wish, and it was that Apple7 would cease from his obsession and his lack of balance with the Trinity.
Interesting mathematics, but not very relevant. I believe in One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Psalm 110:1, Philippians 2:9-11 and Luke 1:34-35 are clear evidence of this.
Kind regards
Trevor
Apple7
New member
Greetings again Apple7,
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This verse is often quoted and expounded in the NT and states that Jesus the Son of God, David’s Lord, has now been exalted and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father. I can understand why Trinitarians avoid this verse and the NT application of this to the exalted position of Jesus at God’s right hand. Those of us who accept this teaching bow the knee to Jesus and acknowledge him as Lord, to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:9-11. Jesus is the Son of God by birth Luke 1:35, by moral character and glory John 1:14, and by his resurrection from the dead Romans 1:1-4. If you pop-up does not work here, possibly you could open your Bible, but I am certain that you are familiar with these verses especially when speaking with non-Trinitarians.
Kind regards
Trevor
I am not certain as to what you are stating wrt “name and number”. I assume JudgeRightly who approved your post has a clearer understanding of what you are trying to convey. Possibly your view of the post does not come up with the quotation from biblia.com. As I am a subscriber to Logos software, then this pop-up facility works when I view this. My view normally references the NKJV. The following Bible book has the name Psalms, and its chapter number is 110, and its verse number is 1. Reading from the KJV:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This verse is often quoted and expounded in the NT and states that Jesus the Son of God, David’s Lord, has now been exalted and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father. I can understand why Trinitarians avoid this verse and the NT application of this to the exalted position of Jesus at God’s right hand. Those of us who accept this teaching bow the knee to Jesus and acknowledge him as Lord, to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:9-11. Jesus is the Son of God by birth Luke 1:35, by moral character and glory John 1:14, and by his resurrection from the dead Romans 1:1-4. If you pop-up does not work here, possibly you could open your Bible, but I am certain that you are familiar with these verses especially when speaking with non-Trinitarians.
Kind regards
Trevor
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
How you like these apples?
How you like these apples?
Again, you cannot prove or show anywhere in scripture as clearly DEFINED what a 'Christian' is, as the word is only mentioned a few times in the NT, and some of the earliest manuscripts and historical records called this group of people 'Chrestians', as followers of some teacher named 'Chrestus', so,..you dont have much there except to show that a group of religious fans were CALLED by that name - pick 'chrestians' or 'christians' (apples, oranges),...beyond that...there isnt even much historical evidence that the gospel version of the man 'Jesus' existed. See here (my commentary towards end of thread). - the mythicist view of Christ is gaining more acceptance, if even marginally).
Again, your acclaimed adherence to 'scripture' or 'lexicons' in the case of proving let alone DEFINING what a 'Christian' is, is not solid or definitive outside your own traditional definition or assumption of such word-associations. There are many different kinds of so called 'Christians', in ancient times, and among the hundreds of different denominations today (sects abound). A general definition of the word is of course more conventional (as some kind of follower of Christ, etc), but the 'definition' and 'qualifications' of the name can VARY among persons and organizations.
That is your presupposition formed by your predefinition and 'prescribed theology'. Jesus in the most fundamental sense as a traditional JEW was UNITARIAN, thru and thru, at least theologically speaking, by way of the basic tenets of Judaism, beyond what later 'spin' or 'innovations' Christians may have added later about him. - carried on with the original apostles and followers of Jesus, continuing among the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Essenes and other early branches of Jesus followers, most all remained fundamentally Unitarian.
- only later did trinitarian 'formulations' such as those you hold dear (combobulating 3 personalities), become developed, then crystallized in creeds as dogma. (throw in some NT passages and a few interpolations to boot). My own view of Jesus includes a much greater and multi-faceted view of the 'Christ' - its not limited to a historical personality, neither the embellished narratives in the gospels, but is archetypal, symbolic, allegorical illustrating man's own psychological and spiritual transformation. (all is parable, metaphor, figurative, analogy, typology)....even Paul carries out the allegorical in his own 'interpretation' of scripture, and his own personal revelations, which he CLAIMS trumps all previous revelations, even dissing the original apostles (the pillars) in Jerusalem. - he goes so far to curse all other gospel versions. If he had the audacity to make such claims, one can at least have the audacity to 'think for himself'.
No, you did not prove your claim, or case, as it was but your own definition and assumption of what a 'Christian' is, or what qualifies one to be a so called 'Christian' BY YOUR OWN TERMS. Thats all you've shown.
:thumb:
How you like these apples?
Again, you cannot prove or show anywhere in scripture as clearly DEFINED what a 'Christian' is, as the word is only mentioned a few times in the NT, and some of the earliest manuscripts and historical records called this group of people 'Chrestians', as followers of some teacher named 'Chrestus', so,..you dont have much there except to show that a group of religious fans were CALLED by that name - pick 'chrestians' or 'christians' (apples, oranges),...beyond that...there isnt even much historical evidence that the gospel version of the man 'Jesus' existed. See here (my commentary towards end of thread). - the mythicist view of Christ is gaining more acceptance, if even marginally).
Again, your acclaimed adherence to 'scripture' or 'lexicons' in the case of proving let alone DEFINING what a 'Christian' is, is not solid or definitive outside your own traditional definition or assumption of such word-associations. There are many different kinds of so called 'Christians', in ancient times, and among the hundreds of different denominations today (sects abound). A general definition of the word is of course more conventional (as some kind of follower of Christ, etc), but the 'definition' and 'qualifications' of the name can VARY among persons and organizations.
That is your presupposition formed by your predefinition and 'prescribed theology'. Jesus in the most fundamental sense as a traditional JEW was UNITARIAN, thru and thru, at least theologically speaking, by way of the basic tenets of Judaism, beyond what later 'spin' or 'innovations' Christians may have added later about him. - carried on with the original apostles and followers of Jesus, continuing among the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Essenes and other early branches of Jesus followers, most all remained fundamentally Unitarian.
- only later did trinitarian 'formulations' such as those you hold dear (combobulating 3 personalities), become developed, then crystallized in creeds as dogma. (throw in some NT passages and a few interpolations to boot). My own view of Jesus includes a much greater and multi-faceted view of the 'Christ' - its not limited to a historical personality, neither the embellished narratives in the gospels, but is archetypal, symbolic, allegorical illustrating man's own psychological and spiritual transformation. (all is parable, metaphor, figurative, analogy, typology)....even Paul carries out the allegorical in his own 'interpretation' of scripture, and his own personal revelations, which he CLAIMS trumps all previous revelations, even dissing the original apostles (the pillars) in Jerusalem. - he goes so far to curse all other gospel versions. If he had the audacity to make such claims, one can at least have the audacity to 'think for himself'.
No, you did not prove your claim, or case, as it was but your own definition and assumption of what a 'Christian' is, or what qualifies one to be a so called 'Christian' BY YOUR OWN TERMS. Thats all you've shown.
:thumb:
Apple7
New member
Let's concentrate on your first example, Psalm 110.1, since it seems to be bothering you.
First of all, why do you insist on repeatedly quoting an English Trinitarian rendering when you reject The Trinity (albeit, your own special version of it)?
Do you know more than the one's providing the rendering that you are using?
Apple7
New member
All of your repeat polemics have already been thoroughly explained, detailed, and refuted.
Got any NEW material to bring to the table?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I did some editing to my post
- My points and argument STANDS. - face the music.You cant even prove you are a 'Christian' beyond your own definition or assumption of the 'term', OR that JW's are any LESS of being 'Christian' by those same contrived terms.
So looks you are in the same lot of the J-dubs :crackup: - by conflation and misapplication.
Apple7
New member
I did some editing to my post
You cant even prove you are a 'Christian' beyond your own definition or assumption of the 'term', OR that JW's are any LESS of being 'Christian' by those same contrived terms.
So looks you are in the same lot of the J-dubs :crackup: - by conflation and misapplication.
Lol...you still use the same verbatim 'rebuttals' as in years' past.
Come back when you get some NEW material...:chuckle:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
There are more 'free thinkers' and libertarians than you know,....some are breaking free
- all my links are valid and pertinent commentary, articles and videos on the subjects concerned. Let the people think for themselves.
Apple7
New member
There are more 'free thinkers' and libertarians than you know,....some are breaking free
Keeping clicking your heels together, Dorothy...
Greetings again Apple7,
Acts 2:22–24 (KJV): 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
In support of the above Peter quotes and expounds Psalm 110:1:
Acts 2:32–36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
I suggest that none of the above supports the Trinity, but it speaks of Jesus as a man with a special and unique ministry, and after his crucifixion and death, he was raised and exalted to sit at the right hand of God.
Kind regards
Trevor
What special version of it did you have in mind? I am quite happy with the KJV of Psalm 110:1. I checked the RV, RSV, NASB, NIV and ESV translations of Psalm 110:1 and these are all essentially the same. They all distinguish the two lords mentioned, by rendering Yahweh as LORD and I consider the need to recognise this distinction. Do you have any problem with the KJV or any other of the translations that I mentioned?
This seems obscure, please explain if important.
Yes, considering Psalm 110:1 it is quoted by Peter in Acts 2, but the context is important. Peter tells those assembled concerning Jesus:
Acts 2:22–24 (KJV): 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
In support of the above Peter quotes and expounds Psalm 110:1:
Acts 2:32–36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
I suggest that none of the above supports the Trinity, but it speaks of Jesus as a man with a special and unique ministry, and after his crucifixion and death, he was raised and exalted to sit at the right hand of God.
Kind regards
Trevor
Denominations dictate a form of worship to their "members" that in no way is a reflection of true worship.
Apple7
New member
One rendered by Trinity-rejecters such as yourself, Trev...
Psalm 110.1 shows distinction between THREE Persons - not Two.
Observe.
A declaration of Yahweh (Father) to my Adonee (Son): Sit at My right hand (Holy Spirit), until I place Your enemies as Your footstool. Psalm 110.1
Who raised Jesus from the dead?
• God the Father… Acts 3.26; Eph 1.15-20; Gal 1.1; 1 Thes 1.9-10
• God the Son…John 2.19-22; 10.17-18; Romans 6.4;
• God the Spirit…Romans 8.11; 1 Peter 3.18
• The Trinity…Romans 10.9; 1 Peter 1.20-21; Hebrews 13.20-21; 1 Cor 6.14; Col 2.11-12; Acts 2.23-24; 2.32; 3.14-15; 13.30-37
As usual, Trev.....you fail to take into consideration the whole of scripture...and you allow your cultic worldview to pigeon-hole your study of scripture.
When are you ever going to become a serious student of scripture?
Apple7
New member
Show us...