Mary, the mother of the Lord

[Free]

I already answered you.
If you are saying that The Father is the one Lord, and Jesus is the one Lord, then both must be the one Lord.

As I already explained, the Father has made Jesus Lord over all. It’s as simple as recognizing that the Father has given all things to the son. It is all put in his hands.
Have you missed the fact that Jesus himself has a God?

Nope. You're not able to follow two simple logical arguments, which makes me seriously doubt your claim that there is no logic and reasoning in Trinitarianism.

 

[LeviR]

Nope. You're not able to follow two simple logical arguments, which makes me seriously doubt your claim that there is no logic and reasoning in Trinitarianism.

Stawman.

 

[LeviR]

If I were to ask a Trinitarian scholar, “What does it mean ‘Jesus is Lord’?”
The answer would be:

“The statement “Jesus is Lord” means that Jesus is God. Jesus has “all authority in heaven and on earth”

Who made Jesus Lord?

Who has given Jesus all authority in heaven and earth?

The One true God and Father of all is WHO.

 

[Free]

Stawman.

Nope. Provable. Here are the two arguments that you have yet to address:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Yet that would contradict what Paul writes in many passages, such as1 Tim. 6:15. It would also contradict numerous other passages in the NT, such as Luke 10:21.

Second, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son. And this is confirmed in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 6, 10-12.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God. Logic and reason don't get much simpler than that.

You say Trinitarianism is lacking in logic and reason, so, again, please show precisely where either of the two arguments above are wrong in their use of logic.

 

[Free]

If I were to ask a Trinitarian scholar, “What does it mean ‘Jesus is Lord’?”
The answer would be:

“The statement “Jesus is Lord” means that Jesus is God. Jesus has “all authority in heaven and on earth”

Who made Jesus Lord?

Who has given Jesus all authority in heaven and earth?

The One true God and Father of all is WHO.

When was Jesus made Lord and why? Those are the questions that need to be answered.

The difference between non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians is that non-Trinitarians take one specific group of verses that unambiguously teach some aspect of Jesus, or the Son, and use them to override the unambiguous meanings of other groups of verses that teach different aspects, while Trinitarians take all the verses showing different aspects and attempt to make sense of the whole revelation, without using any to override any others. Yes, there are some verses which are more ambiguous, but one of the basics of hermeneutics is to use clear passages to interpret those that aren't clear.

 

[LeviR]

Nope. Provable. Here are the two arguments that you have yet to address:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Yet that would contradict what Paul writes in many passages, such as1 Tim. 6:15. It would also contradict numerous other passages in the NT, such as Luke 10:21.

Second, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son. And this is confirmed in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 6, 10-12.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God. Logic and reason don't get much simpler than that.

You say Trinitarianism is lacking in logic and reason, so, again, please show precisely where either of the two arguments above are wrong in their use of logic.

We exist in the Father. If the Father were to withdrawal His Spirit everything would die.
Jesus is the mediator between God and man, so that all things in him will exist by him.

 

[LeviR]

When was Jesus made Lord and why? Those are the questions that need to be answered.

The difference between non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians is that non-Trinitarians take one specific group of verses that unambiguously teach some aspect of Jesus, or the Son, and use them to override the unambiguous meanings of other groups of verses that teach different aspects, while Trinitarians take all the verses showing different aspects and attempt to make sense of the whole revelation, without using any to override any others. Yes, there are some verses which are more ambiguous, but one of the basics of hermeneutics is to use clear passages to interpret those that aren't clear.

There is nothing ambiguous about saying that everything Jesus has has either been given, committed or appointed to him by His Father.
EVERYTHING.
He was made Lord.
He was given all authority
He was appointed a Kingdom
The children of God were given to him.
The Spirit was given to him
He was made Christ
He was given wisdom, knowledge, and understanding
Everything that can be said of him is attributed to his God and Father.

 

[Free]

We exist in the Father. If the Father were to withdrawal His Spirit everything would die.
Jesus is the mediator between God and man, so that all things in him will exist by him.

Again, this has nothing to do with my two arguments based on 1 Cor 8:6. Are you going to attempt to show where my reasoning is in error?

 

[LeviR]

Again, this has nothing to do with my two arguments based on 1 Cor 8:6. Are you going to attempt to show where my reasoning is in error?

Your reasoning is in error because Jesus has a God. And they all knew it.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Just about every letter to the churches makes it clear.
Your interpretation is in error.
We exist through Christ. Without him we are dead.
We are just dead people burying other dead people.

 

[Free]

Your reasoning is in error because Jesus has a God. And they all knew it.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Just about every letter to the churches makes it clear.
Your interpretation is in error.
We exist through Christ. Without him we are dead.
We are just dead people burying other dead people.

Okay, so you are unable to show where my reasoning is in error in those two specific arguments. Noted. It seems as though logic and reason are in Trinitarianism then, which refutes your argument that they aren't.

 

[LeviR]

Okay, so you are unable to show where my reasoning is in error in those two specific arguments. Noted. It seems as though logic and reason are in Trinitarianism then, which refutes your argument that they aren't.

I’ve showed you your interpretation is in error. So it doesn’t matter whether it is reasonable or not.

 

[LeviR]

Okay, so you are unable to show where my reasoning is in error in those two specific arguments. Noted. It seems as though logic and reason are in Trinitarianism then, which refutes your argument that they aren't.

How is it that everything God has is given or appointed to him?
Is it reasonable to think such nonsense?

 

[Free]

I’ve showed you your interpretation is in error. So it doesn’t matter whether it is reasonable or not.

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted to address my arguments. Your interpretations fallaciously beg the question, precisely because you ignore things such as the arguments I presented on 1 Cor 8:6.

How is it that everything God has is given or appointed to him?
Is it reasonable to think such nonsense?

Of course that isn't reasonable. This just shows that you don't even understand the Trinity.

 

[LeviR]

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted to address my arguments. Your interpretations fallaciously beg the question, precisely because you ignore things such as the arguments I presented on 1 Cor 8:6.


Of course that isn't reasonable. This just shows that you don't even understand the Trinity.

You interpret a passage incorrectly and ask if it’s reasonable?
The passage states clearly that the one God is the Father. Jesus was made Lord by his God and Father.
I would bet I know the Trinity doctrine better than you. That’s why I can easily debunk it.

 

[Free]

You interpret a passage incorrectly and ask if it’s reasonable?
The passage states clearly that the one God is the Father. Jesus was made Lord by his God and Father.

I made two sound arguments based on the verse which you have thus far completely avoided.

I would bet I know the Trinity doctrine better than you.

Your question, "How is it that everything God has is given or appointed to him?," suggests that you may not, as that is an argument against Modalism/Oneness theology, not Trinitarianism. It seems to be endemic in anti-Trinitarian circles to confuse the two, out side of Modalist circles, of course.

 

[LeviR]

I made two sound arguments based on the verse which you have thus far completely avoided.


Your question, "How is it that everything God has is given or appointed to him?," suggests that you may not, as that is an argument against Modalism/Oneness theology, not Trinitarianism. It seems to be endemic in anti-Trinitarian circles to confuse the two, out side of Modalist circles, of course.

I avoided nothing. I told you the proper interpretation. Sure, if you interpret a passage incorrectly it may be reasonable.
Do you want me to tell you your faulty interpretation is reasonable?

Trinitarians are for ever correcting people about how to rightly express their doctrine.
But none of that matters if you accept the teaching of the Bible. And the Bible teaches that everything that can be said of Christ is attributed to his God.
Instead of accepting faulty interpretations as resonable, I suggest go with the true one.

 

[Free]

I avoided nothing. I told you the proper interpretation. Sure, if you interpret a passage incorrectly it may be reasonable.
Do you want me to tell you your faulty interpretation is reasonable?

Good grief. You can't be serious. What isn't clear about what I'm asking? I am not asking if my interpretation is correct, I'm asking you to address the two sound, logical arguments I made and point out where any supposed errors are. How many more times do I need to ask?

You claimed that Trinitarianism is without logic and reason, but when presented with two basic logical arguments, you can't even figure out what I'm asking.

Trinitarians are for ever correcting people about how to rightly express their doctrine.

Because people are forever getting it wrong.

But none of that matters if you accept the teaching of the Bible.

Which is unequivocally that Jesus is both truly God and truly man.

And the Bible teaches that everything that can be said of Christ is attributed to his God.

No, it absolutely doesn't.

 

[LeviR]

Good grief. You can't be serious. What isn't clear about what I'm asking? I am not asking if my interpretation is correct, I'm asking you to address the two sound, logical arguments I made and point out where any supposed errors are. How many more times do I need to ask?

You claimed that Trinitarianism is without logic and reason, but when presented with two basic logical arguments, you can't even figure out what I'm asking.


Because people are forever getting it wrong.


Which is unequivocally that Jesus is both truly God and truly man.


No, it absolutely doesn't.

You can’t accept a response which corrects your misunderstanding.
Why do you want me to agree with an incorrect interpretation?
I’m not interested.

Show me something Jesus has that has not be given to him by his God, or attributed to his God.

 

[Free]

You can’t accept a response which corrects your misunderstanding.
Why do you want me to agree with an incorrect interpretation?
I’m not interested.

Show me something Jesus has that has not be given to him by his God, or attributed to his God.

Logic and reason. I can see why you're continuing to evade and avoid my logical arguments, that is, if you really have "the ability to think logically" like you claim.

 

[LeviR]

Logic and reason. I can see why you're continuing to evade and avoid my logical arguments, that is, if you really have "the ability to think logically" like you claim.

Logically, a face(person) who has a God is not that God.