DefendChrist and Madmanna against the Unitarians

  1. @simple123site,
  2. “. Mark 12: 29 does not say: ”Hear Oh Israel: The Lord thy God is One Being and Three Persons”. Why not, exactly? Jesus should have proclaimed the Trinitarian formula, but he did not. Instead, he re-affirmed Monotheism. Yes, we exclude Trinitarianism from Monotheism by definition because it is Polytheism pure and simple.”
  3. The bible does not express the truth of the trinity in the form of an abstract formula using the words being and person. The closest to this I believe would be the trinitarian formula of 1 John 5 v 7, and these three are one.
  4. The trinity should and can be believed and understood using the plain and clear statements of the bible. Your argument is a straw man and argument from silence.
  5. The statement “one being and three persons” cannot fully and accurately describe the triune nature of God’s being anyway. It would just result in paradox. It is just an approximation in response to the heretical formulations of the nature of God’s being which the church apparently found necessary to counter. So in order to do this it was forced to use the same terms of the heretics to rebut their arguments.
  6. The trinity however does not stand or fall on any non-biblical statements or creeds. Only those who cannot accept the plain and clear teaching of the bible on this attempt to use non-biblical language to undermine it.
  7. In my view it’s a mistake to equate Jehovah of the OT with the Father. Jehovah of OT is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  8. In the OT Jehovah does not identify himself as Father by nature but only by covenant relation with Israel, i.e. through adoption.
  9. Ironically the only one in the OT who identifies himself prophetically by name as Father is Jesus, the Messiah of Isaiah 9 v. 6, the Everlasting Father:
  10. 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
  11. The Unitarians / Muslims cannot explain why the Jews would want to stone the Unitarian Jesus who was an orthodox believer in the Shema.
  12. Like
  • Hi simple123site
    Let me get this straight you say my comments are non-sensical right?

    V30 is the first commandment V31 is the second commandment.

    Well what does “The Lord our God is one Lord” mean?

    Please answer me this question because no Muslim has at present done so.

    Jesus said this.

    Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    How is this going to take place by the spirit? How is Jesus and the Father going to live in a person?

    Like

  • “The trinity should and can be believed and understood using the plain and clear statements of the bible.”

    OK so where does the Bible clearly say God is a Trinity of persons each co-equal with the others?

    Like

    1. What is the bible Paul? Where is it? How can you argue about what the bible teaches anyway? You can only approach the question from what the Koran affirms anyway. So really we are arguing about what the koran teaches about something, the bible, which has no fixed or absolute existence in your view, except where it agrees with the koran.
    2. Like
  • “You can only approach the question from what the Koran affirms anyway.”

    Says who? I approach it from several different perspectives, including Biblical scholarship which has proven that the Bible is corrupted.

    Like

    1. We could start with the simple and clear statements that Jesus is God, for example Romans 9 v 5, Titus 2 v 13.
    2. John 1 v 1 the Word is God, Hebrews 1 that the Son is God. Phillipians that Jesus is in the form of God.
    3. Have an open mind Paul, lay aside your prejudice if you can. Easier said than done.
    4. Like
  • those verses (what have variants that do not say Jesus is God) do not say that God is three persons. You have failed to produce any evidence. Please try again – if you can.

    Like

  • Hi Paul
    Peter said that lying to the Holy Ghost was lying to God.

    Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
    Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

    According to these verses is the Holy Ghost God?

    Like

  1. Hi Paul
    Let’s look at a Jewish source about the word of God.

    We need at the Memra of God or rather the word of God.

    T. Deuteronomy 4:7…For what people so great, to whom the Lord is so high in the Name of the Word of the Lord? But the custom of (other) nations is to carry their gods upon their shoulders, that they may seem to be nigh them; but they cannot hear with their ears, (be they nigh or) be they afar off; but the Word of the Lord sits upon His throne high and lifted up, and hears our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions. (Targum Jonathan)

    Looks at the book of Genesis and the Memra.

    Whenever the Targum orators came to passages where Yhvh is anthropomorphic (visible to humans) or where two or more Yhvhs are indicated by the text, the Turgemen often substituted “The Word of the Lord” for one of the Yhvhs.

    For example in Gen. 19:23-24 the Tanakh has:

    ● As the sun rose upon the earth and Lot entered Zoar, Yhvh rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from Yhvh out of heaven. (WHV)

    The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one Yhvh rained fire from another Yhvh who was up in heaven. The Targum substitutes “The Word of Yhvh” for the first of the two Yhvhs as follows:

    T. And the Word of Yhvh caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Yhvh in heaven. (Targum Jonathan)

    Is the word of YHVH equalled to YHVH?

    Like

  1. Hi Paul
    I have given you evidence of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost raising Jesus from the dead.
    Let’s be honest why are all three involved in the resurrection?

    Like

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to DefendChrist and Madmanna against the Unitarians

  1. defendchrist says:

    Hi Paul
    Where are you??

  2. madmanna says:

    Hi DefendChrist

  3. madmanna says:

    You mean Paul Williams? Good question, where is he?

  4. θ says:

    “Madmanna says: Ironically the only one in the OT who identifies himself prophetically by name as Father is Jesus, the Messiah of Isaiah 9 v. 6, the Everlasting Father:”

    Trinitarians can’t use Isaiah against Jesus. Trinitarian version of Isaiah 9:6 is defeated by Jesus own self-denial in Matthew 23:9.
    Mt 23:9
    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

    Hence, how can Jesus be a father if he himself denies to be called a father?

  5. Anonymous says:

    “Article says: In my view it’s a mistake to equate Jehovah of the OT with the Father. Jehovah of OT is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

    Jehovah is God of gods, but nowhere does the Tanach belittle or degrade Jehovah as a “Son of God”.
    If Jehovah were a son of God, he must have not been absolute.
    If Jehovah were a subordinate of God, he must have been a lesser deity.

  6. Anonymous says:

    “Article says: Jehovah of OT is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

    How could Jehovah be the son of himself?
    Does any Trinitarian wonder why there’s no no such a term “son of the Lord”, not even once? It is because Jesus is not the son of Jehovah. Since Jesus can’t be a son of Jehovah, Jesus can’t be Jehovah himself.

  7. Anonymous says:

    “Article says: In the OT Jehovah does not identify himself as Father by nature but only by covenant relation with Israel, i.e. through adoption.”

    Neither a foster father nor an adopted father is real father. Jehovah is not a real father of Jesus as He never begets any son. That’s why Jesus never inherits the legal name of Jehovah behind his name.

    Does anyone wonder why there’s no such a term “Jesus the son of Jehovah” in the Bible?

    Jehovah is called the Father figuratively like the term “Father-in-law”, or “Founding Father”, or “Father of Logics”, or “Father of Medicine”, or “Father of Science”, or “Father of Navigation”, et cetera.

  8. Anonymous says:

    “Article says: The closest to this I believe would be the trinitarian formula of 1 John 5 v 7, and these three are one.”

    The word “one” lost its meaning when Jesus describes that he and the Father shall be one and shall abide within the body of each believer. Jesus says two “persons” shall inhabit to be one with a fellow human. If each person contains one same essence (one nature), it means the fellow believer gets inhabited by the nature.

    Trinitarians have a great difficulty to interpret the verse Jn 14:23 because they are faced by a dilemma that two persons *could* somehow empty its nature when abiding a body of believer:
    Jn 14:23
    Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

  9. Anonymous says:

    “Article says: The Unitarians / Muslims cannot explain why the Jews would want to stone the Unitarian Jesus who was an orthodox believer in the Shema.”

    Jesus never called himself or anyone else a “son of the Lord (Jehovah)”. Jews mistakenly misunderstood his confusing use of the word “son of God”.
    God in the Bible means particularly as loose as the immortal nature.
    Son in the Bible refers to the heir.

    Immortality which each believers shall get must come from God’s nature, right? Neither a dead man nor a living man can produce immortal nature.

    Since the only available nature capable of resurrecting and sharing a jot of immortality to Jesus’ body is the immortal nature itself, hence with the same reason why the believers could be resurrected and shall possibly attain immortality in the Afterlife is because they will share the immortal nature as well.

    By partaking God’s nature, the believers shall be immortal. But nobody can partake Jehovah’s nature, not even Jesus.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Son of God means heir/inheritor of immortal nature.
    But nobody can partake Jehovah’s nature, not even Jesus.

  11. madmanna says:

    Jesus said my Father, he never said our Father to be a common son of God with others.

    “Immortality which each believers shall get must come from God’s nature, right? ”

    Still dependant on the power of God. God can’t communicate or transfer his nature to another being. Not like Allah transferring his nature to a stone?

  12. madmanna says:

    Jesus denies that he is a son simply by adoption or election to covenant relation, as all other sons of God are, He always refers to the Father as MY Father, never OUR Father. Thus affirming his exclusive sonship to God.

    Thus the only other possibility is that he was a son by nature of the Father thus sharing his divine nature with him. The Jews understood this and they wanted to stone him for blasphemy.

  13. θ says:

    “madmanna says: Jesus said my Father, he never said our Father ”

    Mt 6:9
    After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

    Certainly Jesus does what he taught, lest he is guilty of the Proverb’s hypocrisy.
    Lk 4:23
    And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

  14. θ says:

    “madmanna says: He always refers to the Father as MY Father, never OUR Father.”

    Sure he did.
    Mt 6:9
    After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

    Certainly Jesus does what he taught, lest he is guilty of the Pharisee’s hypocrisy.
    Mt 23
    3 But do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

  15. madmanna says:

    Jesus never prayed the Lord’s prayer: “After this manner pray YE”.

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

    Hence, how can Jesus be a father if he himself denies to be called a father?”

    Nevertheless if the Messiah is called Everlasting Father by Jehovah he must also be that.

    Without the word Father we could not distinguish between God who is the Word and God who is not the Word and their respective roles in our salvation. I think this is why Jesus says there is one in heaven who is the Father. This Father is the God who is not the Word in contradistinction to the God who is identified as the Word.

    Insofar as Jesus and the Father are one in essence this distinction disappears and we see God from a different perspective.

    It is interesting that Jehovah in the OT never gave himself this name but chose to give it to Jesus the Messiah. One wonders why. It does destroy the Unitarian concept of God which is that there is only one who could be called Everlasting Father right through the bible and no-one else. Obviously they are mistaken. I have my theories on this.

  16. θ says:

    “madmanna says: Insofar as Jesus and the Father are one in essence this distinction disappears and we see God from a different perspective.”

    If the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and they share one essence that you called “Jehovah”, you have three Gods in one Jehovah.
    It is heathenism.

    If the Father is Jehovah, the Son is Jehovah, the Spirit is Jehovah, and they share one essence that you called “God”, you have three Jehovahs in one God.
    It is the Trinity.
    However, it also reveals a folly of the Trinity: all persons of believers shall be resurrected to partake the same one essence which you called “God”. Hence, you shall have many persons in one God. It is the Polyunity.
    One essence which three persons have shared eternally since the beginning shall be made shareable to all believer’s persons forever. Hence, the Trinity would evolve to be the Polyunity.

  17. madmanna says:

    Not so. The one essence is one being.

  18. madmanna says:

    I didn’t they “shared” one essence. Many beings can share one essence just like human beings. I said they are one essence or nature or spirit if you like, which is the term Jesus used.

  19. Anonymous says:

    “madmanna says: I didn’t they “shared” one essence. Many beings can share one essence just like human beings. I said they are one essence or nature or spirit if you like, which is the term Jesus used. ”

    The believers shall partake the eternal spirit of immortality alongside their human nature after the resurrection, just like theology of Chalcedonian Jesus of Dual Nature.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s