While technically correct, in today's vernacular, the word "Jew" is almost always synonymous with "Israelite".
The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?
- Thread starter Arial
- Start date
The standard is what he makes it, but God is not required to be humble. And 2 seems also to work also, but God considers i.e. αγαπη what is good. It doesn't matter if he "loves."
Last edited:
It doesn't mean so, though in biblical English. And we now have Israelis who don't know what Israelite tribe they are from. How is that?
Right Divider
Body part
In some places it most certainly does. You're been shown a few.
Yes, some examples which were most unconvincing.
That's option 2. You said 1. Are you now changing your answer?
Irrelevant.
Until you realize that it means that your unitarian version of God makes Him completely arbitrary.
So you don't really have any good answer here.
The phrasing is similar to the original question asked of Euthyphro by Socrates.
The question is called "Euthyphro's Dilemma."
Option 1 makes God not God, but something greater than Him God.
Option 2 makes God completely arbitrary (He is the one who decides what is good (ie, what He loves)).
But that's only when you apply it to a unitarian God.
In other words, you, a unitarian, cannot answer this question.
On the other hand, I, a Trinitarian CAN answer the question, because it opens up another option.
A unitarian God would not, and indeed, COULD NOT, say "by the testimony of two or three witnesses a matter shall be established" and remain consistent with Himself, and be neither arbitrary nor subservient to a standard outside of Himself.
A TRINITARIAN God, however, doesn't have that problem, because "by the mouth of two or three witnesses" is fulfilled by the fact that there are THREE Persons within the Godhead, and any two of the three can testify that the third has never wronged them, and can therefore testify that (because God has existed for eternity past) the third IS good, and THAT is the standard of "goodness" He uses.
You don't even have and argument that makes sense. Sense God is good and alknowing, he has a perfect perspective your trinity dogma doesn't have.
Says the one who resorts to an appeal to the stone by calling my argument "junk junk junk" without even bothering to try to refute it.
All you need to do to understand it is apply your mind a bit, Omni.
This is called begging the question and going off topic, Omni. It A) in the case of "God is good," assumes the conclusion of your position, instead of trying to arrive at that conclusion via a logical process, and B) in the case of "God is . . . alknowing[sic]," has nothing to do with what has been said so far.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
MAKE THE ARGUMENT!
I have made mine. You have ignored it.
There is nothing to refute. God determines what is good. Any alknowing God can do it. You are arguing from a position of weakness. You are assuming a unitarian God is not alknowing. Yes, your argument is total crap.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
"God arbitrarily determines what is good" is what that means, Omni.
The God of the Bible is not arbitrary. You do not serve the God of the Bible.
1) It's "all-knowing."
2) Saying it doesn't make it so!
MAKE THE ARGUMENT OR REFUTE MINE!
And how is God not arbitrary in any form? A trinity dogma doesn't change this.
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue with you on your inability to spell.
I claim what, exactly, isn't? I have made the argument. You ignored it. If you would like to read my argument, it is in post #486.
Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Just - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
God is Just. Therefore He is not arbitrary.
See post #486, where I show why a unitarian God CANNOT be determined to be intrinsically good, because he is not just, while a Triune God IS good and can KNOW that He is good by the testimony of two or three witnesses, which is the same standard He uses throughout scripture.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Then can we say there are some people in this world who DO have common sense?
Yes, let's say that.
Baloney!! Since I misunderstood what arbitrary meant, I will argue the trinity dogma is the one arbitrary.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Do I think he just made this up out of whole cloth?
"I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes,"
Nope. I think he saw what he saw and described it as best he could.
1) It is good because we are not God. Thus, no.
2) It is good because God is Just. Thus, no
And none of these has to do with the Trinity dogma, again. But you argue the trinity dogma is just how it has split personality disorder. Classic
Last edited:
Yes, but you don't know when Judah became Israel, and Revelations rejects the idea that Israel became Judah with its 144,000 raptured.
The point is that there isn't any need to talk like a bunch of lawyers. If someone refers to Moses as a Jew, it's obvious what is being said. The only people obtuse enough to raise an objection on such a basis aren't trying to make an actual argument, they're trying to evade the point.
You admit to believing that God is arbitrary?
Wow! You're only the second person I've ever seen do that.
How do you square the idea that God is arbitrary (an idea that is completely foreign to the bible) with the utterly undeniably biblical fact that God is just?