Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

[Dartman]

You mean like this?


Jeremiah 27.4 - 5

And command them to go to their masters, saying, So says Yahweh (Father) of Hosts, the God of Israel: So you shall say to your masters, I have made the earth, the man, and the animals on the face of the earth by My great Power (Holy Spirit) and by My outstretched Arm (Son); and I have given it to whom it seemed right in My eyes.

And command them to go to their masters, saying, So says Yahweh (Father) of Hosts, the God of Israel: So you shall say to your masters, I have made the earth, the man, and the animals on the face of the earth by My great Power (Holy Spirit) and by My outstretched Arm (Jehovah's arm); and I have given it to whom it seemed right in My eyes.

Now, please explain the three passages I posted;
Isa 42:1-8 Behold, My servant, whom I uphold; My chosen, in whom My soul delighteth: I have put My spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.
5 Thus saith God Jehovah, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; He that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
6 I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.
8 I am Jehovah, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise unto graven images.

Acts 4:24-30 they, when they heard it, lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, O Lord, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is:
25 who by the holy spirit, (by) the mouth of our father David thy servant, didst say, Why did the Gentiles rage, And the peoples imagine vain things?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against His Anointed:
27 for of a truth in this city against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou And didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,
28 to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy council foreordained to come to pass.
29 And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness,
30 while Thy stretchest forth Thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus.


Acts 17:24-31
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him from the dead.

 

[Dartman]

And the Son and the Holy Spirit are also the only true God.

1) Says no verse EVER.
2) your theory directly contradicts "ONLY".

 

[JudgeRightly]

1) Says no verse EVER.
2) your theory directly contradicts "ONLY".

1. Argument from silence

2. "Only" only applies to "God", not "thee"

My question, again:

Dartman, Let's assume God is unitarian for a bit.

Assuming so:

1) Is something (such as humility) good because God recognizes it as good?

OR

2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

 

[Dartman]

Col 1.15 expresses subordination. The genitive substantive specifies that which is subordinated to, or under, the dominion of the head substantive. In this case, the creation is subordinate to Jesus.

Hogwash.
In this case Jesus is an IMAGE of God ... which is NEVER the original..... and Jesus is a "creature", he is the "firstborn" of ALL the other Creatures
NT:2937 ktisis (ktis'-is); from NT:2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively): KJV - building, creation, creature, ordinance.

 

[Dartman]

1. Argument from silence

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.^[6][7]

So, is the trinity something God didn't know about?? Or, He intentionally deceived people by leaving it out? Or, it isn't "important enough"?

Which is it?

You need to drop your failed attempt to cover up for your UTTER Lack of Scripture.

2. "Only" only applies to "God", not "thee"

Hmmm .... so, in the sentence; :"You are the ONLY ignorant guy" .... does "ONLY" merely apply to "guy"?

 

[JudgeRightly]

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.^[6][7]

You should learn to read the entire page before cutting stuff out.

To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.[3] Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned.[4] While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.[4] This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.[4][5] An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.[6][7] Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments from ignorance which rely on a total "absence of evidence" and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies.[1][8]

So, is the trinity something God didn't know about?? Or, He intentionally deceived people by leaving it out? Or, it isn't "important enough"?

None of the above.

He DID know about it, He DIDN'T leave it out, and it IS important.

Which is it?

You need to drop your failed attempt to cover up for your UTTER Lack of Scripture.

Hmmm .... so, in the sentence; :"You are the ONLY ignorant guy" .... does "ONLY" merely apply to "guy"?

Considering that a man is a singular being and a singular person, and that God is a singular being but NOT a singular person, your analogy doesn't work.

Now, back to my question:

Dartman, Let's assume God is unitarian for a bit.

Assuming so:

1) Is something (such as humility) good because God recognizes it as good?

OR

2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

 

[Dartman]

You should learn to read the entire page before cutting stuff out.
I did read it.

But, I didn't want to abuse the quote feature, so I only included the most pertinent portion of the article.

None of the above.

He DID know about it, He DIDN'T leave it out, and it IS important.

So, you believe the trinity IS an important issue, that (in your opinion) the author was WELL aware of ..... so your accusation of "argument from silence" fails.

And, all you have offered is the CLAIM "He DIDN'T leave it out" ......... without a single Scripture that clearly, plainly and directly STATES your theory.

We KNOW Paul instructed us to beware of people teaching "another Jesus";

2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.


So, please provide ANY example of a teacher in the Bible, explaining the trinity to ANY audience in the Bible.
The book of Acts is FULL of this exact situation. And EVERY SINGLE example teaches a human "Jesus", a descendant of Abraham, and David, EXALTED by his God, anointed by his God, a servant of his God.

1) Is something (such as humility) good because God recognizes it as good?

OR

2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

Sorry, JR, I see that you have asked this more than once, and it is rude of me not to reply. Again, sorry.

Acts of righteousness are good, because they are LOVE in it's purest sense.
God's commandments are designed to teach us righteousness, because it is right.
Most of what we know about God's spirit is understood by His commandments.

Ps 119:97-106
97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
106 I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.

 

[Apple7]

you suffer from 2 Cor 4...

you suffer from 2 Cor 4...

Hogwash.
In this case Jesus is an IMAGE of God ... which is NEVER the original..... and Jesus is a "creature", he is the "firstborn" of ALL the other Creatures
NT:2937 ktisis (ktis'-is); from NT:2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively): KJV - building, creation, creature, ordinance.

2937 is in the genitive, which means that the Nominative 4416 possesses it.

Thus, 4416, being assigned to Jesus, means that He is the Creator and controls 2937.

You can't possibly be this stupid on your own....who is helping you?

 

[Dartman]

2937 is in the genitive, which means that the Nominative 4416 possesses it.

Thus, 4416, being assigned to Jesus, means that He is the Creator and controls 2937.

No, "who is the image of" is in reference to the son in verse 13.
The SON is the IMAGE of the ONLY true God.
The "firstborn OF EVERY CREATURE" clearly places Jesus in the "creature" (Created thing/being) category.

Are you actually DENYING THIS??

 

[Apple7]

No, "who is the image of" is in reference to the son in verse 13.
The SON is the IMAGE of the ONLY true God.
The "firstborn OF EVERY CREATURE" clearly places Jesus in the "creature" (Created thing/being) category.

Are you actually DENYING THIS??

Show us the Greek words used for 'image', and 'firstborn'....and then lexically define each word.

This should be fun, and should close your trap...

 

[Dartman]

Show us the Greek words used for 'image', and 'firstborn'....and then lexically define each word.

This should be fun, and should close your trap...

I will do that right after you provide half a dozen translations that explain YOUR spin on the passage.

"who is the image of" is in reference to the son in verse 13.
The SON is the IMAGE of the ONLY true God.
The "firstborn OF EVERY CREATURE" clearly places Jesus in the "creature" (Created thing/being) category.

Are you actually DENYING THIS??

 

[Apple7]

I will do that right after you provide half a dozen translations that explain YOUR spin on the passage.

"who is the image of" is in reference to the son in verse 13.
The SON is the IMAGE of the ONLY true God.
The "firstborn OF EVERY CREATURE" clearly places Jesus in the "creature" (Created thing/being) category.

Are you actually DENYING THIS??

As expected, you are too afraid to look to the ORIGINAL Greek language for your answer.

But...then...you continue to post English Trinitarian renderings, of your own freewill, and then demand that these same Trinitarians NOT accept your denial of THEIR own rendering.

Is cannabis legal in your area?

 

[Dartman]

As expected, you are too afraid to look to the ORIGINAL Greek language for your answer.

As expected, you want to shy away from what the Scriptures consistently say, and burrow as deep into the weeds as you can, to escape the clear, simple and direct statements the Scriptures ACTUALLY make.

I would LOVE to see any Scriptures you might quote, to support this notion that ONLY Greek Scholars have access to the truth.

You got anything for that?

Yeah, I thought not.

I know enough Greek to know you are being dishonest ABOUT the Greek, and that your interpretation of the Greek is about as common as MY interpretation of the Greek.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You should learn to read the entire page before cutting stuff out.

I did read it.

But, I didn't want to abuse the quote feature, so I only included the most pertinent portion of the article.

You also need to learn how to format correctly, and not forget to add format ending tags.

So, you believe the trinity IS an important issue,

You're saying that the nature of God isn't important?

that (in your opinion) the author was WELL aware of

God is certainly well aware of His nature.

John would have been aware of it, and certainly did write about it.

..... so your accusation of "argument from silence" fails.

You're the one asserting that there is nothing in scripture that shows God to be triune.

That, in and of itself, is an argument from silence.

It's wrong, of course, but it's still an argument from silence.

The Bible DOES show God to be triune.

And, all you have offered is the CLAIM "He DIDN'T leave it out" ......... without a single Scripture

Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 14, 1 John 1:1-3, multiple passages in Revelation...

Need I go on?

that clearly, plainly and directly STATES your theory.

This is an artificial standard imposed by you.

No such standard is needed to establish a matter.

The Bible says two or three witnesses establish a matter.

I have given you far more than 3.

We KNOW Paul instructed us to beware of people teaching "another Jesus";

2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

So, please provide ANY example of a teacher in the Bible, explaining the trinity to ANY audience in the Bible.
The book of Acts is FULL of this exact situation. And EVERY SINGLE example teaches a human "Jesus", a descendant of Abraham, and David, EXALTED by his God, anointed by his God, a servant of his God.

"two or three witnesses"

I have given you more than 3.

Sorry, JR, I see that you have asked this more than once, and it is rude of me not to reply. Again, sorry.

Acts of righteousness are good, because they are LOVE in it's purest sense.

That doesn't answer my question though.

Let's use love instead, because you seem to base it on that being good.

1) Is something (such as love) good because God recognizes it as good?

OR

2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

God's commandments are designed to teach us righteousness, because it is right.

1) Is something (such as righteousness) good because God recognizes it as good?

OR

2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

Most of what we know about God's spirit is understood by His commandments.

...

Now you're getting off topic.

Again, since your response didn't answer my question, Here it is again:

1) Is something (such as _________) good because God recognizes it as good?

OR

2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

 

[Dartman]

You're saying that the nature of God isn't important?

Of course it is! I am the one that called YOU, and every other trinitarian out, on the utter LACK of clear, simple and direct STATEMENTS in Scripture that SHOW your theory.
The nature of God is HUGELY important, and IF God WAS a trinity ...... He would have STATED so!!

He NEVER did.

You're the one asserting that there is nothing in scripture that shows God to be triune.

That, in and of itself, is an argument from silence.

It would ONLY BE an "argument from silence" IF it wasn't the most important doctrine in Scripture.

1) Is something (such as righteousness) good because God recognizes it as good?

OR

2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

You didn't read my reply.
The two options you offer are woefully inadequate.... and I suspect, intentionally misleading.

God's commandments are designed to teach us righteousness, because it is right.
Most of what we know about God's spirit is understood by His commandments.

 

[Tigger 2]

Apple 7:

"2937 is in the genitive, which means that the Nominative 4416 possesses it.

Thus, 4416, being assigned to Jesus, means that He is the Creator and controls 2937.

You can't possibly be this stupid on your own....who is helping you?"

There are a whole boatload of different types of genitive usage. Here is just one of them:

Partitive Genitive

It indicates the whole of which the head noun ('firstborn' in this case) is a part. It requires the head noun to have a nuance indicating 'portion.' (e.g. 'some, one, a part, tenth, etc.) 'Firstborn' has such a 'nuance.'

 

[Apple7]

As expected, you want to shy away from what the Scriptures consistently say, and burrow as deep into the weeds as you can, to escape the clear, simple and direct statements the Scriptures ACTUALLY make.

I would LOVE to see any Scriptures you might quote, to support this notion that ONLY Greek Scholars have access to the truth.

You got anything for that?

Yeah, I thought not.

I know enough Greek to know you are being dishonest ABOUT the Greek, and that your interpretation of the Greek is about as common as MY interpretation of the Greek.

προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου


:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

Apple 7:

There are a whole boatload of different types of genitive usage. Here is just one of them:

Partitive Genitive

It indicates the whole of which the head noun ('firstborn' in this case) is a part. It requires the head noun to have a nuance indicating 'portion.' (e.g. 'some, one, a part, tenth, etc.) 'Firstborn' has such a 'nuance.'

'Prototokos' means ‘first’. Not created – but merely ‘first’.


:cigar:

 

[Dartman]

προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου

So, no.

You DON'T have any Scripture that states "only Greek "Scholars" can have access to the truth.

And, you are living proof that whatever abilities you have in Greek, you believe a lie.

1 Cor 1:20-21 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 

[Dartman]

'Prototokos' means ‘first’. Not created – but merely ‘first’.

Not quite.
Prototokos means first born .... it is ktíseoos that means "Created".