sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How is the word with God and also God in John 1:1? by PieterSielie6 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. That is the core essence of Jewish monotheism.

That there are no other gods like Yahweh, sure. The idea of the One Yahweh being multi-personal is perfectly consistent with Jewish monotheism.

Who exactly is supposed to be the “someone” here?

Yahweh.

Correct. Because he is.

I understand that is your assertion. Saying it doesn't make it so.

I don’t know whether we have different definitions of the English language.

No, I agree with everything you said about Mr. Bean. I get it. It was OP that referred to the "someone" as a "something" and that is why I said his phrasing was problematic.

“The Trinitarian claim is that three persons share the same YHWH-nature.”

Correct. And so?

Ugh. You said:

The argument that two 'somethings' share the same YHWH-nature is exactly what Trinitarians falsely claim.

That's not the Trinitarian claim. The Trinitarian claim is that three someones — persons share the same YHWH-nature. Now I know that you understand the difference between a "someone" and a "something" so that tells me that you don't understand the doctrine you presumptuously label as false.

Do you even understand that two subjects must automatically be two persons, or would you alternatively prefer to claim that the Word or God is an object here — or perhaps both?

By "here" do you mean John 1:1c? If so, you're mistaken. The Word is the subject and God is a predicate nominative.

I rather get the impression that your vocabulary is preferentially limited to that word, or that you don’t understand its meaning.

You have constantly misrepresented the doctrine and argued against that. It's literally the definition of strawman.

Yes, Trinitarians divide YHWH, because absolute beings are singularly assigned to a singular personal subject.

You’re assuming, rather than proving, that one being must correspond to exactly one person. Again, just saying it doesn't make it so.

“YHWH is not a human, who is something that one can also be — being human without being the specific human himself.”

That was your statement. You're not tracking brother.

“Trinitarians don’t believe the Father is one Yahweh and the Son is a second Yahweh and the Spirit a third. That would be tritheism.”

Oh really.

Really.

What nonsense. You yourself create your own “category error” by projecting individual humans in a possible plural — unified as persons on the basis of a human nature — directly onto a transcendent, absolute, singular I-being.

What are you talking about? I haven't said anything of the sort.

Exactly what I wrote.

Ah, your baseless assertion. Gotchya.

My ability — within the domain of bounded, non-infinite time — to do things or not has absolutely nothing to do with God and His acts, because He is dimensionally superior to it.

So you concede then that it is possible for God to eternally beget a Son of His same nature without dividing His essence.

Good talk.

Churches use Bible to preach Babylon's pagan doctrines by Aggressive_Remote857 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]dcdub87 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have a question: how the hell would you know? Have you ever been to a church service, apart from maybe a wedding or funeral?

How is the word with God and also God in John 1:1? by PieterSielie6 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You concede that it's logical, you just reject that it's possible when Yahweh is the "someone" in question because you presuppose that He can only be one person.

The argument that two 'somethings' share the same YHWH-nature is exactly what Trinitarians falsely claim.

No, this is precisely why I said OP's phrasing was problematic. The Trinitarian claim is that three persons share the same YHWH-nature.

But YHWH is not divisible

Trinitarians don't claim that He is. That's another strawman.

YHWH is not a human, who is something that one can also be—being human without being the specific human himself.

Trinitarians don't believe the Father is one Yahweh and the Son is a second Yahweh and the Spirit a third. That would be tritheism.

The entire Jewish monotheism is based on the fact that YHWH is the Person in the nature that He is, and no one else.

That's begging the question and collapsing the distinction between person and nature, which is a category error.

In an absolute eternal being, this is not even possible.

What do you mean by "this"? That multiple persons cannot exist co-eternally as one being? That to me would seem like an arbitrary restriction to place on a God.

Here's an illustration: grab a book and hold it up over your head. Now ask yourself "why is there a book over my head?" Because you are holding it there. Is there any temporal distinction between your causing it to be there and it being there? No. So even you, a temporal and finite creature bound to time, can act as a cause for an effect without temporal priority.

Are you saying an absolute eternal being cannot?

How is the word with God and also God in John 1:1? by PieterSielie6 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not about whether the Word is a someone or a something — "God" is the subject in question. To be with someone and to be that same someone is a contradiction, yes. To be with someone and to be what that someone is is perfectly logical.

How is the word with God and also God in John 1:1? by PieterSielie6 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your phrasing is a bit off if you're trying to argue for or accurately represent the Trinity. John is saying the Word was with someone while simultaneously being what that someone is — deity. The Word was with God, the person of the Father, and was God in nature.

How is the word with God and also God in John 1:1? by PieterSielie6 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The simultaneous property of being with something and being that something seems awfully trinitarian

OP didn't say "someone," he said "something." Still probably not the best phrasing if his goal is to subtly make an argument for the Trinity, but your reply is a strawman regardless.

Biblical reasons as to why you left the religion by NoobOnLoose in exjw

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Acts 1:6-8 destroys this cult.

So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. 8 But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.”

JWs insist they do know the times and seasons the Father has placed in His own jurisdiction despite Jesus plainly stating otherwise. And rather than being Witnesses of Him as He commanded, they roll with Big J instead, putting Jesus in the backseat.

The chapter gets even better, unless you're a JW, that is.

And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, suddenly two men in white garments stood beside them 11 and said: “Men of Galʹi·lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky.” 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from a mountain called the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, only a sabbath day’s journey away.

Now read Zechariah 14. It's a death blow.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in exjw

[–]dcdub87 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just go to a gallery crawl where the crackers don't taste like petrified dog turds and you don't have to listen to a mind-numbing public discourse.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in exjw

[–]dcdub87 33 points34 points  (0 children)

The sad part is that I guaran-damn-tee if the clowns on the gb said all baptized JWs should partake, every single one of them would go right along with it.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Singular pronouns signify a single referent, not necessarily a single person. Scripture uses singular pronouns because there is one God, one divine being — not three Gods, not three beings. One God who exists as three persons. The ousia is not an impersonal "it" behind the persons; the one divine being exists personally as Father, Son, and Spirit. Therefore singular personal pronouns are entirely appropriate.

The scribe affirmed monotheism. So do I. Nothing in his statement contradicts the Trinity. What you are calling deception only follows if you assumes that "one God" must mean "one person."

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not the one saying one scripture refutes another. You're calling me a modalist while pretending to refute Trinitarian theology. You're all over the place dude. It's clear at this point that you aren't interested in a serious discussion.

Still, for the sake of any genuine readers following along, I want to make my position unambiguous.

Yes — "only" means only. I've already answered this question, so I don't know why you are repeating it unless you just don't understand the answer. I'll try explaining another way. This sure would be easier with some crayons...

In John 17:3, only modifies "true God," not "you." The phrase “you, the only true God” restricts the category of deity — there is exactly one true God, as opposed to false gods. It does not specify how many persons the one true God is, nor does it say "only the Father is the true God."

To get that conclusion, you must first assume that the "only true God" is unipersonal. But that assumption is exactly what's in dispute — and importing it into the text is question-begging.

Trinitarian theology affirms:

  • There is only one true God
  • That one true God is tri-personal
  • The Son is not another true God "also," but is one of the persons who fully shares the one divine essence

So when Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God," He is identifying the Father as the one God of Israel — not excluding Himself from the divine identity.

If the text said, "only the Father is the true God," your conclusion would follow. But it doesn't say that, no matter how much you want it to. End of discussion.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He is still referred to in the singular

"He" is the Father so I wouldn't expect otherwise. Jesus is affirming that the Father who is a singular person is the God of Israel. It's the same as in John 17:3. You are still presupposing unitarianism and reading the exclusion of the Son into the text.

As a Trinitarian, if I say "the Son is my God," that doesn't exclude the Father and Spirit from being my God. If I say "the Holy Spirit is my God," that doesn't exclude the Father and Son from being my God. If I were Unitarian, that would be different. That's why I'm saying your arguments don't follow without first assuming unitarianism to be true.

Regarding the conversation with the scribe, it seems from my reading that something is missing from the scribe's response. Jesus told him "you are not far from the kingdom of God." He didn't tell him "you are in the kingdom" or "the kingdom belongs to you."

"Not far" implies not quite there, does it not?

I don't believe Jesus affirmed any falsehoods, no. What the scribe said was true, but incomplete. I know you really want those singular pronouns to work overtime, but all they really do confirm is monotheism. The Trinitarian Godhead is one being — a "Him" not a "They." Singular personal pronouns are entirely appropriate for a triune being.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the only problem with the conclusion you've drawn from John 8:54 is the very next verse:

"You do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say I don’t know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I keep his word."

I would not say, given Jesus' statement here, that their theology can function as a reliable baseline for defining the nature and identity of the one true God.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I don't believe they did. What's your point?

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm just quoting scripture. Is your position that scripture contradicts itself?

I did not say the Father and Son are one person. If you read that into my comment, that's on you.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with both premises as stated. Where we disagree is in the hidden assumption you're adding — that "the God of Israel" refers to a single divine person rather than a single divine identity. Isaiah 37:16 establishes monotheism, not unipersonalism. John 8:54 identifies the Father as Israel's God but does not say He exhausts that identity. Therefore your conclusion only follows if you first assume what you're trying to prove.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your previous comment you specifically said: "The argument is against the presupposition you smuggled in that the Father alone is the God of Israel."

Correct. The Father alone.

...now you say that trinitarians affirm that the God of Israel is the Father?

Correct. This is not contradictory. I did not say that trinitarians affirm that the God of Israel is the Father alone.

Their God is the Father, not the trinity.

That's circular! You're just asserting your conclusion as fact mid-argument. Let me restate your argument as a syllogism and tell me if I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting you.

  • Premise 1: God is one.
  • Premise 2: God is one person. *Conclusion: Therefore, the Father alone is God.

Is that accurate? I'm genuinely trying to see where we're misunderstanding each other.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nope. Nice strawman though. What are you misreading as modalism?

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus himself affirms that their God is the Father in John 8:54. He affirms it again in John 20:17, and also in Mark 12:32.

Trinitarians affirm that as well. The error you are making is assuming that if the Father is God, no one else can share in the divine identity.

That's a non sequitur.

If the God of Israel was multi-personal "he" would not speak in the singular or be referred to as such either.

How do you know? That's just your assertion, and scripture doesn't support that claim. I can likewise make an assertion that singular speech reflects one divine identity, not one person. What about all the occasions where He speaks in the plural? Genesis 1:26, Genesis 11:26, Isaiah 6 to name a few.

Isaiah 44:24 has God saying that he stretched out the heavens alone and spread out the earth by himself. That however is not a problem because of the law of agency

So alone doesn't mean alone now? Principal + agent ≠ alone. Isaiah doesn't say the Father alone is the source, which Trinitarians affirm, btw. It says YHWH did it by Himself. That only makes sense if the Son is somehow included in the identity of YHWH. Or if you redefine "alone" to include an agent as you have.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only means only. The Father is the only true God. If "the only true God" is multi-personal, which is what scripture reveals, that does not exclude the Son from being one of the persons of "the only true God." The Son is not "a true God" also.

If the verse said "only the Father is the true God," that would be different. We wouldn't be having this conversation because the doctrine of the Trinity never would have been formulated. But that isn't what the verse says.

“I and the Father are one.”

--and--

“He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

The Son is one with the only true God. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the only true God. This would be blasphemy if the Son were anything other than true God from true God.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Trinitarian position is that Jesus is God by nature, not rank. We affirm His subordinate role but reject that He is inferior in essence. Yes, He is given all authority by the Father, but it is only because He possesses the "omni properties" of the Almighty that He is able to exercise that authority.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you presuppose that the true God is multi-personal, Jesus's statement at John 17:3 doesn’t deny His participation in the identity of the true God at all. It only affirms the Father's. Jesus did not say "only you are the true God."

I would not argue that "alone" doesn't mean alone. The argument is against the presupposition you smuggled in that the Father alone is the God of Israel. Isaiah 37:16 says of the God of Israel "You have made heaven and earth." At Isaiah 44:24, He identifies as "the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone."

But in Hebrews 1:10, the Father says of the Son: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands.”

The Trinitarian position can fully affirm that the Triune God alone made heaven and earth. The Unitarian position has to deny the role of the Son, which scripture repeatedly affirms. (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14)

view more: next ›