Mary, the mother of the Lord

[Runningman]

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)

Throne refers to a place of power which God demonstrably has. There most likely isn't a literal throne made by a carpenter that He sits on. Sometimes things are illustrated in such a way to give example of God's glory in ways we as people can easily understand and digest

For example, the heavens are the throne of God and the earth His footstool. Same thing is never said of Jesus by the way, but we know that the heavens are actually outer space and the earth is a planet. We know this isn't literal.

However, are humans made of clay? Arguably, yes. We are not clay, but we contain many of the elements and minerals one may find in clay. Clay may also just be a way of saying people are physical beings made out of matter and matter can take on so many different forms.

So are we chocking this up to that you and I believe differently what is literal and what isn't in the Bible?

 

[Free]

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.​

Great, you’ve soundly refuted polytheism by proving monotheism, which is fully in agreement with Trinitarianism. But you are once again fallaciously begging the question by presuming that God is unitarian. Context matters.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Throne refers to a place of power which God demonstrably has. There most likely isn't a literal throne made by a carpenter that He sits on. Sometimes things are illustrated in such a way to give example of God's glory in ways we as people can easily understand and digest

For example, the heavens are the throne of God and the earth His footstool. Same thing is never said of Jesus by the way, but we know that the heavens are actually outer space and the earth is a planet. We know this isn't literal.

No, we don't know. At least apostle John saw a real throne with his own eyes. So did Ezekiel in his vision, he saw God in the appearance of a MAN sitting on it. Neither was constructing an abstract concept of "place of power", or comparing the whole heaven with a throne.

And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. (Ez. 1:26-28)

However, are humans made of clay? Arguably, yes. We are not clay, but we contain many of the elements and minerals one may find in clay. Clay may also just be a way of saying people are physical beings made out of matter and matter can take on so many different forms.

So are we chocking this up to that you and I believe differently what is literal and what isn't in the Bible?

In many passages of the bible God speaks in code language, clay is one example, it's both literal and symbolic, depending on the context, but in this case it has nothing to do with "elements and minerals", human body doesn't contain silicon dioxide. Human body is organic, clay is inorganic.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Sharing common ground with Trinitarianism doesn't make someone a Trinitarian.

Right you are! But what prompted you to say that? Did someone say it does? I, for one, did not say it does. 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.

• Your desire to have me silenced is noted. That's nothing new to me since I have truth and trenchance on my side, and you don't.
• I didn't make you say anything. One would need to be severely deluded to imagine I could, or did, do that.
• I did not misrepresent you. And the funny thing is that you saying I misrepresented you is you misrepresenting me.

Do you not know the difference between using the "+ Quote" feature:

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

And writing text in a generic quote box, using [QUOTE ] [/QUOTE ] coding:

The Father in your Trinity is [the Father].

As you can see, I use the former -- the box with "Your Name said:" text link -- to excerpt the exact text from the post I am quoting, just as I've done in all my replies to your posts.

I've wronged you in no way, whatsoever. May I friendlily remind you that you have the option of setting me on "ignore" if my posts upset you as much as you've been making it seem like they do.

 

[Runningman]

Great, you’ve soundly refuted polytheism by proving monotheism, which is fully in agreement with Trinitarianism. But you are once again fallaciously begging the question by presuming that God is unitarian. Context matters.

If monotheism is in full agreement with Trinitarianism then by that logic the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not God but rather the substance in them would be God. With monotheism there is a singular God, not multiple persons who are God.

 

[Runningman]

No, we don't know. At least apostle John saw a real throne with his own eyes. So did Ezekiel in his vision, he saw God in the appearance of a MAN sitting on it. Neither was constructing an abstract concept of "place of power", or comparing the whole heaven with a throne.

It is a place of power. Where most verses say Jesus is at the right hand of God and many verses say that God is on a throne, Mark 14 provides a different angle. We can rightly say the throne of God is the source of power while the right hand of God is also a place of power, but not the source.

Mark 14
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. (Ez. 1:26-28)

Definitely a vision. Pretty sure if Ezekiel was just saw some blinding light he would have no idea what it's about. Visions can be of something real, but they also need to be formatted in a way we can make sense of. God's true form is invisible in impenetrable light.

In many passages of the bible God speaks in code language, clay is one example, it's both literal and symbolic, depending on the context, but in this case it has nothing to do with "elements and minerals", human body doesn't contain silicon dioxide. Human body is organic, clay is inorganic.

I agree about the code language but clay also can contain sodium, calcium, iron, and zinc. Depends on the type of clay it is.

 

[Runningman]

Right you are! But what prompted you to say that? Did someone say it does? I, for one, did not say it does. So, what's your "point"?

I am letting you know your premise is false.

• Your desire to have me silenced is noted. That's nothing new to me since I have truth and trenchance on my side, and you don't.

Who said I have a desire to silence you? No you don't have the truth. You have misrepresented many things I have said and have played word games. Clearly your element is drama, not Scripture. You have not approached this conversation from a Biblical perspective.

• I didn't make you say anything. One would need to be severely deluded to imagine I could, or did, do that.

Are you just looking for an argument?

• I did not misrepresent you. And the funny thing is that you saying I misrepresented you is you misrepresenting me.

Now it's my fault for what you are doing?

Do you not know the difference between using the "+ Quote" feature:

And writing text in a generic quote box, using [QUOTE ] [/QUOTE ] coding:

As you can see, I use the former -- the box with "Your Name said:" text link -- to excerpt the exact text from the post I am quoting, just as I've done in all my replies to your posts.

I've wronged you in no way, whatsoever. May I friendlily remind you that you have the option of setting me on "ignore" if my posts upset you as much as you've been making it seem like they do.

I don't want to put you on ignore. I want you to keep talking because it gives me some perspective into the Trinitarian psyche. I do much more than just study the Bible, I also want to know what makes you people tick.

 

[KV-44-v1]

You would have us believe God is having a conversation with Himself?

yes. One Person talking to another.
how do you think God created us? a unitarian 'God' would have humans be lone wolves! since humans are made in HIS Image!
Humans reproduce sxually, so the average family is:
1 man
1 woman
1 child
THREE people 1 FAMILY!
if God were unitarian we'd expect
1 man --> (a-sxual reprod.) --> 1 man
1 man, no family.
but humans are not asxual reproducers!

your line of thought (or mabye not?) is 3 families.
Unitarianism is logically bunk!

 

[Runningman]

yes. One Person talking to another.

No.

how do you think God created us? a unitarian 'God' would have humans be lone wolves! since humans are made in HIS Image!

God is a Unitarian God so your disrespect of God is noted.

Humans reproduce sxually, so the average family is:
1 man
1 woman
1 child
THREE people 1 FAMILY!
if God were unitarian we'd expect
1 man --> (a-sxual reprod.) --> 1 man
1 man, no family.
but humans are not asxual reproducers!

your line of thought (or mabye not?) is 3 families.
Unitarianism is logically bunk!

Your comparison of families to the Trinity doctrine is not related.

 

[KV-44-v1]

God is a Unitarian God so your disrespect of God is noted.

Yours is. Belittling Jesus into only a man!

 

[Runningman]

Yours is. Belittling Jesus into only a man!

Jesus is a man. God isn't a man. The Bible says so so I would have to disagree. I honor them as they plainly are according to scripture.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Your comparison of families to the Trinity doctrine is not related.

God is the One Who set up the family.
The Church is the "BRIDE of Christ".
(Ephesians 5:25–27).

Marrige is often spoke of thru out the Bible!

(2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24).
(Revelation 19:7–9; 21:1-2).

 

[KV-44-v1]

Jesus is a man.

He WAS, but also Divine!
notice i said "ONLY a man".
quote me on one single time i denied the human nature of the Christ.
100% human 100% Divine. breaks the narrow view of unitarianism! they think 1 or the other! but God can do anything!
Son of God, Son of Man!
makes sense only under Trinity!

Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the “Alpha and Omega” in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; and 22:13. Alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.

how does Jesus be not God if He called Himself the Alpha and Omega?? is He lying or dumb? Unitarianism is the belttiler of Jesus! and it leaps over all logic!

 

[KV-44-v1]

If a Born Again Christian claimed to be THE ALPHA AND OMEGA would it be bad?

unitarian: no, perfectly ok.
Trinitarian: it would!! it would!!

 

[KV-44-v1]

God isn't a man

Agreed. But the Son having a human NATURE doesn't neccesitate being a human!

Did Jesus Sin? yes or no?
if no, HOW would He pull this off if He weren't God? He already said no one is good but God, so Jesus is God.

if what Jesus said was Jesus denying that He was God (it's not, thankfully.), then He would have admitted to sinning! OR, He would have committed sin already by lying! OR, He was wrong, be He a liar or ignorant!

You CANNOT get out of the fact unitarianism BELITTLES the Savior Who bled and died to pay for us Christians. CASE CLOSED.


Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

God is the One Who set up the family.
The Church is the "BRIDE of Christ".
(Ephesians 5:25–27).

Marrige is often spoke of thru out the Bible!

(2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24).
(Revelation 19:7–9; 21:1-2).

Seems you're just finding where there is a number three and subjectively applying it to God. With someone as important as who God is you shouldn't just pick random numbers and say that is who or what God is.

 

[Runningman]

He WAS, but also Divine!
notice i said "ONLY a man".
quote me on one single time i denied the human nature of the Christ.
100% human 100% Divine. breaks the narrow view of unitarianism! they think 1 or the other! but God can do anything!
Son of God, Son of Man!
makes sense only under Trinity!

The Son of God is the same person as the Son of Man. Yes or no?

Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the “Alpha and Omega” in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; and 22:13. Alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.

Read the context of Revelation 1:8 for clarification. The "One who was and who is to come" mentioned in verse 4 is the Almighty in Revelation 1:8 as evidenced by Revelation 1:5 beginning with "and Jesus Christ." The KJV assigns red lettering to this which is an error. Most modern Bible versions do not assign red lettering to Revelation 1:8. it's pardonable to misunderstand this and it's a common misconception. I hope this clears it up for you.

Revelation 1:4-8
4John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

7Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

8“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

how does Jesus be not God if He called Himself the Alpha and Omega?? is He lying or dumb? Unitarianism is the belttiler of Jesus! and it leaps over all logic!

Jesus is distinguished from God Almighty in Revelation 1:4-8 and Revelation 21:22.

Revelation 21
22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

 

[Runningman]

If a Born Again Christian claimed to be THE ALPHA AND OMEGA would it be bad?

unitarian: no, perfectly ok.
Trinitarian: it would!! it would!!

Strawman. That isn't something a Unitarian would say. I wouldn't claim to either be the or an Alpha and Omega. The Bible doesn't call Christians that. However, the title Alpha and Omega isn't an explicit indicator of deity since both alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. It refers to a beginning and ending point. When you self-discover what that beginning and end is I would be delighted to see you say so.

 

[Runningman]

Agreed. But the Son having a human NATURE doesn't neccesitate being a human!

Did Jesus Sin? yes or no?
if no, HOW would He pull this off if He weren't God? He already said no one is good but God, so Jesus is God.

if what Jesus said was Jesus denying that He was God (it's not, thankfully.), then He would have admitted to sinning! OR, He would have committed sin already by lying! OR, He was wrong, be He a liar or ignorant!

You CANNOT get out of the fact unitarianism BELITTLES the Savior Who bled and died to pay for us Christians. CASE CLOSED.


Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

There are various uses of the word "good" in the Greek that when translated into English do not capture what the intent was. For example, in Mark 10:18 where Jesus denied being God by referring to God alone as "good" the Greek is actually that God is intrinsically good, good in nature, good whether it be seen to be so or not.

While on the other hand, of Jesus he referred to himself as the "Good shepherd" in John 10:11 where the meaning of "good" is beautiful, as an outward sign of the inward good, noble, honorable character; good, worthy, honorable, noble, and seen to be so.

See the difference? There are varying types of goodness, but only God alone is intrinsically good.

 

[Free]

If monotheism is in full agreement with Trinitarianism then by that logic the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not God but rather the substance in them would be God.

You’re close but it isn’t “the substance in them,” it’s the substance that is them. They are all God because they share the same substance.

With monotheism there is a singular God, not multiple persons who are God.

You are conflating monotheism with the nature of God. Monotheism says nothing about whether God is one person or three.