Amen Brother, precisely stated !
A science claim is never to be taken as un-provable truth, we aren't supposed to use it to 'negate' but to 'check.' Science is MUCH more fluid than theology. As to 'in' the Bible:
This isn't true, Caino. I've told you often where your Urantia thread has clearly disparaged the Lord Jesus Christ. How could you possibly delude yourself that you don't when we have told you, very strongly and clearly in your thread even, where and when it does damage to scripture truths?
No, I don't have to try harder. The scripture itself qualifies itself. John 1:3 is indeed emphatic whether you grasp that or not. It says 'without Him "NOTHING" was made that was made! Scripture does! Not Lon!
No, you really cannot. The reason? Simple: You HAVE to ADD to make that happen. I literally did not. It is LITERALLY in scripture. THAT, my friend, is why I don't think you did well on the standardized test in 'Contextual reading.' Why? Because you don't 'seem' to grasp the difference :noway:
Yes, I caught the "One emphatic in scripture" and the one YOU 'emphatically said that isn't implicity, but what YOU decided it had to mean.' Do you actually know the difference? Did you do this well in school? It LITERALLY is nothing more than an ability to grasp grammar correctly. I'm convinced that if Unitarians simply knew how to read contextually, they'd not make mistakes like this. Of course, there is part of me that is forgiving because you literally don't know any better, but Jesus told the Pharisees they were accountable because they actually believed they were 'not blind.' Because of that, they took ownership of their own ignorance. It is important, just now, to tell Unitarians, many of you take ownership for your poorer school grades. That is NOT good! 
"...without Him, nothing was mad.....THAT WAS MADE." : Plain: Because you don't want to face it. It was certainly an accusation against your 'assertion/insertion.' YOU are adding to the text. It stands clear despite your stubborn refusal and relegation. So 1) no, I'm denying your strawman claim, it is what you are doing with scripture and 2) I'm denying your 'fluff' dismissal as well. Neither is true, just you squirming and inability to substantiate any of your claims. A bit of advice: Any time you make a statement, especially repeated "fluff," it is projecting. It means it is a comment about yourself, not me.
First line: "There is one God."
Er, no. I'm very sure you don't even know what an actual ad hominem is. This isn't it. Close, but no. Someone may rightly 'assess' your prowess. That isn't an ad hominem (look up the definition), it is trying to explain why we don't see eye to eye and why I believe the Unitarian conjecture is substandard. In the next paragraph below I address one of the contextual problems I always seem to encounter with every Unitarian I've ever met, or spoken to online.
Déjà Vu. He has said the exact same thing. It MUST come from his own problem at that point.
(not a slam or an ad hominem NWL. I'm seeing a pattern and I think it the reason you have trouble with scriptures. Such can be repaired with a bit of education).Similar here. It is either doctrinal blinding, a problem with comprehension from context, or a combination.
Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people
It isn't just me. Others have given you correction as well over these same points. I'm not being intentionally mean, although many JW's and other Unitarians, as you've seen, come here pridefully and haughty and with exactly the same demonstrable problem with reading comprehension. What kind of 'expert' response are you needing? I have already shown you why. Yes, I can explain it further. What part didn't you understand? Could you ask for clarification?
I believe 'how' is simply a problem with context. It isn't a slam. I think education alone can take care of it. Context is a skill that can be honed.
Easy. I have one rep so far, it means somebody actually gets it, if not you, against your claim. Now stop. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing against the text. All I said was scripture: John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” I realize you keep asking me to stop repeating it, but I prefer God's word be your teacher, especially as you don't like it all from this particular mailman (or however you view me).
EXCEPT Hebrews ALREADY told you "...over the works of thy hands" IN the context of 'all.'
You are wrong. That is NOT an ad hominem. I'll tell you what: report me for it (it is against many forum rules including this one). Telling you 'why' you are wrong is not an ad hominem.
I've done so: One scripture is different than the other, FROM God! His words don't allow you to overstretch (what you are doing) the similarity. You are cloaking an idea that doesn't fit both passages.
Maybe not. Your reading comprehension isn't up to par (look just above, I'm attempting to show you why). It means all of us on TOL are going to have to go to remedial means to try and explain and teach reading comprehension. Do I need to start that thread? Will you attend?
Look above. You do realize you are the one being ignorant of 'what is different' right?
I did, whether you are capable of grasping the clarity or not. Again, try "reading comprehension" on your part as the answer.
No. It is about your reading ability.
It's scripture. 1 Corinthians 4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute...
Your incapability is not my problem (I'm willing to make it mine, however, if it'd serve you). The reason it can only be translated that way is because ANY reason for any other translation MUST BE because the translation of it demands something is added ONLY to write it correctly into that language. You do not add a word for 'doctrinal' reasons. That isn't translation, that's adding to God's word. The literal word for word is fully functional and stands as correct conveyance.
Er, no. You don't ask questions very well AND I've repeated my answers. You've repeated similar with Judge Rightly and he has assessed something similar here. You don't see them? Ask for clarification. Your reading comprehension is not my problem (again, willing to work on it with you). I've given you plenty of profitable ways to get answers should the first query fail. This 'crying' tack doesn't work for me.
Thank you for the bit of work that took. -Lon
So you know the definition now, when did I attack your character? Did I call you a bad guy? No. Did I make assessments regarding your ability to understand context? Yes. Did it hurt your feelings? Likely, but education is about correction. There is no intent to make you feel poorly. I've repeated many times, it can be fixed by education in most cases.
Sorry. Wrong. Report it if you believe it is. You'll quickly see you are wrong. It is indeed against the rules on TOL.
Your accusation. You are incorrect. The above is a paraphrase (summation) of scripture. John 1:1ff is very close to that, however. We disagree that he hasn't produced verses. I do agree you don't look at the context of paragraphs in scripture and recognize them as triune expressions YET (and please hear this) of the millions of Christians on the planet, they DO see triune expressions. Only a VERY few don't and these are NOT those who did fantastic in school (NOT an ad hominem). I'm trying to get you to compare for a moment. If I happened to have D's in English, I could still rest a bit on the fact that men and women smarter than I (A's B's) agreed with the context of scriptures, that God is triune in expression. The problem? If I even have C+ or B+ grades in English and other languages, I'm not qualified to challenge my professors' teaching. It doesn't matter how right I 'think' I am, if my skills to discern aren't there. God's word is spiritually discerned, but the teaching of the words are grammar and a clear grasp of English and Greek grammar are of paramount importance to 'challenging' the majority view. Is it therefore ad hominem to bring this up? No. It is a standard that HAS to be met by ANY challenger of what most see as biblical doctrine.
The fact that you make 'the same' accusation/observation of a 'problem' with another's posts and supposed inability. Here is ONE instance of you missing 'context.' I wasn't addressing Exodus and will leave that to Judge Rightly (unless you have a specific need for me to enter that part of the conversation). I'm rather concerned you say the same thing to an entirely different person, blaming/accusing them of something YOU need to own yourself. It isn't that all of us are somehow all suddenly smitten with the same problem you seem to attribute to all of us. As far as I've read Judge Rightly in thread, I don't have the same problems you do with the context of his statements. He is capable, regardless of your suggestion he is not. YOUR assessments are incorrect.
You mean the Septuagint? Exodus was written in Hebrew. Are you sure you know what a fact is?
Yet, they must not be translations with 'added' ideas not express in the first language. That is taking liberty with the text and writing a man-made doctrine bible.
As I said, YOU brought up John 1:3. YOU gave me an option to pick. I picked. Whatever after YOU wanted, whether I jumped through your hoop or not, is not of consequence. You have a bit of a demanding nature. I don't like doing poodle tricks THEN complaining because I chose to walk around a couple of them. In this case YOU need to provide a clear path to the next hoop. I've entertained your whims to this point.
This is the fourth time. John simply says "all things." Done. Hebrews says "All things by the works of His hands."
Jumping texts isn't exegesis. It is violent to the text. It reminds me of the guy that was looking for guidance from scripture in his lowest hour: He opened up to "Judas hung himself." Desperate, he cracked his bible again and his finger landed on "go and do likewise." Just because it is in scripture, doesn't mean we can violently rip one context and place it in another 'to fit our idealoogical/theological beliefs.' That is an abuse and misuse of scripture. In this case, John doesn't tell us. We should not assume. It 'could' be Genesis 1. Is it wise to then, go off and build a theology off of assumptions? :nono:
I'm not sure it is. Often it is clear they do not have those tools, and yes, I do even question the academics of the PhD you quoted. There IS something wrong with reading comprehension to say such things and I do believe, from many conversations, that there is a profound ignorance.
No, they are a pattern. I HAVE to believe you have reading problems or you couldn't be a Christian. I've come to think that the remedial class can catch up. I know a few ex-Unitarians. They finally 'got it' and it was academic. God simply corrected them.
Because it is an assumption NOT implicit in the text. YOU are that missing factor. That is THE problem of not reading for context AND going beyond the text to make an assumption. Again, I'm convinced education is the answer to Unitarianism. I DO realize that means I attribute most if not all Unitarian thought to ignorance, but better that than a spiritual problem (though they can be the same thing).
The restatement always means to be emphatic.
Ah, see? You don't just do this to JudgeRightly and others, you do it to me as well. It is from YOUR repetoire (means your hangup, not most of ours).
It doesn't matter what "Ellicott" says! It matters what scriptures say and it matters if one grasps contextual truth or not. One of the first rules of exegesis is "Do not import your ideas, export His."
YOU brought up John 1:3 and asked ME to comply jumping through YOUR hoops. You like arguing, don't you?
Without importing anything John 1:1 states "Was with God 'AND' was God."
A shortcoming on your part?
Again, learn to ask where you are confused instead of blaming others for what you don't understand (even if it is sometimes their fault). Just a suggest, leave it or take it. You CAN become better at conversation and ask good leading questions. Part of it is learning to care about the subject matter and the one you are talking with. I know you don't think I've been kind, but I haven't been quite as mean as you assume. Stern perhaps, but not mean.
What version are you using?
What English versions are you using? It makes sense you believe this way, these translations are a bit odd, in translating. If you can learn Greek, do so.
I agree with you. The Son is not the Father and is subject to Him 'as far as "I" grasp the scriptures.' It is open to inspection by all, but the scripture above does indicated it. It is a 'shared' truth by Unitarians and Trinitarians. It means that it isn't a great point of debated, but shared between us. We both believe the Son is not the Father so these scripture references are undisputed. I'd think that Judge Rightly's point does not negate this. He is simply saying that He "and the Father are one." Of course He believes the Son is subordinate as per Philippians 2:6,7.
Ah, "John 12:49" Ever use an interlinear?
I think I did miss that, perhaps you'll be so kind to refer to me where you explained such a thing; I do recall you stating YHWH was not synonymous with the word "Trinity". Regardless, I do not think you have an orthodox understanding of the trinity as you've made it clear in your writings to me you understand the bible teaches GODS, despite the trinity teaching there is only one God who is three persons.
The trinity is synonymous with the word God; again, the trinity is that God is one being who is three persons:
None of these persons are each other and all three persons equate the one God. How is the term "God" to a trinitarian any different when compared to the word trinity? If you placed the word "trinity" in the middle circle in the above image there would be no difference in understanding. So whilst you're within your right to claim the word "God" does not carry the same meaning behind it towards to the "trinity", it certainly does have the same meaning. One way to prove this is to define the word 'trinity' and define the word 'God', you will find that to a trinitarian they both mean the same thing minus the connations of numeracy the word 'trinity' infers.
| the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. - a group of three people or things. - the state of being three. |
| - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. - (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. |
A bit convoluted. You'll have to unpack this (regardless of how funny it seems to be to you). I can tell you, straight up, you haven't really listened. You attack ideas that nobody presented long before you ever listen. This IS the Unitarian problem more often than not. Again, it is a reading comprehension problem. You've made all kinds of them in thread (and I can point them out if you like). Comprehension is of supreme importance in reading God's word.
Ridiculous principle? You are applying scripture willynilly if you do this any other way. ASK before you assume. I've not said the Word is Jesus (yet) but John does.
You don't understand trinit-arian. We HALF agree with you, which means you are making a strawman. We go 'part way' with you. To not grasp this, is not really grasping the triune view. It is not at all three gods, though I do acquiesce I've seen some trinitarians argue to the point of tritheism. I agree with a lot of Unitarian points. What I'd point out in YOUR reasoning here, is that the text goes beyond your mentioned grasp: Not only 'was God' "Was with God." Both. It is a tightrope walk and we believe both, not either or.
It is not an invention. It has long been taught. Let me state it again: "Don't import you, export God's thoughts." Let me ask: How much of YOU do you want involved or getting in God's way? How much of Him would you prefer over your own fallibility (and mine)? Based upon what I assume needs to be your own answer, you should likely stop claiming 'absured' and start realizing where you need to agree, if you really do not. It is time to make that commitment to Him and that change if you haven't done so already.
Yes, you do. It doesn't matter if they are silly or not. It really doesn't matter. Anger or laughter or whatever are simply emotion. God moves us by passion, but He changes us by our minds.
Not a fact. Rather, it is your preference. Let's see if you can ask nicely instead of coming to a Trinitarian board, starting arguments, and then trying to blame it on everyone else in poor manners. Let's see you instead, look at yourself and see if there be any wicked way Psalm 139:23-24
As I've repeated, if you are so sure, report it. See if anyone else but you believes so.
Less than .01% That means 'dismal.' You are trying to pad your numbers THEN telling me I'm arguing ad populum (you don't even know what that argument is either, it has to fit a certain criteria). Pop-statistics aren't your friend.
Yes, it does. Specifically? If you don't do well in math, You SHOULD get an auditor to do your taxes for you!
What credit?
Er, no.
Er, you just accused me of being 'extremely vague.' Your sentence above is random. Pot. Kettle. Black. Own it.You quoted JR's own quote of an article of Exo 7:1 and stated "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people
Doesn't matter, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Judge Rightly.
No, your reading comprehension is this bad...
No, I'm questioning your 'facts' because you often say 'facts' but really OFTEN mean debatable opinions. "Hebrew" was simply to get you to realize you over-state your ideas. Learn to lift HIM up more than yourself, NWL.
No, just you making a weak attempt to defend yourself, caught once again with a 'fact' that isn't one.
Fine.
To you. You are less than a percent. Who cares what you think? You don't have the where-with-all anyway, so it means fairly next to nothing coming from you. Ask a few more TOL members what they believe and if "Don't import you, export Him" is "ridiculous." You are the one who is ridiculous. You, alone, don't really matter (not a slam, it is just that one voice crying isn't a pip on the radar of discussion, especially without being vested.
It doesn't mean what YOU think it does. He said Himself the Father and He are One. So again, just like John 1:1: BOTH. THAT is the Unitarian error. You read one and literally filter the other out. YOU do. YOU filter out scripture to 'rationalize' (musings of men) something you contrive, so that you can understand it, instead of just believing the unique clarity. YOU do. JW's so much, they rewrite scriptures. That is a sin. Then you call the other: to preserve God's word in its original meaning "ridiculous." You are simply wrong and advocating for every odd fellow to import his/her own ideas instead of exporting His! AND YOU call that ridiculous.
Yet I have the where-with-all.
I don't need a translation. You could try and take a couple of language classes.
No, you called it ridiculous. Don't try and be reasonable now. You import ideas all over the place, such is your dismal ability to lift meaning 'from' the text. There is no other way to do that, than to use that method that strictly says "not my will, but Thine" which YOU call "ridiculous."
You are projecting as well as trying to force something. No. I'm consistent, regardless of whom you've come into contact prior.
You are. Just above, YOU force the narrative. YOU do.
Don't know who you got this from, but it is a lie. Demonstrably. It is why I question everything from you. You are found wanting and incapable.
Who cares? You import ideas out of context. You have a problem with your reasoning ability. You compare oranges to apples and call it gold and it is simply wrong. While you 'think' you presume, you rather assume a lot. Your thoughts are contrived associations often. In this case, "Muslims" are not Christians. I don't care what nonChristians think, even if you do. It is crazy. You want Muslims informing your theology???
Reductio ad absurdum. Think of something credible. As with your odd extreme of trying to get Muslims to tell you what to believe about God and the Lord Jesus Christ, this one also isn't rational. It is building a strawman only to knock it down. Later I'll ignore this in the future and skip it as beneath me (and you).
It doesn't matter, this meaningless banter....
Quit posturing.You quoted Judgerightly's article and stated, "Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people
Hmm, you were talking to Judgerightly, despite the post being directed to me, and despite the fact that you didn't correctly tag his name quote in the post. Very believable. What's more believable is that you quoted his comments in a post to me in an indirect way for me to notice your comments, which in effect is a form of communication.
This comment is purely nonsensical. You tried to shame me by my usage of the word 'Greek' in regards to the LXX as if I do not know what it is, I then highlight I'm aware what the LXX is as per our previous conversation and in reply to me saying "Is your memory that bad Lon" you randomly saying "No, your reading comprehension is this bad"???? What is this meant to be in reply to? What part of my sentence? We weren't even talking about understanding context, but rather, if I knew what the LLX was as per my comment, "Both the Hebrew and the Greek of Exo 7:1 express the same thing". The irony in some of your responses. Please stop behaving like a child who does not know how to effectively communicate and instead stay on the topic of biblical exegesis.
No. Because you are poor at context, you MISSED This one and went off on a tangent. You completely missed the point because your comprehension skills are subpar. Then should I take your summations of scripture? :nono: You are found incapable and wanting and calling 'contextual rules' "ridiculous." : Plain:
I know you don't. You don't do context and reading comprehension very well. You'll posture, rant, cry that you do (somehow) when it is demonstrable you do not. A character assassination? No! It is YOUR inability to cogently and correctly discuss scripture. It is THE reason you and I cannot. Defending and crying about your lack will never bring us on par. You need to be 'listening' not talking at this point. You don't have the actual needed skills for this discussion.
I take this as a concluding summary of your position, and if it were me I would have very serious doubts that this is a true assessment of what the Bible teaches. John 1:14 reveals that Jesus fully manifested the character of God, he was full of grace and truth, but this does not make Jesus God, but the Son of God. God is the Father, and principally the father of Jesus, the only begotten of the Father. This does not make Jesus fully God.
I suggest that it is wrong to use the term “mystery”, when applying this to something that is absolutely impossible and contradictory. I gave another option in a thread “The Yahweh Name”, and this had only a few brief responses. The thread started on May 11, 2018 and the last post was May 15,2018.