Mary, the mother of the Lord

[LeviR]

Let me introduce you to Genesis.

Genesis 2
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD[singular] God made them.

Right again. YHWH our God is One YHWH.

 

[LeviR]

The early church widely believed in Unitarianism, i.e., Arianism. Arianism was just as abundant as Trinitarianism at the time the Bible was being canonized.

There are certain numbers In Scripture that represent completeness and perfection.
They are, 4, 7; 12; 24; and 144;000

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

So what you're saying is that if it's not the translation of your preferred manuscript then you reject it? Shouldn't you be more responsible with something as important as this? The Bible has many source manuscripts and they say varying, sometimes even contradictory, things. We should do our diligence here not be hyperliteralists where it suits us while being willfully blind where it's convenient.

Hmmm, interesting. You used a specific version with the title "father" in Ps. 2:7 just to back your slimsy argument, I clarified with KJV, you accuse me of picking my "preferred translation"; and yet in your post #151, you quoted Ex. 6:2-3 from another specific version where the title "Jehovah" was used, the same "preferred translation" I used, also to back your slimsy argument. And you have the audacity to call me irresponsible? And go on to discredit the bible itself, calling it contradictory? What hypocrisy.

 

[Runningman]

Hmmm, interesting. You used a specific version with the title "father" in Ps. 2:7 just to back your slimsy argument, I clarified with KJV, you accuse me of picking my "preferred translation"; and yet in your post #151, you quoted Ex. 6:2-3 from another specific version where the title "Jehovah" was used, the same "preferred translation" I used, also to back your slimsy argument. And you have the audacity to call me irresponsible? And go on to discredit the bible itself, calling it contradictory? What hypocrisy.

Try these verses from the KJV on for size.

Isaiah 64
8But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Malachi 2
10Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Jesus isn't God.

By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

• If No, then to whom are you referring by your word, "God"?
• If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "Jesus isn't [the Father]." If that's what you're telling us -- that Jesus is not the Father -- then you're preaching Trinitarian truth to the Trinitarian choir, since the truth that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is one of the essential tenets of Trinitarianism.

When you say "Jesus isn't God," whom are you therein saying Jesus isn't, if you are not therein saying Jesus isn't the Father?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You had said:

you're attempting to make Jesus into God

So, I asked you:

By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

Why can't you answer that simple Yes/No question I've asked you (at least thrice, now), about your use of your word, "God"?

And I answered you the way I decided to answer.

In other words, you did not answer the Yes/No question I asked you.

I don't have to answer you the exact what you demand I do.

Obviously you don't have to answer the Yes/No question I asked you, seeing as so far you have not answered it. Obviously I don't demand you answer the Yes/No question I asked you; I'm just fine with your glaring failure to have answered it, and with the debacle that is your futile, discomposed attempts to whitewash your glaring failure to have answered it.

 

[Runningman]

By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

• If No, then to whom are you referring by your word, "God"?
• If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "Jesus isn't [the Father]." If that's what you're telling us -- that Jesus is not the Father -- then you're preaching Trinitarian truth to the Trinitarian choir, since the truth that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is one of the essential tenets of Trinitarianism.

When you say "Jesus isn't God," whom are you therein saying Jesus isn't, if you are not therein saying Jesus isn't the Father?

You had said:

So, I asked you:

You: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

Why can't you answer that simple Yes/No question I've asked you (at least thrice, now), about your use of your word, "God"?

In other words, you did not answer the Yes/No question I asked you.

Obviously you don't have to answer the Yes/No question I asked you, seeing as so far you have not answered it. Obviously I don't demand you answer the Yes/No question I asked you; I'm just fine with your glaring failure to have answered it, and with the debacle that is your futile, discomposed attempts to whitewash your glaring failure to have answered it.

??

See my response when you first asked this. I have already answered your question in the affirmative. I believe God is the Father. That's the only person who God is for us.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

 

[Free]

Let me introduce you to Genesis.

Genesis 2
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD[singular] God made them.

Yes, that is monotheism only. It is fallaciously begging the question to make it say God is unitarian.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You had said:

you're attempting to make Jesus into God

So, I asked you:

By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

You:

I have already answered your question in the affirmative.

I take that as a Yes. So, you've finally answered the Yes/No question I've been asking you: "By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?" You have now affirmed that Yes, by your word, "God" -- when you say "Jesus is not God" -- you are referring to the Father. Thanks for finally answering the question I asked you.

So, what you've just told me is that when you say "Jesus is not God," all you mean is that Jesus is not the Father. That is you merely affirming an essential tenet of Trinitarianism: every Trinitarian affirms that Jesus is not the Father. So, what's your "point" in saying "Jesus is not God"/"Jesus is not [the Father]" to Trinitarians, since, in so doing, you're just preaching to the Trinitarian choir? To affirm (as you've just admitted you are doing) that Jesus is not the Father is not to attack Trinitarianism; rather, it is merely to affirm an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. So, it's back to the drawing board for you if you wish to try to figure out some way to attack Trinitarianism, rather than have your pontifications blow up in your face by ending up having you affirming the very Trinitarianism you say you hate.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Try these verses from the KJV on for size.

Isaiah 64
8But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Malachi 2
10Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

So enlighten me then, aren't father or potter real human beings? How are they "spirit"? You keeping lecturing on me that God is not a man, God is spirit, intangible, abstract, while you also cling onto the impression of father figure, calling God father, that defeats your own argument. It seems crystal clear to me that both David, Isaiah and Malachi were anthropomorphizing, Isaiah was even using a pottery analogy, none of them was channeling any spirit.

 

[Runningman]

You had said:

So, I asked you:

You:

I take that as a Yes. So, you've finally answered the Yes/No question I've been asking you: "By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?" You have now affirmed that Yes, by your word, "God" -- when you say "Jesus is not God" -- you are referring to the Father. Thanks for finally answering the question I asked you.

So, what you've just told me is that when you say "Jesus is not God," all you mean is that Jesus is not the Father. That is you merely affirming an essential tenet of Trinitarianism: every Trinitarian affirms that Jesus is not the Father. So, what's your "point" in saying "Jesus is not God"/"Jesus is not [the Father]" to Trinitarians, since, in so doing, you're just preaching to the Trinitarian choir? To affirm (as you've just admitted you are doing) that Jesus is not the Father is not to attack Trinitarianism; rather, it is merely to affirm an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. So, it's back to the drawing board for you if you wish to try to figure out some way to attack Trinitarianism, rather than have your pontifications blow up in your face by ending up having you affirming the very Trinitarianism you say you hate.

So your only point was to play words games and semantics and assign things to me I never said. I don't believe in Trinitarianism.

The Father in your Trinity is the only true God according to Scripture. How do you account for that?

Side question, have you read the Athanasian Creed? Because if we are talking about Trinitarianism, let's standardize what the Trinity is and how it's defined since the Bible is not your ally for Trinitarian doctrine.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, that is monotheism only. It is fallaciously begging the question to make it say God is unitarian.

And saying "Us" equals more than one person who is God is also fallaciously begging the question.

 

[Runningman]

So enlighten me then, aren't father or potter real human beings? How are they "spirit"? You keeping lecturing on me that God is not a man, God is spirit, intangible, abstract, while you also cling onto the impression of father figure, calling God father, that defeats your own argument. It seems crystal clear to me that both David, Isaiah and Malachi were anthropomorphizing, Isaiah was even using a pottery analogy, none of them was channeling any spirit.

In Jewish theology, they were actually being literal about God being the potter and they the clay. This goes back to their belief that the first man was created from the dust of the ground, i.e., mud/clay formed by God. That would make God a potter since He made people who are like pottery insofar that they can be vessels. I also believe "Father" in relation to God goes beyond anthropomorphism and is one of the best possible words to describe God since that's how He identified Himself in Psalm 2:7.

While it's true the word "father" does not appear in Psalm 2:7 in the KJV's translation, it's appropriate since the word begotten refers to a father's offspring. Many versions say "I have become your Father" because that's what it means when someone has begotten someone. It doesn't refer to mothers.

Psalm 2
7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

But what did Jesus say after all?

Matthew 23
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

So that's why I believe the only God is the Father. I have good reasons for this. I don't care if people keep attacking me for it.

 

[Free]

And saying "Us" equals more than one person who is God is also fallaciously begging the question.

Not really. It's about reading what is written and it strongly suggests more than one person. That is rather the point of plural pronouns and God used plural personal pronouns for a reason.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

In Jewish theology, they were actually being literal about God being the potter and they the clay. This goes back to their belief that the first man was created from the dust of the ground, i.e., mud/clay formed by God. That would make God a potter since He made people who are like pottery insofar that they can be vessels. I also believe "Father" in relation to God goes beyond anthropomorphism and is one of the best possible words to describe God since that's how He identified Himself in Psalm 2:7.

Oh really? Then how come that he "sits" on the throne and "laughs"? In the same context of Ps. 2? I don't know any spirit with buttocks to sit and a sense of sarcasm to laugh at the plotters.

Also, regarding the potter and the clay, it was most definitely spoken in a literal sense, God, in another instance, didn't give Jeremiah a torah lesson of Gen. 2, instead He led Jeremiah to a real potter's studio and used real pottery work as an analogy. God himself was anthropomorphizing.

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. (Jer. 18:1-6)

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I don't believe in Trinitarianism.

You just got done telling us you believe one of the essential tenets of Trinitarianism: viz., that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father. Do you now wish to retract your on-record affirmation of that Trinitarian truth? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Father in your Trinity is the only true God according to Scripture.

By your phrase, "the only true God according to Scripture", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

• If No, then to whom are you referring by it?
• If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us:

The Father in your Trinity is [the Father].

Why, that's true! You nailed it: the Father is the Father! Bravo! But, by saying that, you're once again preaching to the Trinitarian choir, rather than levelling any attack against Trinitarian truth. So, what's your "point"?

 

[Runningman]

Not really. It's about reading what is written and it strongly suggests more than one person. That is rather the point of plural pronouns and God used plural personal pronouns for a reason.

Check out Exodus 7:1, Exodus 22:20, Judges 6:31, Judges 11:24, and 1 Samuel 5:7. Elohim can refer to single beings. Why elohim is a plural word and yet YHWH is clear about being a singular person who created alone is because elohim refers to intensification or amplification. That's why elohim is attributed to a singular person.

Isaiah 44
24Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Renowned Hebrew scholar Gesenius said so. There isn't a greater authority on Hebrew than him.

"That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute"​

​

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1910), p. 399.​

 

[Runningman]

You just got done telling us you believe one of the essential tenets of Trinitarianism: viz., that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father. Do you now wish to retract your on-record affirmation of that Trinitarian truth? Yes or No?

Sharing common ground with Trinitarianism doesn't make someone a Trinitarian. What you're using is a false compromise. We both believe the Father is God, but do you believe the Father is the only true God as Scripture states? If yes, you believe what a Unitarian does.

 

[Runningman]

By your phrase, "the only true God according to Scripture", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

• If No, then to whom are you referring by it?
• If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us:

Why, that's true! You nailed it: the Father is the Father! Bravo! But, by saying that, you're once again preaching to the Trinitarian choir, rather than levelling any attack against Trinitarian truth. So, what's your "point"?

I am pretty sure editing quotes from me to make them say something I didn't say, i.e., "The Father in your Trinity is [the Father]." just to misrepresent me is against forum rules.