Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Apple7

New member
Interesting how you have utterly abandoned your assertion that an angel spoke to Ezekiel...as even dartman could not help you out, even with his claimed 60 years of hard Biblical study.

But...then....in an attempt to redeem yourself, you shoot a shotgun of red herrings to cover up for your most evident loss...
 

Apple7

New member
1. Jesus was conceived and born with God the Father as his father and Mary as his mother, and as such he was born the Son of God Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.


θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote monogenēs Theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato

No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him.


:cigar:
 

Apple7

New member
3. Exodus 3:14-15 should be translated in the future tense “I will be” and “He will be” as per Tyndale and RV and RSV margins and some modern scholars, and verified by Exodus 3:12 and speaks of God’s purpose to deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the land Exodus 6:1-8.

And?

Already comprehended in the Hebrew root.

We already went over this with you at length.


Why is 'I AM' repeated three times in that verse...?
 

Apple7

New member
4. There is thus no direct link between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. John 8:58 is better understood as part of a theme in John’s Gospel concerning whether Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and this is clearly seen in John 8:24,28.

Who SPOKE to Moses from the burning bush?

Think hard, Trev...



:cigar:
 

Apple7

New member
5. Yahweh is God the Father and the distinction between Yahweh, God the Father and David’s Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God is clearly revealed in Psalm 110:1, and verified by the numerous NT expositions of this verse.


In context, of course...

Psalm 110


A declaration of Yahweh(Father) to my Lord(Son) : Sit at My Right Hand (Holy Spirit) , until I place Your enemies as Your footstool. Yahweh(Father) shall send The Rod of Your strength(Son) out of Zion to rule in the midst of Your enemies. Your people shall have willingness in the day of Your Power(Holy Spirit) ; in the majesties of holiness; from the womb of the dawn, to You is the dew of Your youth. Yahweh(Father) has sworn and will not repent: You are a Priest(Son) forever according to the order of Melchizedek(Holy Spirit) . The Lord(Son) at Your Right Hand (Holy Spirit) shatters kings in the day of His anger. He shall judge among the nations; He shall fill with dead bodies; He shall shatter heads over much land. He shall drink out of the torrent on the way; therefore, He shall lift up the head. (Psalm 110.1 - 7)
 

Apple7

New member
6. John 10:30-36 introduces us to the fact that Elohim is used for the judges and Jesus uses this fact to claim that he is the Son of God.

Elohim is an OT term and is already known to be a flexible term.

This the best stuff you got, Trev...?
 

Apple7

New member
.
7. Genesis 1:26-27 is speaking of God and the Angels and this is confirmed by David’s summary of this in Psalm 8:4-6. Jesus was made a little lower than the angels.


Let’s review the term, mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm, which you want to be rendered as ‘angels’.

Its location as used in the verse in question…

For You have made him lack a little from God (mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm); and have crowned him with glory and honor. (Psalm 8.5)


Now…let’s compare the same exact term as used in the only two other places in scripture, as thus…


And he sent messengers to him, saying, What do I have to do with you, O king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but toward the house with which I have war; and God said for me to hasten; stop yourself from opposing God (mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm), who is with me, and He shall not destroy you. (2 Chron 35.21)

Now…please tell us how many translators render mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm as ‘angels’ in 2 Chron 35.21?

That’s correct…none.



And then burned the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram; his wrath burned against Job, because he had justified himself rather than God (mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm). (Job 32.2)

Now…please tell us how many translators render mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm as ‘angels’ in Job 32.2?

That’s correct…none.


So…scripturally, we have thus established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hebrew term, mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm, is to be rendered as God….NOT ‘angels’.



Let’s now move onto the verb, wat·tə·ḥas·sə·rê·hū, which you want to be a direct comparison to the verb used in the Gen 1 narrative.

Its location as used in the verse in question…

For You have made him lack (wat·tə·ḥas·sə·rê·hū) a little from God; and have crowned him with glory and honor. (Psalm 8.5)

‘Wat·tə·ḥas·sə·rê·hū’ is only used one time in the OT, and the verbal root and derivatives are used another 20 times in scripture.

The Hebrew verbal root is defined as ‘lacking, decrease, etc’.


Now….compare this to the Hebrew verb employed in the Gen 1 narrative …

Gen 1.26 - 27

And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And God created (bara) the man in His own image; in the image of God He created (bara) him. He created (bara) them male and female.


The verb used here is ‘bara’, and, as a true creation verb, is used ONLY by God for creating brand new things….and is NOT used by angels.

Thus…because you are not a serious student of scripture, and you repeatedly fail to research the original languages of the scripture that you are arguing over, you have once again attempted to blend and compare two separate accounts which are unrelated to one another.

Facts:

• God has NO need to employ the help of His created angels while He is Creating, anything.
• The Second Person of the Trinity was NOT created.



Face it Trev….you have once again failed in your attempt to thwart The Trinity.




:cigar:
 

Apple7

New member
Now...trev.....please continue to ignore my replies...and, most of all, completely forget about defending your cultic assertion that an angel 'SPOKE' to Ezekiel. Perish it from your thoughts. Completely...

Can you please do this for us?
:banana:
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Apple7,
Ezekiel writes that both the 'Word of God'(SON) came to him speaking and talking, and that 'The Hand of God' (HOLY SPIRIT) also came upon him.
I was faced with nine replies and a few of them are concerning The Word of God and Ezekiel. We are told that he heard a voice Ezekiel 1:28. Jesus the Son of God did not yet exist, then as Ezekiel 2:1-5 indicates that Ezekiel was in the presence of an individual speaking on God’s behalf, and thus this must have been an Angel.
How does God speak without a mouth?
God does speak individually Psalm 110:1, but here in Ezekiel it is by means of an Angel.
Interesting how you have utterly abandoned your assertion that an angel spoke to Ezekiel...
No, an Angel spoke to Ezekiel.
No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him.
You should check the history of the text that you are quoting. The following is based on another text:
John 1:18 (KJV): No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
'Wisdom' is an epithet for The Holy Spirit.
No, Jesus increased in wisdom.
And? Already comprehended in the Hebrew root. We already went over this with you at length. Why is 'I AM' repeated three times in that verse...?
I AM is an incorrect translation.
Who SPOKE to Moses from the burning bush? Think hard, Trev...
An Angel Exodus 3:2.
In context, of course... Psalm 110
What a remarkable distortion of Psalm 110 you have presented. Please check the NT exposition of Psalm 110:1.
Elohim is an OT term and is already known to be a flexible term. This the best stuff you got, Trev...?
Let’s review the term, mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm, which you want to be rendered as ‘angels’. Its location as used in the verse in question…
For You have made him lack a little from God (mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm); and have crowned him with glory and honor. (Psalm 8.5)
Face it Trev….you have once again failed in your attempt to thwart The Trinity.
But you avoid the Bible teaching concerning Elohim in this passage as Hebrews 2:7-9 renders this as angels and the exposition is based upon this.
Now...trev.....please continue to ignore my replies...and, most of all, completely forget about defending your cultic assertion that an angel 'SPOKE' to Ezekiel. Perish it from your thoughts. Completely... Can you please do this for us?
:banana: :cigar: :cigar: :cigar: :cigar: :cigar:
I thought I had better collect all the cigars together to save space. It must be very unpleasant in your room.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The problem with “proving” the uncreated divinity of our Lord is that it has never actually been authentically in question amongst those who adhere to Apostolic doctrine for nearly two millennia. There are many direct and explicit references to such by Koine Greek word meanings, and the many Hebraicisms that came before that.

There has never been valid opposition to the Son’s uncreated divinity. The Arian conflict surrounding the need for the Council of Nicea set the stage for dismissing even the notion that the Son was created divinity of a different and lesser “kind”.

For a time as much as anyone else, I opposed the Trinity doctrine; but for very explicit reasons inverse to Arians and Unitarians. My contention for a number of years was (and still is, but in a manner befitting adherence to Orthodox Trinitarian dogma) that modern perceptions were ignorantly Tritheistic, mistakenly conceptualizing three individuated beings.

But to have to argue ad infinitum with Unitarians is beyond absurd, and is always proven futile; for Unitarians never come to these forums to learn or ask about what seems to them impossible, or at least implausible. They come here with a view rooted in Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias, and an understanding devoid of true linguistic knowledge of form and meaning as grammar and semantics with lexical explication.

So to engage with Unitarians is somewhat akin to engaging in an argument with one’s own children. It’s not a matter of convincing them of any particular truth of a certain doctrine, but it’s a fruitless engagement in a power struggle when there is no power struggle. The Trinity doctrine is rightly default Christian doctrine, and for reasons far beyond the faulty ideology of Unitarianism.

To engage Unitarians in well-intentioned debate is to engage in a power struggle with a child defying authority. There is a great sense of loss just by entertaining the overt inappropriate challenge to historical and lexical authority.

My own excurses should be an example of many. Unitarians ignore the basics of Greek grammar and lexicography to falsely interpret and apply any and all usage of scripture. They selectively ignore the carefully distributed and irrefutable references to the divinity of our Lord based upon linguistic absolutes of language form and meaning.

There are many verses with words that have definitions wherein the divinity of our Lord is undeniable. And that aggregate assemblage of terms is the systematic by which the Trinity doctrine is presented. The question is not one of the Lord’s divinity being absolute fact in the inspired text; the question has always historically been how to maintain Monotheism in light of there being a clear “threenees” to the singular Divinity that is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The question has always primarily been about eliminating what is not rather than asserting what is. So there was an extended process of having to eliminate things that were being innappropriately included, which is why Ecumenical Councils were convened. NOT initially to establish what Christian doctrine IS (though that always emerged), but to clearly eliminate and anathematize what IS NOT Christian doctrine.

The divinity of our Lord was clearly established long before Nicea; it was just a matter of explicating that to/for/among all Believers while maintaining Monotheism. The first real quarrel was NOT whether Christ was divine or not, but whether the Son was a lower and/or lesser form of divinity who had a seeming beginning. Any Unitarian considerations were long dismissed as the Judaizing fallacy and heresy that a human-only Messiah is as an antichrist concept. The arguments were ALL about what “kind” of divinity the Son represented relative to the Father, and the same consideration for the Holy Spirit.

Created divinity (Arianism) was eliminated for ultimately the same reasons as Unitarianism was eliminated. Sabellianism and other forms of Modalism were eliminated as well, as were a number of other upstart considerations attempting to gain traction in the early apologetic period and going forward until these issues had all been addressed for several centuries.

Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon all settled the primary exclusions of Theology Proper for Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology. Though there can still be theological pursuit in understanding these areas and possibly expressing them in appropriate modern terms, there is no room to challenge or change the results of the Apostolic pursuits of the Early Fathers in determining the details of our Lord’s divinity. No stone was theologically left unturned to demonstrate clearly what Apostolic doctrine IS according to the inspired text.

When John 1:1 utlilizes anarthrous Theos for the Word in contrast to articular Theos for the Father respectively, it is clear the Son is divinity.

When the first few verses of Hebrews state that the Son is the express image (charakter) of God’s person (hypostasis), this is an unequivocal proof that the Son is divine based simply upon the lexical meaning and application of those terms.

When Philippians refers to the Son being in the form (morphe) of God and coming in the form (schema) of a servant, these are absolutely and unquestionably clear proofs of the Son’s divinity.

There are others in tandem to these, but any ONE of these would suffice and all of these and others most certainly do, regardly of how that divinity is then addressed to maintain Monotheism.

The singular ousia is the singular “what-ness” that is divinity. No criticism of Polytheism can be leveled when the divinity is not plural. And all other questions have been answered for a very long time by early theologians that have no modern equivalent, whatever our resources and prowess.

Humanity-only (Unitarianism), Humanity-become-divinity - in whatever manner at whatever time in whatever way to whatever degree as ontology or economy (Adooptionism), Created Divinity, Modalistic Divinity - again in several forms, and many other considerations were excluded; as were many Christological considerations regarding “how” Christ was both divine and humanity.

These were all exhautively addressed centuries ago by those who were far more linguistically and theologically adept than we are today. And the fact remains that the Trinitarian formulaic explanation and explication of terms for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being eternal and uncreated SINGULAR divinity has been established as the irretuable standard of the Christian faith.

I myself still have a handful of concerns about how modern western English speakers understand and express the Trinity doctrine; and I’ve spent two decades attmempting to explicate that and provide clarity. That unfortuately included a foray into anti-Trinitarian challenge; but it was a challenge that most modern Trinitarians aren’t actually fully Trinitarian, NOT that the Trinity doctrine itself was in error.

My assertions remain my concern, but pale in comparison to any and all who would challenge the eternal and uncreated singular divinity of our Lord, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Unitarians are at the bottom of the list, for there is no legitimate challenge to the divinity of our Lord that can be made. Regardless of “how” He was divine, and what “kind” of divinity He had/has; there can be NO valid challenge to the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal and uncreated Son of the one true and living God.

And in addition to that, the “hows”, “whys”, and “kind” considerations of our Lord’s divinity have all been extensively and exhaustively examined and considered to present the assemblage of lexical terms that comprise the Trinity doctrine and all the facets of Christian Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology.

The Trinity doctrine is not an issue that is up for valid debate, particularly with those who are both linguistically and historically ignorant and represent both modern innovation and historical revisionism along with invalid doctrinal revisionism.

Unitarians (and others) are antichrist. Period. Full stop.
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings PneumaPsucheSoma,
The problem with “proving” the uncreated divinity of our Lord is that it has never actually been authentically in question amongst those who adhere to Apostolic doctrine for nearly two millennia. There are many direct and explicit references to such by Koine Greek word meanings, and the many Hebraicisms that came before that.

There has never been valid opposition to the Son’s uncreated divinity. The Arian conflict surrounding the need for the Council of Nicea set the stage for dismissing even the notion that the Son was created divinity of a different and lesser “kind”.

Unitarians are at the bottom of the list, for there is no legitimate challenge to the divinity of our Lord that can be made. Regardless of “how” He was divine, and what “kind” of divinity He had/has; there can be NO valid challenge to the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal and uncreated Son of the one true and living God.

And in addition to that, the “hows”, “whys”, and “kind” considerations of our Lord’s divinity have all been extensively and exhaustively examined and considered to present the assemblage of lexical terms that comprise the Trinity doctrine and all the facets of Christian Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology.

The Trinity doctrine is not an issue that is up for valid debate, particularly with those who are both linguistically and historically ignorant and represent both modern innovation and historical revisionism along with invalid doctrinal revisionism.

Unitarians (and others) are antichrist. Period. Full stop.
I have summarised your extensive article by quoting the first two and the last four paragraphs. Could yo please explain Luke 1:34-35 and Luke 2:40,52.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Apple7

New member
Greetings again Apple7,
We are told that he heard a voice Ezekiel 1:28. Jesus the Son of God did not yet exist, then as Ezekiel 2:1-5 indicates that Ezekiel was in the presence of an individual speaking on God’s behalf, and thus this must have been an Angel.
Kind regards
Trevor

Where was the Hebrew term for 'angel' in Ezekiel, again...?

:cigar:
 

Right Divider

Body part
I was faced with nine replies and a few of them are concerning The Word of God and Ezekiel. We are told that he heard a voice Ezekiel 1:28. Jesus the Son of God did not yet exist, then as Ezekiel 2:1-5 indicates that Ezekiel was in the presence of an individual speaking on God’s behalf, and thus this must have been an Angel.
The Son of God is and was the Word that was with God and WAS God. John 1:1 & John 1:14

So simple that a child can understand it: The Word was God and the Word was made flesh.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Apple7,
Where was the Hebrew term for 'angel' in Ezekiel, again...?
:cigar:
Where in Ezekiel is the "voice" defined, who actually is speaking, apart from your guess that it is the 2nd person of the Trinity, and the English translation will be sufficient. We do not need your usual smoke screen (from cigars?) to demand the Hebrew word or definition. We all know that you passed your Hebrew exams with flying colours, possibly waving a flag with your avatar badge as well. My minimal Hebrew covered some aspects of the Yahweh Name and the Biblical use of Elohim and you seem to be deficient in understanding the Biblical usage of this Name and title, the Biblical basis of the subject of the One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Right Divider,
The Son of God is and was the Word that was with God and WAS God. John 1:1 & John 1:14
So simple that a child can understand it: The Word was God and the Word was made flesh.
I can appreciate your fixation with the Trinitarian understanding of this. I understand that the Word is a personification of God's wisdom and purpose, and this became a reality when Jesus was born and developed into the full moral character of God, full of grace and truth. Trinitarians do not believe that the Word was made flesh, as they believe that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was combined with flesh, and became a God-man, not flesh alone. Thus they do not believe that the Word was made flesh, but that flesh was added to His Deity.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Apple7

New member
Greetings again Apple7,Where in Ezekiel is the "voice" defined, who actually is speaking, apart from your guess that it is the 2nd person of the Trinity, and the English translation will be sufficient. We do not need your usual smoke screen (from cigars?) to demand the Hebrew word or definition. We all know that you passed your Hebrew exams with flying colours, possibly waving a flag with your avatar badge as well. My minimal Hebrew covered some aspects of the Yahweh Name and the Biblical use of Elohim and you seem to be deficient in understanding the Biblical usage of this Name and title, the Biblical basis of the subject of the One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor


It's so simple a caveman could comprehend it.

'The voice of God' has always been The Second Person of The Trinity.

That is why Jesus has always been referenced to as 'The Word of God', as He SPEAKS to the prophets, directly, mouth to mouth, face to face.
 

Apple7

New member
The problem with “proving” the uncreated divinity of our Lord is that it has never actually been authentically in question amongst those who adhere to Apostolic doctrine for nearly two millennia. There are many direct and explicit references to such by Koine Greek word meanings, and the many Hebraicisms that came before that.

There has never been valid opposition to the Son’s uncreated divinity. The Arian conflict surrounding the need for the Council of Nicea set the stage for dismissing even the notion that the Son was created divinity of a different and lesser “kind”.

For a time as much as anyone else, I opposed the Trinity doctrine; but for very explicit reasons inverse to Arians and Unitarians. My contention for a number of years was (and still is, but in a manner befitting adherence to Orthodox Trinitarian dogma) that modern perceptions were ignorantly Tritheistic, mistakenly conceptualizing three individuated beings.

But to have to argue ad infinitum with Unitarians is beyond absurd, and is always proven futile; for Unitarians never come to these forums to learn or ask about what seems to them impossible, or at least implausible. They come here with a view rooted in Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias, and an understanding devoid of true linguistic knowledge of form and meaning as grammar and semantics with lexical explication.

So to engage with Unitarians is somewhat akin to engaging in an argument with one’s own children. It’s not a matter of convincing them of any particular truth of a certain doctrine, but it’s a fruitless engagement in a power struggle when there is no power struggle. The Trinity doctrine is rightly default Christian doctrine, and for reasons far beyond the faulty ideology of Unitarianism.

To engage Unitarians in well-intentioned debate is to engage in a power struggle with a child defying authority. There is a great sense of loss just by entertaining the overt inappropriate challenge to historical and lexical authority.

My own excurses should be an example of many. Unitarians ignore the basics of Greek grammar and lexicography to falsely interpret and apply any and all usage of scripture. They selectively ignore the carefully distributed and irrefutable references to the divinity of our Lord based upon linguistic absolutes of language form and meaning.

There are many verses with words that have definitions wherein the divinity of our Lord is undeniable. And that aggregate assemblage of terms is the systematic by which the Trinity doctrine is presented. The question is not one of the Lord’s divinity being absolute fact in the inspired text; the question has always historically been how to maintain Monotheism in light of there being a clear “threenees” to the singular Divinity that is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The question has always primarily been about eliminating what is not rather than asserting what is. So there was an extended process of having to eliminate things that were being innappropriately included, which is why Ecumenical Councils were convened. NOT initially to establish what Christian doctrine IS (though that always emerged), but to clearly eliminate and anathematize what IS NOT Christian doctrine.

The divinity of our Lord was clearly established long before Nicea; it was just a matter of explicating that to/for/among all Believers while maintaining Monotheism. The first real quarrel was NOT whether Christ was divine or not, but whether the Son was a lower and/or lesser form of divinity who had a seeming beginning. Any Unitarian considerations were long dismissed as the Judaizing fallacy and heresy that a human-only Messiah is as an antichrist concept. The arguments were ALL about what “kind” of divinity the Son represented relative to the Father, and the same consideration for the Holy Spirit.

Created divinity (Arianism) was eliminated for ultimately the same reasons as Unitarianism was eliminated. Sabellianism and other forms of Modalism were eliminated as well, as were a number of other upstart considerations attempting to gain traction in the early apologetic period and going forward until these issues had all been addressed for several centuries.

Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon all settled the primary exclusions of Theology Proper for Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology. Though there can still be theological pursuit in understanding these areas and possibly expressing them in appropriate modern terms, there is no room to challenge or change the results of the Apostolic pursuits of the Early Fathers in determining the details of our Lord’s divinity. No stone was theologically left unturned to demonstrate clearly what Apostolic doctrine IS according to the inspired text.

When John 1:1 utlilizes anarthrous Theos for the Word in contrast to articular Theos for the Father respectively, it is clear the Son is divinity.

When the first few verses of Hebrews state that the Son is the express image (charakter) of God’s person (hypostasis), this is an unequivocal proof that the Son is divine based simply upon the lexical meaning and application of those terms.

When Philippians refers to the Son being in the form (morphe) of God and coming in the form (schema) of a servant, these are absolutely and unquestionably clear proofs of the Son’s divinity.

There are others in tandem to these, but any ONE of these would suffice and all of these and others most certainly do, regardly of how that divinity is then addressed to maintain Monotheism.

The singular ousia is the singular “what-ness” that is divinity. No criticism of Polytheism can be leveled when the divinity is not plural. And all other questions have been answered for a very long time by early theologians that have no modern equivalent, whatever our resources and prowess.

Humanity-only (Unitarianism), Humanity-become-divinity - in whatever manner at whatever time in whatever way to whatever degree as ontology or economy (Adooptionism), Created Divinity, Modalistic Divinity - again in several forms, and many other considerations were excluded; as were many Christological considerations regarding “how” Christ was both divine and humanity.

These were all exhautively addressed centuries ago by those who were far more linguistically and theologically adept than we are today. And the fact remains that the Trinitarian formulaic explanation and explication of terms for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being eternal and uncreated SINGULAR divinity has been established as the irretuable standard of the Christian faith.

I myself still have a handful of concerns about how modern western English speakers understand and express the Trinity doctrine; and I’ve spent two decades attmempting to explicate that and provide clarity. That unfortuately included a foray into anti-Trinitarian challenge; but it was a challenge that most modern Trinitarians aren’t actually fully Trinitarian, NOT that the Trinity doctrine itself was in error.

My assertions remain my concern, but pale in comparison to any and all who would challenge the eternal and uncreated singular divinity of our Lord, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Unitarians are at the bottom of the list, for there is no legitimate challenge to the divinity of our Lord that can be made. Regardless of “how” He was divine, and what “kind” of divinity He had/has; there can be NO valid challenge to the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal and uncreated Son of the one true and living God.

And in addition to that, the “hows”, “whys”, and “kind” considerations of our Lord’s divinity have all been extensively and exhaustively examined and considered to present the assemblage of lexical terms that comprise the Trinity doctrine and all the facets of Christian Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology.

The Trinity doctrine is not an issue that is up for valid debate, particularly with those who are both linguistically and historically ignorant and represent both modern innovation and historical revisionism along with invalid doctrinal revisionism.

Unitarians (and others) are antichrist. Period. Full stop.


As usual, spot on!

The only reason that I deal with the 'thick as a brick' Trinity deniers on this forum, is to let them debase themselves in front of others, and show their obtuse reasoning for the benefit of the masses.

Trinity deniers suffer from '2 Cor 4 syndrome' and, are literally the walking dead.

So be it...as it was intended to be, and cannot be changed....


Don't lose heart, and embrace that you have been made part of the adventure in exposing the deniers for the utter depravity that they most assuredly have been blinded with... :)
 

Apple7

New member
A7: 'Why do you deny your Triune Creator?'

A7: 'Let's exorcise your demon!'

Trevor: 'Arghhh!#!@ (insert squealing pig sound >....<)!!!!#ghhhh'
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Spoiler
The problem with “proving” the uncreated divinity of our Lord is that it has never actually been authentically in question amongst those who adhere to Apostolic doctrine for nearly two millennia. There are many direct and explicit references to such by Koine Greek word meanings, and the many Hebraicisms that came before that.

There has never been valid opposition to the Son’s uncreated divinity. The Arian conflict surrounding the need for the Council of Nicea set the stage for dismissing even the notion that the Son was created divinity of a different and lesser “kind”.

For a time as much as anyone else, I opposed the Trinity doctrine; but for very explicit reasons inverse to Arians and Unitarians. My contention for a number of years was (and still is, but in a manner befitting adherence to Orthodox Trinitarian dogma) that modern perceptions were ignorantly Tritheistic, mistakenly conceptualizing three individuated beings.

But to have to argue ad infinitum with Unitarians is beyond absurd, and is always proven futile; for Unitarians never come to these forums to learn or ask about what seems to them impossible, or at least implausible. They come here with a view rooted in Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias, and an understanding devoid of true linguistic knowledge of form and meaning as grammar and semantics with lexical explication.

So to engage with Unitarians is somewhat akin to engaging in an argument with one’s own children. It’s not a matter of convincing them of any particular truth of a certain doctrine, but it’s a fruitless engagement in a power struggle when there is no power struggle. The Trinity doctrine is rightly default Christian doctrine, and for reasons far beyond the faulty ideology of Unitarianism.

To engage Unitarians in well-intentioned debate is to engage in a power struggle with a child defying authority. There is a great sense of loss just by entertaining the overt inappropriate challenge to historical and lexical authority.

My own excurses should be an example of many. Unitarians ignore the basics of Greek grammar and lexicography to falsely interpret and apply any and all usage of scripture. They selectively ignore the carefully distributed and irrefutable references to the divinity of our Lord based upon linguistic absolutes of language form and meaning.

There are many verses with words that have definitions wherein the divinity of our Lord is undeniable. And that aggregate assemblage of terms is the systematic by which the Trinity doctrine is presented. The question is not one of the Lord’s divinity being absolute fact in the inspired text; the question has always historically been how to maintain Monotheism in light of there being a clear “threenees” to the singular Divinity that is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The question has always primarily been about eliminating what is not rather than asserting what is. So there was an extended process of having to eliminate things that were being innappropriately included, which is why Ecumenical Councils were convened. NOT initially to establish what Christian doctrine IS (though that always emerged), but to clearly eliminate and anathematize what IS NOT Christian doctrine.

The divinity of our Lord was clearly established long before Nicea; it was just a matter of explicating that to/for/among all Believers while maintaining Monotheism. The first real quarrel was NOT whether Christ was divine or not, but whether the Son was a lower and/or lesser form of divinity who had a seeming beginning. Any Unitarian considerations were long dismissed as the Judaizing fallacy and heresy that a human-only Messiah is as an antichrist concept. The arguments were ALL about what “kind” of divinity the Son represented relative to the Father, and the same consideration for the Holy Spirit.

Created divinity (Arianism) was eliminated for ultimately the same reasons as Unitarianism was eliminated. Sabellianism and other forms of Modalism were eliminated as well, as were a number of other upstart considerations attempting to gain traction in the early apologetic period and going forward until these issues had all been addressed for several centuries.

Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon all settled the primary exclusions of Theology Proper for Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology. Though there can still be theological pursuit in understanding these areas and possibly expressing them in appropriate modern terms, there is no room to challenge or change the results of the Apostolic pursuits of the Early Fathers in determining the details of our Lord’s divinity. No stone was theologically left unturned to demonstrate clearly what Apostolic doctrine IS according to the inspired text.

When John 1:1 utlilizes anarthrous Theos for the Word in contrast to articular Theos for the Father respectively, it is clear the Son is divinity.

When the first few verses of Hebrews state that the Son is the express image (charakter) of God’s person (hypostasis), this is an unequivocal proof that the Son is divine based simply upon the lexical meaning and application of those terms.

When Philippians refers to the Son being in the form (morphe) of God and coming in the form (schema) of a servant, these are absolutely and unquestionably clear proofs of the Son’s divinity.

There are others in tandem to these, but any ONE of these would suffice and all of these and others most certainly do, regardly of how that divinity is then addressed to maintain Monotheism.

The singular ousia is the singular “what-ness” that is divinity. No criticism of Polytheism can be leveled when the divinity is not plural. And all other questions have been answered for a very long time by early theologians that have no modern equivalent, whatever our resources and prowess.

Humanity-only (Unitarianism), Humanity-become-divinity - in whatever manner at whatever time in whatever way to whatever degree as ontology or economy (Adooptionism), Created Divinity, Modalistic Divinity - again in several forms, and many other considerations were excluded; as were many Christological considerations regarding “how” Christ was both divine and humanity.

These were all exhautively addressed centuries ago by those who were far more linguistically and theologically adept than we are today. And the fact remains that the Trinitarian formulaic explanation and explication of terms for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being eternal and uncreated SINGULAR divinity has been established as the irretuable standard of the Christian faith.

I myself still have a handful of concerns about how modern western English speakers understand and express the Trinity doctrine; and I’ve spent two decades attmempting to explicate that and provide clarity. That unfortuately included a foray into anti-Trinitarian challenge; but it was a challenge that most modern Trinitarians aren’t actually fully Trinitarian, NOT that the Trinity doctrine itself was in error.

My assertions remain my concern, but pale in comparison to any and all who would challenge the eternal and uncreated singular divinity of our Lord, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Unitarians are at the bottom of the list, for there is no legitimate challenge to the divinity of our Lord that can be made. Regardless of “how” He was divine, and what “kind” of divinity He had/has; there can be NO valid challenge to the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal and uncreated Son of the one true and living God.

And in addition to that, the “hows”, “whys”, and “kind” considerations of our Lord’s divinity have all been extensively and exhaustively examined and considered to present the assemblage of lexical terms that comprise the Trinity doctrine and all the facets of Christian Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology.

The Trinity doctrine is not an issue that is up for valid debate, particularly with those who are both linguistically and historically ignorant and represent both modern innovation and historical revisionism along with invalid doctrinal revisionism.

Unitarians (and others) are antichrist. Period. Full stop.

Excellent post. :thumb:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top