Religions > Atheism > A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?))
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2004 10:03:13 PM |
| Object: |
A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
So your position is that God is an organization of three
different entities and not an independent being?
That would be akin to positively asserting that the model reflects
reality, wouldn't it? What I said was "I am not asserting that this
description is true (i.e. that it reflects reality)." What I am
asserting is that the following seven points are neither logically
incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent:
(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.
As for whether such a model makes God "an organization of three
different entities," I would say that it certainly does. As for
whether or not a multipersonal being is independent, I don't see why
its multipersonal ontology has to necessarily conflict with its
independence. Richard Swinburne, in his book "The Christian God," has
some wonderful stuff on models in which the will of each person is in
harmony with the wills of the other two, which would allow them to
work as a unit.
But this moves away from the original point. You claimed the Trinity
is "illogical". Do you believe the model above (and the explanation
given in this thread) is logically inconsistent?
.
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 06:06:56 PM |
|
|
"Midjis" < @ . > wrote:
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His followers
worship Him alone.
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elsewhere in this thread I already noted NT texts like Romans 3:29-30,
1 Corinthians 8:4, and James 2:19. While I realize these are *NOT* OT
texts, even without Isaiah, these texts from the proto-Christian
community are a good sign that by the dawn of the common era the Jews
were staunch monotheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 07:36:46 PM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
True enough. I must admit I had not noticed that one.
But I must say, that makes even more bizarre God's phrasing in some of His
other OT statements. "I am a jealous god", for example, has always struck
me as an odd way to put it. And "thou shalt have no other gods before me"
would seem to be similarly peculiar, when He could simply have said "I am
it".
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
04 Jun 2004 07:40:12 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 16:06:56 -0700, Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"Midjis" < @ . > wrote:
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His followers
worship Him alone.
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
No, that we do not. You give the evidence below.
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elohim, gods, plural. Not singular, not royal, plural. Isaiah also referes
to the elohim of Egypt. Just a moment.
Just one set of notes from an apologetic site
Elohim Chaiyim Living God:(Jeremiah 10:10).The Strong One is alive and
the giver of live. He created life and everything that is living. He longs
to give life eternal and abundant. Elohim Chaiyim Hebrew This is a living
god Elohim is the first name for God found in the Tenach (Old Testament).It
is in Genesis 1:1 and is the third word of the Hebrew Scriptures:In the
beginning "Elohim" "God."Elohim is the most common name that is
translated as "God." Elohim comes from a root that means "strength, might,
power."It is used over 2300 times in the Scriptures to refer to the God of
Israel. Elohim is unusual since it is plural. It can also be translated as
"gods."Exodus 12:12 refers to "all the elohim (gods) of Egypt."This plural
name that is used for the One God of Israel opens the door for the
revelation of the plural yet single nature of God that is more fully
revealed in the rest of the Scriptures. Elohim can be combined with other
words. When that happens different attributes of God are emphasized. Elohim
Kedoshim Holy God:(Leviticus 19:2, Joshua 24:19).The Mighty One is
unique, special, one of a kind. There is no one and nothing like Him, and
there will never be. He is distinct from everyone and everything else. He
is pure and free from any wrong. Elohim Kedoshim Hebrew Mighty god from
the Hebrew pantheon, I suspect that this is an apologetics effort for the
word elohim is plural Elohim Gnostic One of the seven Archons Elohim
Hebrew This is a plural and not in the royal sense of the word we. It means
at least three separate gods and can refer to those of other nations as
well Elohim Eloaios Chaldea [Gnostic]
Now, from a scholarly source:
"The usual word for god in the Hebrew Bible is elohim, a plural formative
of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of el.
The word is used 2570 times, with a variety of meanings.
Elsewhere in this thread I already noted NT texts like Romans 3:29-30,
1 Corinthians 8:4, and James 2:19. While I realize these are *NOT* OT
texts, even without Isaiah, these texts from the proto-Christian
community are a good sign that by the dawn of the common era the Jews
were staunch monotheists.
No, they are not. The Jews were still being chastised about their
polytheism until about Chronicles, when Asherah was no longer mentioned as
the "Queen of heaven". It was not until Jeremiah that the Yahweh priesthood
gained enough power to publicly chastise the worship of Asherah.
Now, if you want to say by +1Gr. [there is no one common era, but Gregorian
calendar is used pretty much world wide for business purposes]the Jewish
population was publicly monotheistic, I doubt you will receive any
argument.
There is evidence that polytheism was still practiced in Israel past the
claimed non event of one Jesus of Nazareth. As to how strong that evidence
is, I am not qualified to say, so I don't say it is iron clad.
walksalone who has stumbled on some odd information during the study of the
gods of humanity. Bizarre might be a better word.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
05 Jun 2004 07:48:54 AM |
|
|
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message news:<440ba070417663445f28d54c49942e94@news.teranews.com>...
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
No, that we do not. You give the evidence below.
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elohim, gods, plural. Not singular, not royal, plural. Isaiah also referes
to the elohim of Egypt.
Fine. That is besides the point. The Hebrew "ein elohim mibal'aday"
means "there are no elohim [gods] besides me". That is a positive
assertion that there are no other gods. Seems pretty clear to me. As
for Elohim not necessarily being plural, one can simply see Genesis
1:27, where the Hebrew verb libro is conjugated in the third person
singular. But this is beside the point. What the actual point is, is
that while the author of Genesis may have been a henotheist, the
statement above from Isaiah is clearly Monotheistic.
The Jews were still being chastised about their
polytheism until about Chronicles,
And who was taking part in this chastisement? A Monotheist?
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
That makes no sense & is not biblically supported,
Actually the Biblical support for this position is John 1:1. I guess
you didn't bother to read the very post you were responding to. What I
originally wrote was that the position that Jesus is God in a sense of
predication is a position that is perfectly in line with the gospel of
John. Commenting on John 1:1, Raymond Brown writes:
"Since Chrysostom's time, commentators have recognized that each
of the three uses of "was" in vs. 1 has a different connotation:
existence, relationship, and predication respectively."
[Raymond E. Brown (ed.), "The Gospel According to John,"
(Doubleday, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 4]
So, this doctrine would hold to the following propositions:
(1) Jesus is the Logos.
(2) The Logos is God.
(3) Jesus is God.
The first proposition is an identity statement, so whatever is true of
the Logos is true of Jesus. The second proposition is straight out of
John 1:1, and employs a copula of predication (and the grammar of the
Greek supports this). The third proposition also employs a copula of
predication, and is simply inferred from (1) and (2). We could think
of these propositions being rendered into formal logic as follows:
(1) j = l
(2) Gl
(3) Gj
But Walksalone snipped this bit above. I wonder why?
Spooky is a xian invention, there is no holy spirit ion the OT.
There is the Ruach Elohim. Whether or not that is identical to the
Holy Spirit may be up for exegetical debate, but the point is the OT
does refer to the Spirit of God, and I would imagine we could sensibly
refer to the Ruach as sanctified and holy (qodesh).
[Romans 3:29-30] Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of
Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, who
will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
that same faith.
That doe snot say there is only one god, but that only one god can do
the job according to the writer.
Am I the only one who is beginning to seriously doubt how well
Walksalone understands the relevant discussion? The above seems to be
a very clear allusion to Monotheism. But wait, it gets better...
[1 Corinthians 8:4] So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We
know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that THERE IS NO
GOD BUT ONE.
Again, you have a conflict. The writer claims to know there is but one
god, & yet, it mentions idols, which are considered betel's for other
gods by the society that worships them.
What kind of an objection is this? The point was to show clear
Monotheistic proclamations in the NT, and this is one of them. It
positively asserts that an idol is nothing, and then goes on to
positively assert that "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE." Regardless of
whether this claim is true or not, the fact remains that it is a clear
proclamation of Monotheism.
[1 Timothy 2:5] For THERE IS ONE GOD and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus,
The according to that passage, your non-existent Jesus the Christ [fact,
not fiction based on requirements failed by your Jesus the Christ if it
ever existed as claimed in your grimorie]
Anyone else have any idea what this is supposed to mean? The point is
that the text positively asserts that "THERE IS ONE GOD," which seems
to be a clear allusion to Monotheism. Walksalone never responds to the
relevant point.
[James 2:19] You believe that THERE IS ONE GOD. Good! Even the demons
believe that–and shudder.
Yet, by definition, demons are gods. Mayhap not yours, but they are
indeed divine in nature & meet the base requirements to be called gods.
At this point we see how desparate Walksalone has become. The question
was whether there are Monotheistic proclamations in the NT, and the
above is one of them. Does the author of the epistle attributed to
James consider demons to be gods? I think the answer is clearly no.
So, in conclusion, the OT has at least one Monotheistic proclamation
(that being Isaiah 44:6), and by the time the NT books were being
formulated we find a great deal more Monotheistic proclamations
amongst the Jews (at least the ones who made up the Proto-Christian
community).
.
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
05 Jun 2004 09:25:37 AM |
|
|
On 5 Jun 2004 05:48:54 -0700, Nico Demusopelous wrote:
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message news:<440ba070417663445f28d54c49942e94@news.teranews.com>...
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
No, that we do not. You give the evidence below.
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elohim, gods, plural. Not singular, not royal, plural. Isaiah also referes
to the elohim of Egypt.
Fine. That is besides the point. The Hebrew "ein elohim mibal'aday"
means "there are no elohim [gods] besides me". That is a positive
Not reading or speaking Hebrew, I will wait until I meet a qualified
scholar for an opinion on what it actually means.
assertion that there are no other gods. Seems pretty clear to me. As
for Elohim not necessarily being plural, one can simply see Genesis
1:27, where the Hebrew verb libro is conjugated in the third person
No, that one can not do if one is to be honest with oneself. One should, &
can, find the remainder of the story. It runs along these lines.
The worship of el is known from ca. -6k Gr., which predates the Jewish
mythos by no less than 4k years. Hint, their calendar has nothing prior to
that date, when supposedly the universe was formed, as well as it running
on the lunar cycle.
This places El on the scene, throughout the pre Israelite region, where
they had no choice but to become acquainted with its concepts, dignity's &
prerogatives.
Now, for a quick history lesson, not based in mythology but recovered
information.
El was a senior god, with attributes that were not so bad. Wisdom, age,
kindness. All around good persona.
He had a consort named Asherah [of the sea] who between them delivered up
70 offspring [gods], of which Yahweh was one, a very minor one. Yahweh's
holy place was Mt. Sinai.
The Jewish creation story has roots, identifiable roots in the Sumerian
creation myth.
To claim El was by himself & all alone is to tell a falsehood based on one
of two things, ignorance of the background, or personal wishes.
The first is curable.
singular. But this is beside the point. What the actual point is, is
that while the author of Genesis may have been a henotheist, the
statement above from Isaiah is clearly Monotheistic.
As I indicated, it is not. The society was still polytheistic in spite of
the priesthood pushing for a Yahweh only god. That is verified in Jeremiah.
The Jews were still being chastised about their
polytheism until about Chronicles,
And who was taking part in this chastisement? A Monotheist?
If you have read what has been posted, or your grimorie, you would not have
had to ask that question.
Now, it is not ;likely you have actually read the history of El, or the
Queen of heaven discussions on the group.
What is known is Jeremiah was bitching about Asherah still being worshiped
[ca. -545Gr], & that there were two goddesses being worshiped during that
time frame. The other goddess is harder to find, but ask your librarian you
get you a copy of a work titled "Ancient goddesses", it is not written by
mythologists so you may not like the approach taken.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
That makes no sense & is not biblically supported,
Actually the Biblical support for this position is John 1:1. I guess
The NT is against the instructions of Yahweh, so I guess it is an
apologetic work nor of authoritative value.
You see, not everyone assumes that the NT is either valid or accurate, when
biblically speaking, it is neither.
Again I refer you to the Torah.
you didn't bother to read the very post you were responding to. What I
originally wrote was that the position that Jesus is God in a sense of
predication is a position that is perfectly in line with the gospel of
John. Commenting on John 1:1, Raymond Brown writes:
A Priori assumptions do not interest me. I study god claims. Now, if you
can verify the following you will be on to something, but you won't.
A: The was a Jesus of Nazareth as claimed in the xian mythology.
B: He was in fact the expected messiah as that term was used & understood
by the Jews of that location & era.
C: The shenanigans attributed to that persona did in fact occur, & they
were not recorded due to indifference or active political suppression.
D: In spite of it being a violation of Roman law, the lad was hung out to
dry for religious reasons in a dependent kingdom.
You see, for your logic to work, as you intend, it must be based on
actuality, not desire. I am interested in the actuality, & its supporting
myths.
Your pantheon fails all the way around, which you would understand had you
actually studied the underlying parent myth.
There is much I still do not understand about that myth, but I can learn if
need be.
What I do understand is that if the myth as currently pedaled was peddled
back then, the riot from the Jews against xians would have made all the
future persecutions look like a Sunday stroll in the park.
Isaiah under the guidance of the priesthood, & those that followed, were
pushing for monotheism, but in fact they never got it.
"Since Chrysostom's time, commentators have recognized that each
of the three uses of "was" in vs. 1 has a different connotation:
I care less about the new improved version. To understand a myth, you need
to be able to understand the terms & names as used, not as they have
evolved into in popular usage. This is called study, & is preffered around
here [AA & the recovery group] over apologetics by everyone except xians.
BTW, being you started this thread, why is the recovery group included, are
you that cocksure you can ***** them even more?
existence, relationship, and predication respectively."
[Raymond E. Brown (ed.), "The Gospel According to John,"
(Doubleday, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 4]
Apologetics don't cut it. Now, about this monotheism you are pimping &
claiming to be able to verify?
So, this doctrine would hold to the following propositions:
(1) Jesus is the Logos.
False assumptions base on presumptions is still false. Logic, as pointed
out previously, need only be logical.
Now, about the evidence if you please. Or be a courteous troll & apologise
ti the A & Recovery groups & unass the AO & go back to making points with
your fellow bleaters.
(2) The Logos is God.
Your unfounded presumption based on a series of books that Yahweh did not
allow. Your mythology, You can deal with it as best you can.
(3) Jesus is God.
Accordong to you, historically that lie does not fly. Based on the parent
myth, that lie does not fly.
snip again
But Walksalone snipped this bit above. I wonder why?
Because it has nothing to do with what can be verified.
A logical proof based on false assumptions is still false. Or didn't you
learn that yet?
Spooky is a xian invention, there is no holy spirit ion the OT.
There is the Ruach Elohim. Whether or not that is identical to the
Holy Spirit may be up for exegetical debate, but the point is the OT
does refer to the Spirit of God, and I would imagine we could sensibly
refer to the Ruach as sanctified and holy (qodesh).
Imagine as you wish, the parent myth dos not agree with you, nor does the
founding myths for that myth.
[Romans 3:29-30] Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of
Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, who
will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
that same faith.
That doe snot say there is only one god, but that only one god can do
the job according to the writer.
Am I the only one who is beginning to seriously doubt how well
Walksalone understands the relevant discussion? The above seems to be
You are the one making the claims, yet you are the one that does not even
know the foundation of your myth. A common trait.
a very clear allusion to Monotheism. But wait, it gets better...
[1 Corinthians 8:4] So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We
know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that THERE IS NO
GOD BUT ONE.
Again, you have a conflict. The writer claims to know there is but one
god, & yet, it mentions idols, which are considered betel's for other
gods by the society that worships them.
What kind of an objection is this? The point was to show clear
A valid one. You see, I misspelled bethels, & you missed it. The word
bethel meant the presence of god in early Hebraic. It was an idol by
definition. So, given your claim, the writer admits there are other gods &
attempts to downplay their significance to mere objects. One could say an
early Gregory the Great, who used a similar approach.
Monotheistic proclamations in the NT, and this is one of them. It
positively asserts that an idol is nothing, and then goes on to
The NT is not exactly the cutting edge ion mythology, especially since
Yahweh did not permit it. Read your Torah [the first five books of the OT],
& learn about why your myth is not accepted by its parent myth.
You see, your writer lied, but then, one has to actually read of the times
& the mytghology's to learn that. Very few xians do, & I knows of no
bleater that has & can intelligently discuss those times & beliefs.
positively assert that "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE." Regardless of
whether this claim is true or not, the fact remains that it is a clear
proclamation of Monotheism.
A declaratrion in a unauthorised edition carry's the weight of a frog fart
at 50000 feet above the md atlantic.
Now, had the idols [bethels] been left out, you would have had a better
argument, & I would have agreed. But they were not. It is a trend found in
the parent myth, the priesthood forcing monotheism down people's throats,
whether they liked it or not.
[1 Timothy 2:5] For THERE IS ONE GOD and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus,
The according to that passage, your non-existent Jesus the Christ [fact,
not fiction based on requirements failed by your Jesus the Christ if it
ever existed as claimed in your grimorie]
Anyone else have any idea what this is supposed to mean? The point is
Yes, I am sorry you lack the ability to read in context, in this case the
entire missives content.
You are asserting a trinity, you are asserting that a part of that trinity
is one Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.
Historically that individual does not exist, so it can not be part of your
trinity.
Yet, you are making that claim, poorly, but making the claim for all of
that.
that the text positively asserts that "THERE IS ONE GOD," which seems
to be a clear allusion to Monotheism. Walksalone never responds to the
relevant point.
When you make a point, I might. But the assertion that there is only one
god, when coupled with evidence for the knowledge of other gods, is not a
very good argument for monotheism. Sounds good though.
[James 2:19] You believe that THERE IS ONE GOD. Good! Even the demons
believe that–and shudder.
Yet, by definition, demons are gods. Mayhap not yours, but they are
indeed divine in nature & meet the base requirements to be called gods.
At this point we see how desparate Walksalone has become. The question
No, we see you heading for the door.
Define a god so that in no way a demon can be a god, & you define your gods
out of existence.
As I have said, I have studied the gods of humanity. Demons are minor gods
& come in three basic proclivities. In no particular order, good, neutral,
or evil.
There is one trait you can not deny them, a trait shred by every god
claimed by humanity, they are supernatural.
There is another trait, they may or may not meddle in the affairs of
humanity.
Unlike the major gods, they are limited in actual supernatural powers, but
then, all the gods were to some degree.
was whether there are Monotheistic proclamations in the NT, and the
above is one of them. Does the author of the epistle attributed to
James consider demons to be gods? I think the answer is clearly no.
Doesn't matter, when pushing an agenda, one does not always lay all of ones
knowledge on the table. & that is what the NT is when you et down to it, an
agenda pushed by a priesthood, whether they were recognised by that title
or not.
So, in conclusion, the OT has at least one Monotheistic proclamation
(that being Isaiah 44:6), and by the time the NT books were being
Not really, who wrote Isaiah? & the actual OT is the Torah, everything else
is commentary & justification. As well as a redaction in everything prior
to & including Ezra.
So, you are trying to appeal to the authority of the of OT writers, which
do not apply to the xian mythology until it s useful, & twist a passage to
fit you terms. What do you really know about the Isaiah time &
predictions?
Apparently not very much.
formulated we find a great deal more Monotheistic proclamations
amongst the Jews (at least the ones who made up the Proto-Christian
community).
Now you are getting specific & changing your dance.
Pre-Pauline xianity is very different in its base approach to the godhead,
& I am not certain if anyone will ever figure out what it was. But Pauline
it wasn't, for there is no indications of it being a spiritual quest. That
started with Saul.
walksalone who is not surprised at the approach Nico is taking, after all,
he is claiming knowledge he does not & can not display while pretending to
have it be perfectly logical.
--
As the caterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs
on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.
[William Blake, Proverbs of Hell ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
07 Jun 2004 01:53:32 PM |
|
|
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message news:<7a387fb3839c8bd68ef554b2c7dc6435@news.teranews.com>...
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
No, that we do not. You give the evidence below.
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elohim, gods, plural. Not singular, not royal, plural. Isaiah also referes
to the elohim of Egypt.
Fine. That is besides the point. The Hebrew "ein elohim mibal'aday"
means "there are no elohim [gods] besides me". That is a positive
Not reading or speaking Hebrew, I will wait until I meet a qualified
scholar for an opinion on what it actually means.
So if you don't know the language, how can you even attempt to speak
on this issue? In the mean time, have you tried considering an English
translation (exempli gratia: NIV, JPS, et cetera)? So far I have found
no popular translation that contradicts my own.
assertion that there are no other gods. Seems pretty clear to me. As
for Elohim not necessarily being plural, one can simply see Genesis
1:27, where the Hebrew verb libro is conjugated in the third person
No, that one can not do if one is to be honest with oneself. One should, &
can, find the remainder of the story. It runs along these lines.
The worship of el is known from ca. -6k Gr., which predates the Jewish
mythos by no less than 4k years.
So? the question is whether Isaiah 44:6 is a clear proclamation of
Monotheism, not where El was worshipped, and by whom. Try to stay
focused.
singular. But this is beside the point. What the actual point is, is
that while the author of Genesis may have been a henotheist, the
statement above from Isaiah is clearly Monotheistic.
As I indicated, it is not. The society was still polytheistic in spite of
the priesthood pushing for a Yahweh only god.
The society may or may not have been polytheistic. That doesn't answer
the question of whether Isaiah 44:6 is Monotheistic.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
That makes no sense & is not biblically supported,
Actually the Biblical support for this position is John 1:1. I guess
The NT is against the instructions of Yahweh, so I guess it is an
apologetic work nor of authoritative value.
Okay, so you're hostile towards the NT. Nonetheless, the NT has at
least one verse that agrees with the Christian position that Jesus was
God in a sense of predication, and the NT, in case you forgot, is part
of the Christian Bible. When you talked about "Biblical support," I
assumed you meant Christian Bible, since this discussion is on the
topic of a Christian doctrine.
So, this doctrine would hold to the following propositions:
(1) Jesus is the Logos.
False assumptions base on presumptions is still false. Logic, as pointed
out previously, need only be logical.
Now, about the evidence if you please. Or be a courteous troll & apologise
ti the A & Recovery groups & unass the AO & go back to making points with
your fellow bleaters.
(2) The Logos is God.
Your unfounded presumption based on a series of books that Yahweh did not
allow. Your mythology, You can deal with it as best you can.
(3) Jesus is God.
Accordong to you, historically that lie does not fly. Based on the parent
myth, that lie does not fly.
I never claimed these three propositions are historical fact. It seems
you don't even understand the post you are responding to.
[1 Corinthians 8:4] So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We
know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that THERE IS NO
GOD BUT ONE.
Again, you have a conflict. The writer claims to know there is but one
god, & yet, it mentions idols, which are considered betel's for other
gods by the society that worships them.
What kind of an objection is this? The point was to show clear
A valid one. You see, I misspelled bethels, & you missed it. The word
bethel meant the presence of god in early Hebraic. It was an idol by
definition. So, given your claim, the writer admits there are other gods &
attempts to downplay their significance to mere objects.
It states that there are idols, but they are nothing, and then it
proclaims there to be only one God. That is a clear Monotheistic
reference. The question was are there monotheistic references in the
NT. The verse above allows us to answer in the affirmative. That was
the point of the discussion.
Snip the rest...
.
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
07 Jun 2004 04:26:50 PM |
|
|
On 7 Jun 2004 11:53:32 -0700, Nico Demusopelous wrote:
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message news:<7a387fb3839c8bd68ef554b2c7dc6435@news.teranews.com>...
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
No, that we do not. You give the evidence below.
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elohim, gods, plural. Not singular, not royal, plural. Isaiah also referes
to the elohim of Egypt.
Fine. That is besides the point. The Hebrew "ein elohim mibal'aday"
means "there are no elohim [gods] besides me". That is a positive
Not reading or speaking Hebrew, I will wait until I meet a qualified
scholar for an opinion on what it actually means.
So if you don't know the language, how can you even attempt to speak
I do know some that speak the language, native speakers. Next question?
BTW, what dos not reading the original language have to do with it when
there are plenty of scholarly works on the subject, even you could read
them. You might try t some time, does not wonders for ignorance.
on this issue? In the mean time, have you tried considering an English
translation (exempli gratia: NIV, JPS, et cetera)? So far I have found
no popular translation that contradicts my own.
Maybe you might try the Hebrew Bible, you may have heard of it. It is the
one that precedes your do it ourself versions.
snip
No, that one can not do if one is to be honest with oneself. One should, &
can, find the remainder of the story. It runs along these lines.
The worship of el is known from ca. -6k Gr., which predates the Jewish
mythos by no less than 4k years.
So? the question is whether Isaiah 44:6 is a clear proclamation of
Monotheism, not where El was worshipped, and by whom. Try to stay
focused.
I am, however, that is the added Isaiah, so it is not accepted as concrete.
Not that it would matter to you according to your posting history in AA.
Now, you have to show that the passage was really written by Isaiah.
Then you need to actually date the passage. But you won't.
singular. But this is beside the point. What the actual point is, is
that while the author of Genesis may have been a henotheist, the
statement above from Isaiah is clearly Monotheistic.
As I indicated, it is not. The society was still polytheistic in spite of
the priesthood pushing for a Yahweh only god.
The society may or may not have been polytheistic. That doesn't answer
the question of whether Isaiah 44:6 is Monotheistic.
The question is Isaiah 44 actually a valid passage & not an insertion.
Now, if it is, then I would ask a Rabbi to verify it, as well as verify it
fits the era & philosophy. Remember, Yahweh ad cut off proclamations &
supposedly was not talking to humans anymore. Yet, you have a prophet that
says he is talking to god. Do you believe Yahweh, or a human seems to be
the question for you to consider.
BTW, I am not really concerned about whether Isaiah say one or the other.
The question you are sliding away from was when the society formally
accepted monotheism. The fact is that Jews were still polytheistic at the
time of Isaiah.
Try leaving the message portion you are claiming to rebut in the message.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
That makes no sense & is not biblically supported,
Actually the Biblical support for this position is John 1:1. I guess
The NT is against the instructions of Yahweh, so I guess it is an
apologetic work nor of authoritative value.
Okay, so you're hostile towards the NT. Nonetheless, the NT has at
Not really, but if the word of Yahweh is valid, then the NT is not even
allowed. Which according to your parent myth, is not. Not really
complicated.
least one verse that agrees with the Christian position that Jesus was
God in a sense of predication, and the NT, in case you forgot, is part
Which, according to Yahweh, your tome is null & void. Now, that should tell
you something, but it won't. Just because you are willing to accept fairy
tales does not mean I am.
of the Christian Bible. When you talked about "Biblical support," I
Which is not a valid claim according to the parent myth.
assumed you meant Christian Bible, since this discussion is on the
topic of a Christian doctrine.
No, your claim is that using a false set of presumptions, you can logically
establish a basis for a trinity which is against the parent myth yours is
based on.
So why would I accept a false doctrine as a valid base for a logical claim
which implies that your claims have any validity.
So, this doctrine would hold to the following propositions:
(1) Jesus is the Logos.
False assumptions base on presumptions is still false. Logic, as pointed
out previously, need only be logical.
Now, about the evidence if you please. Or be a courteous troll & apologise
ti the A & Recovery groups & unass the AO & go back to making points with
your fellow bleaters.
(2) The Logos is God.
Your unfounded presumption based on a series of books that Yahweh did not
allow. Your mythology, You can deal with it as best you can.
(3) Jesus is God.
Accordong to you, historically that lie does not fly. Based on the parent
myth, that lie does not fly.
I never claimed these three propositions are historical fact. It seems
The observation, due to your inability to read in context is not about your
logical construction that s in fact based on false premises, but the fact
that historically the pimp on a stick of the xian myth is a no show.
you don't even understand the post you are responding to.
If you would not cut out what you are responding to, then you might have
some validity to your claim. The fact s you don't know what you are trying
to do, other than impress others that kiss your gods asses. & yes, that is
plural.
snip
What kind of an objection is this? The point was to show clear
A valid one. You see, I misspelled bethels, & you missed it. The word
bethel meant the presence of god in early Hebraic. It was an idol by
definition. So, given your claim, the writer admits there are other gods &
attempts to downplay their significance to mere objects.
It states that there are idols, but they are nothing, and then it
Idols, were the physical presence of gods, with a bethel is & as. Now, that
may offend your sensibilities, but after all your claims for a god as being
primate or primary, the admission is that there are other gods. Not real
complicated, for most people.
It is not atheists that have a problem with understanding that idols ae
gods for all practical purposes.
proclaims there to be only one God. That is a clear Monotheistic
After acknowledging the other gods, proclaiming a single god is a bit of a
contradiction to most people.
reference. The question was are there monotheistic references in the
NT. The verse above allows us to answer in the affirmative. That was
the point of the discussion.
That was not where you started, but even in that you have failed to
demonstrate that the false claim of a sperate god. The clam for a single
god, while admitting to the presence & existence of other gods, rings
hollow to those that can read & comprehend in context.
Snip the rest...
Unless you can establish you claims, which do not include the presence of
other gods, you are whizzing upwind.
Have a nice day & feel free to not respond, for you have yet to add to the
conversation & trying to get others to buy your song while removing
portions of the message & not marking them, well, I prefer to try for
conversations with people that can read in context. & actually know what
they are talking about. After all, I am here to learn. But not learn
***** that is founded on wishes.
walksalone who has no doubt that though this should be the end of it, but
would not be shocked if it is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benny Brice" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
07 Jun 2004 08:21:22 PM |
|
|
"walksalone" <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message
news:1ggil3p9l0rvv.kchnjmo4ga8v.dlg@40tude.net...
proclaims there to be only one God. That is a clear Monotheistic
After acknowledging the other gods, proclaiming a single god is a bit of a
contradiction to most people.
The following might be of interest:
"Israel's Polytheist Origins" by Avraham ben Pesach
http://geocities.com/abpesach/gods.htm
Happy reading!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
07 Jun 2004 09:03:37 PM |
|
|
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message news:<1ggil3p9l0rvv.kchnjmo4ga8v.dlg@40tude.net>...
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
No, that we do not. You give the evidence below.
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elohim, gods, plural. Not singular, not royal, plural. Isaiah also
referes to the elohim of Egypt.
Fine. That is besides the point. The Hebrew "ein elohim mibal'aday"
means "there are no elohim [gods] besides me". That is a positive
Not reading or speaking Hebrew, I will wait until I meet a qualified
scholar for an opinion on what it actually means.
So if you don't know the language, how can you even attempt to speak
I do know some that speak the language, native speakers. Next question?
BTW, what dos not reading the original language have to do with it when
there are plenty of scholarly works on the subject, even you could read
them. You might try t some time, does not wonders for ignorance.
Can you cite one, just one, scholarly work that positively asserts
that Isaiah 44:6 is not a reference to Monotheism?
on this issue? In the mean time, have you tried considering an English
translation (exempli gratia: NIV, JPS, et cetera)? So far I have found
no popular translation that contradicts my own.
Maybe you might try the Hebrew Bible, you may have heard of it. It is the
one that precedes your do it ourself versions.
Um, yeah, when I gave the translitered Hebrew above it came straight
out of my Qoren TaNaKh. But you disputed my translation, so I offered
you to see if any of the professional translations differ with my own.
No, that one can not do if one is to be honest with oneself. One should, &
can, find the remainder of the story. It runs along these lines.
The worship of el is known from ca. -6k Gr., which predates the Jewish
mythos by no less than 4k years.
So? the question is whether Isaiah 44:6 is a clear proclamation of
Monotheism, not where El was worshipped, and by whom. Try to stay
focused.
I am, however, that is the added Isaiah, so it is not accepted as concrete.
WOW! This is ridiculous. First of all, cite one, just one, scholarly
source (not a web site) that states that Isaiah 44:6 is an
interpolation. Second, you should reread the post you originally
responded to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406041506.66954f61%40posting.google.com
I was responding to Midjis' point that, as far as he knew, there is
"no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God ever says He is
the only one." so I cited Isaiah 44:6, which is presently part of the
OT (in every edition of the Hebrew Bible that I have, as well as every
translation I have).
So to recap. There was a question of whether the OT every proclaims
explicit Monotheism, and the answer was given via Isaiah 44:6.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
That makes no sense & is not biblically supported,
Actually the Biblical support for this position is John 1:1. I guess
The NT is against the instructions of Yahweh, so I guess it is an
apologetic work nor of authoritative value.
Okay, so you're hostile towards the NT. Nonetheless, the NT has at
Not really, but if the word of Yahweh is valid, then the NT is not even
allowed. Which according to your parent myth, is not. Not really
complicated.
least one verse that agrees with the Christian position that Jesus was
God in a sense of predication, and the NT, in case you forgot, is part
Which, according to Yahweh, your tome is null & void. Now, that should tell
you something, but it won't. Just because you are willing to accept fairy
tales does not mean I am.
of the Christian Bible. When you talked about "Biblical support," I
Which is not a valid claim according to the parent myth.
assumed you meant Christian Bible, since this discussion is on the
topic of a Christian doctrine.
No, your claim is that using a false set of presumptions, you can logically
establish a basis for a trinity which is against the parent myth yours is
based on.
What? The discussion was on a Christian docrtine (the Trinity) and
whether a logically consistent model of that doctrine could be
provided. I provided such, and then the question was asked about
"Biblical support" for the position that Jesus was God in a sense of
predication, and that was where John 1:1 came in (I assumed "Biblical
support" for a doctrine regarding Jesus was a reference to the
Christian Bible).
What kind of an objection is this? The point was to show clear
A valid one. You see, I misspelled bethels, & you missed it. The word
bethel meant the presence of god in early Hebraic. It was an idol by
definition. So, given your claim, the writer admits there are other gods &
attempts to downplay their significance to mere objects.
It states that there are idols, but they are nothing, and then it
Idols, were the physical presence of gods, with a bethel is & as. Now, that
may offend your sensibilities, but after all your claims for a god as being
primate or primary, the admission is that there are other gods.
Again, the question was if there were any Monotheistic references in
the NT (see Bogey's post). The answer is yes, because Romans 3:29-30,
1 Corinthians 8:4, et cetera, takes the typical Monotheistic position:
deny that there is anything divine about idols, and proclaim there to
be only one God. So again, the question was are there any Monotheistic
references in the NT, and the answer is yes.
proclaims there to be only one God. That is a clear Monotheistic
After acknowledging the other gods, proclaiming a single god is a bit of a
contradiction to most people.
Calling idols "nothing" and stating that there is only one God is the
*OPPOSITE* of acknowledging other gods. It is denying the existence of
other gods, hence Monotheism.
reference. The question was are there monotheistic references in the
NT. The verse above allows us to answer in the affirmative. That was
the point of the discussion.
That was not where you started,
Um, first see my response to Bogey:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406041429.4dca9f3c%40posting.google.com
Then see your response:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4b7e5287a6f0e011871820a37f0e8aa%40news.teranews.com
You entered in a discussion about whether there are monotheistic
references in the NT. You seem unable to grasp why the answer to the
question is yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
08 Jun 2004 02:33:34 AM |
|
|
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On 7 Jun 2004 19:03:37 -0700, Nico Demusopelous wrote:
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote in message news:<1ggil3p9l0rvv.kchnjmo4ga8v.dlg@40tude.net>...
This sort of henotheism does seem to be the belief system of the
author(s) of the Torah (or at least given parts of the Torah, like
B'reshit/Genesis), but by the time we get even to Isaiah we start to
see clear statements of monotheism (cf. Isaiah 44:6 - "umibali'aday
No, that we do not. You give the evidence below.
ein elohim" - "besides me there are no gods").
Elohim, gods, plural. Not singular, not royal, plural. Isaiah also
referes to the elohim of Egypt.
Fine. That is besides the point. The Hebrew "ein elohim mibal'aday"
means "there are no elohim [gods] besides me". That is a positive
Not reading or speaking Hebrew, I will wait until I meet a qualified
scholar for an opinion on what it actually means.
So if you don't know the language, how can you even attempt to speak
I do know some that speak the language, native speakers. Next question?
BTW, what dos not reading the original language have to do with it when
there are plenty of scholarly works on the subject, even you could read
them. You might try t some time, does not wonders for ignorance.
Can you cite one, just one, scholarly work that positively asserts
that Isaiah 44:6 is not a reference to Monotheism?
Would you accept such information as being from a real scholar. Yu see, the
problem you have created is two fold. You are assuming that Isaiah 44 is
where it belongs & is as described. This is not necessarily true, & there
are those that argue it is not. For me, this is moot as my interest is in
the claims for gods & any supporting evidence. The grimorie, as you know if
you are as you have presented yourself, is not evidence for that claim.
As to positive assertions, I have yet to encounter those anywhere but
apologetics & on the fringes of the fields of science, in those fields
where argumentation of that type is possible.
I can truthfully say that the scholars I have read present the evidence,
give their conclusions as their own, & leave it up to the student to make
up their own minds on the subject. But then, mythologists of the xian
persuasion are not what I would normally refer to as scholars. That
definition did not start life with the baggage it carry's now.
That is not to say they can not be, but usually the quality of work in the
apologetics work that I have read is not anything near what I would call
scholarly.
on this issue? In the mean time, have you tried considering an English
translation (exempli gratia: NIV, JPS, et cetera)? So far I have found
no popular translation that contradicts my own.
Maybe you might try the Hebrew Bible, you may have heard of it. It is the
one that precedes your do it ourself versions.
Um, yeah, when I gave the translitered Hebrew above it came straight
out of my Qoren TaNaKh. But you disputed my translation, so I offered
you to see if any of the professional translations differ with my own.
No, I stated I would wait until I met a person qualified to explain it to
me. Based on your posting here in AA, you are not a such a person. Does not
mean you are dishonest, just that you have yet to establish the credentials
I need to take you at your word where your myth is involved.
Or is your reading comprehension problem not restricted to your mythology?
I used to have one until I started using reading glasses instead of my
regular glasses, letters were not in the combination I thought they were on
the screen. A eight year old pointed that out during one of our mythology
classes.
No, that one can not do if one is to be honest with oneself. One should, &
can, find the remainder of the story. It runs along these lines.
The worship of el is known from ca. -6k Gr., which predates the Jewish
mythos by no less than 4k years.
So? the question is whether Isaiah 44:6 is a clear proclamation of
Monotheism, not where El was worshipped, and by whom. Try to stay
focused.
I am, however, that is the added Isaiah, so it is not accepted as concrete.
WOW! This is ridiculous. First of all, cite one, just one, scholarly
Yes iot is, that was why O suggested you drop it instead of trying to play
the audience.
source (not a web site) that states that Isaiah 44:6 is an
interpolation. Second, you should reread the post you originally
responded to:
I have the post, & the reply's. Those reply's include much that is
currently missing. & frankly, your argumentation then was based on false
premises which you, by implication in accepting those false premises,
insinuate are valid.
snip
I was responding to Midjis' point that, as far as he knew, there is
There is none, just claims written by people claiming to speak for it. A
trait found in the other mythology's of the world. Surely you don't think
yours is unique do you.
"no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God ever says He is
the only one." so I cited Isaiah 44:6, which is presently part of the
OT (in every edition of the Hebrew Bible that I have, as well as every
translation I have).
Yes, it is in the current renditions, but I leave the validity for the
claim f it being original work up to serious biblical scholars. Curious, do
you know of any xians in that field of enquiry?
So to recap. There was a question of whether the OT every proclaims
explicit Monotheism, and the answer was given via Isaiah 44:6.
To recap, you just said in the above quoted material the question was did
El ever say, or Yahweh when he replaced El, he was the only god. Answer,
no, they did not. They have to exist first, & even then, it is recorded as
a claim. So, n, they did not.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
That makes no sense & is not biblically supported,
Actually the Biblical support for this position is John 1:1. I guess
The NT is against the instructions of Yahweh, so I guess it is an
apologetic work nor of authoritative value.
Okay, so you're hostile towards the NT. Nonetheless, the NT has at
Not really, but if the word of Yahweh is valid, then the NT is not even
allowed. Which according to your parent myth, is not. Not really
complicated.
Now why am I not surprised there is no rebuttal here?
least one verse that agrees with the Christian position that Jesus was
God in a sense of predication, and the NT, in case you forgot, is part
Which, according to Yahweh, your tome is null & void. Now, that should tell
you something, but it won't. Just because you are willing to accept fairy
tales does not mean I am.
Again no rebuttal, not that there is any successful one.
of the Christian Bible. When you talked about "Biblical support," I
Which is not a valid claim according to the parent myth.
assumed you meant Christian Bible, since this discussion is on the
topic of a Christian doctrine.
No, your claim is that using a false set of presumptions, you can logically
establish a basis for a trinity which is against the parent myth yours is
based on.
What? The discussion was on a Christian docrtine (the Trinity) and
whether a logically consistent model of that doctrine could be
One last time, for a thing to be logical does not require it to be true,
your claim presented your fabrication as valid [logically correct] &
implied it is true [false due to the assumptions it was based on]. That is
really all I have said, & I am not much worried over what you think I have
said.
Now, I have used your grimorie to show that. Whether you have the ability
to comprehend that or not is not a concern of mine.
Most importantly, you can not use it to show where any god claimed by
xianity stated it was the only god period. & thing, like providing evidence
for your myth, you can not do.
provided. I provided such, and then the question was asked about
"Biblical support" for the position that Jesus was God in a sense of
predication, and that was where John 1:1 came in (I assumed "Biblical
Wrong assumption, Yahweh says there is no further additions allowed.
Even some xians are aware of this, yet humans freely added to it.
& Yahweh didn't smite them so it must be alright, for you.
support" for a doctrine regarding Jesus was a reference to the
Christian Bible).
If the whole thing does not support your claim, then your claim is built
on false foundations. After all, your myth [ik indeed you are xikan] is
based on a prior myth & claims that parent myth as the authority for its
claims.
What kind of an objection is this? The point was to show clear
A valid one. You see, I misspelled bethels, & you missed it. The word
bethel meant the presence of god in early Hebraic. It was an idol by
definition. So, given your claim, the writer admits there are other gods &
attempts to downplay their significance to mere objects.
It states that there are idols, but they are nothing, and then it
Idols, were the physical presence of gods, with a bethel is & as. Now, that
may offend your sensibilities, but after all your claims for a god as being
primate or primary, the admission is that there are other gods.
Again, the question was if there were any Monotheistic references in
the NT (see Bogey's post). The answer is yes, because Romans 3:29-30,
1 Corinthians 8:4, et cetera, takes the typical Monotheistic position:
deny that there is anything divine about idols, and proclaim there to
be only one God. So again, the question was are there any Monotheistic
references in the NT, and the answer is yes.
Sorry, Idols are & were divine, which had you actually done much study in
the field of gods you would know. The fact is that there are xian
apologetics [you didn't think that propaganda was reserved for recent
history I hope] that claim they are monotheistic, while in the same breath
mentioning other gods does not support your claim.
proclaims there to be only one God. That is a clear Monotheistic
After acknowledging the other gods, proclaiming a single god is a bit of a
contradiction to most people.
Calling idols "nothing" and stating that there is only one God is the
You can call, the sun a dust mote, & universe wide, be correct. It is still
the sun.
In case you missed it, making a claim is not the same thing as an absolute
truth. After all, the NT propagandists were pimping a new god in town, so
did you really expect them to admit they knew there were other gods running
around?
*OPPOSITE* of acknowledging other gods. It is denying the existence of
other gods, hence Monotheism.
Again, your comprehension problem is hitting you upside the head.
Is a lie the truth, according to you it is if I read the above as you seem
to mean it.
reference. The question was are there monotheistic references in the
NT. The verse above allows us to answer in the affirmative. That was
the point of the discussion.
That was not where you started,
Um, first see my response to Bogey:
But I am not Bopey, now am I. Apparently your response did not satisfy me,
hence this present tail chasing of your.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406041429.4dca9f3c%40posting.google.com
Then see your response:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4b7e5287a6f0e011871820a37f0e8aa%40news.teranews.com
I have my own copy, but you are doing it right if others are interested in
the conversation.
You entered in a discussion about whether there are monotheistic
I as in he conversation early on, prior to any requests for information
about monotheistic claims in the NT.
Now, if you are willing to accept the references you quote as claims in an
outlaw work, suits me.
The facts are many, & very few to your liking.
Do you really know the history of your mythology, or liked so many of the
bleater brigade, mine it for the parts you think verify your beliefs?
references in the NT. You seem unable to grasp why the answer to the
question is yes.
A reference in the NT is a claim, but your gods have stated the NT is an
illegal work. Not my problem
What you have failed to notice, it is not the claim I question, but the
authority of that claim, as well as whether it is historically correct.
Given your parent myth, it can not be both.
Not to add, it does nothing to add to my knowledge of the gods of humanity,
so is moot to me in any aspect.
walksalone who was correct, Nico can not let it rest.
Congratulations, I am not playing anymore unless I see my name & errors
attached to it, such as things I have said not, or something taken way out
of context.
What does this mean to you, congratulations, you are the daily/hourly
winner, of nothing, but a winner for all of that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
05 Jun 2004 05:37:14 AM |
|
|
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote:
walksalone who has stumbled on some odd information during the study
of the gods of humanity. Bizarre might be a better word.
It often is a useful word where organised religion is concerned.
However, I think I am inclined to leave this discussion for those who can
read Hebrew, since it seems as meaningless my trying to interpret the
'true' meaning of words in a repeatedly-translated and edited holy text as
it would be to try to build a religion on them.
I think on balance, though, I maintain my belief that the OT does not
assume or claim 'God' to be the only god.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
05 Jun 2004 06:34:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 10:37:14 +0000 (UTC), Midjis wrote:
walksalone <spam@fcc.gov> wrote:
walksalone who has stumbled on some odd information during the study
of the gods of humanity. Bizarre might be a better word.
It often is a useful word where organised religion is concerned.
Accurate as well.
However, I think I am inclined to leave this discussion for those who can
read Hebrew, since it seems as meaningless my trying to interpret the
Not necessary, there are now several good works out that trace the
development of the Jewish mythology. Several on line.
'true' meaning of words in a repeatedly-translated and edited holy text as
it would be to try to build a religion on them.
Yet there are those that try to do just that. Odd.
I think on balance, though, I maintain my belief that the OT does not
assume or claim 'God' to be the only god.
AAMOF, you need not assume that. Starting with the creation myth, which is
not something from nothing [that bit is Jewish in origin, around -165 Gr.
time frame], the evidence is in writing.
walksalone who is still working on the gods of xianity, whether xians like
it or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 12:12:13 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0406031903.680e50df@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
So your position is that God is an organization of three
different entities and not an independent being?
That would be akin to positively asserting that the model reflects
reality, wouldn't it? What I said was "I am not asserting that this
description is true (i.e. that it reflects reality)." What I am
asserting is that the following seven points are neither logically
incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent:
(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.
As for whether such a model makes God "an organization of three
different entities," I would say that it certainly does.
Ah, so god is a committee. That would explain the inconsistency and
inefficiency, not to mention the budget.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
05 Jun 2004 04:10:11 PM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote in message news:<2c68d44e.0406031903.680e50df@posting.google.com>...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
So your position is that God is an organization of three
different entities and not an independent being?
That would be akin to positively asserting that the model reflects
reality, wouldn't it? What I said was "I am not asserting that this
description is true (i.e. that it reflects reality)." What I am
asserting is that the following seven points are neither logically
incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent:
(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.
As for whether such a model makes God "an organization of three
different entities," I would say that it certainly does. As for
whether or not a multipersonal being is independent, I don't see why
its multipersonal ontology has to necessarily conflict with its
independence. Richard Swinburne, in his book "The Christian God," has
some wonderful stuff on models in which the will of each person is in
harmony with the wills of the other two, which would allow them to
work as a unit.
But this moves away from the original point. You claimed the Trinity
is "illogical". Do you believe the model above (and the explanation
given in this thread) is logically inconsistent?
Jehovah was definitely the 9,000-lb big shot in the olden days. The
early Christian church even acknowledged some Greek and Roman gods.
Logic has nothing to do with religion. Heck, logic can't even solve a
couple of very serious problems in mathematics.
We need to find out exactly how the Trinity functions and how often
they meet. And whether they ever do lunch with Brahma, Vishnu, and
Shiva.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 05:48:24 AM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His followers
worship Him alone. And His behaviour certainly seems to be that of someone
under pressure of competition.
This would be consistent with what I understand was the standard religious
model at the time of Abraham, under which each household or group - even
individuals - might have their own god or gods.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
| User: "bogie" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 11:01:29 AM |
|
|
"Midjis" < @ . > wrote in message
news:Xns94FE78321148CLibraLibertasEst@217.32.252.50...
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His followers
worship Him alone. And His behaviour certainly seems to be that of
someone
under pressure of competition.
This would be consistent with what I understand was the standard religious
model at the time of Abraham, under which each household or group - even
individuals - might have their own god or gods.
I'm just being lazy, I know. But, is the claim that "He is the only one" in
the New Testament at all?
bogie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 05:29:36 PM |
|
|
"bogie" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<t11wc.19394$Ba.10643@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His followers
worship Him alone. And His behaviour certainly seems to be that of
someone under pressure of competition.
This would be consistent with what I understand was the standard religious
model at the time of Abraham, under which each household or group - even
individuals - might have their own god or gods.
I'm just being lazy, I know. But, is the claim that "He is the only one" in
the New Testament at all?
I myself didn't know the answer to this, and had to go on a search.
Some of the verses I found were ones I already knew about, but for
some reason did not immediately come to mind. Anyway, the answer to
your question, I believe, is yes. Here are the verses I have found
(from the NIV):
[Romans 3:29-30] Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of
Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, who
will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
that same faith.
[1 Corinthians 8:4] So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We
know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that THERE IS NO
GOD BUT ONE.
[1 Timothy 2:5] For THERE IS ONE GOD and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus,
[James 2:19] You believe that THERE IS ONE GOD. Good! Even the demons
believe that–and shudder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 08:59:23 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 15:29:36 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
"bogie" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<t11wc.19394$Ba.10643@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His followers
worship Him alone. And His behaviour certainly seems to be that of
someone under pressure of competition.
This would be consistent with what I understand was the standard religious
model at the time of Abraham, under which each household or group - even
individuals - might have their own god or gods.
I'm just being lazy, I know. But, is the claim that "He is the only one" in
the New Testament at all?
I myself didn't know the answer to this, and had to go on a search.
Some of the verses I found were ones I already knew about, but for
some reason did not immediately come to mind. Anyway, the answer to
your question, I believe, is yes. Here are the verses I have found
(from the NIV):
Only one tiny little problem, Nico: your quotes proof ... nothing at
all. Otherwise, the books of Mrs. Rowling proof Hogwart to exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bogie" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 10:50:32 PM |
|
|
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:5o82c01vm2norfceqsg6g87mn6g1d55ivr@4ax.com...
On 4 Jun 2004 15:29:36 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
"bogie" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<t11wc.19394$Ba.10643@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there
is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian
God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands
seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His
followers
worship Him alone. And His behaviour certainly seems to be that of
someone under pressure of competition.
This would be consistent with what I understand was the standard
religious
model at the time of Abraham, under which each household or group -
even
individuals - might have their own god or gods.
I'm just being lazy, I know. But, is the claim that "He is the only
one" in
the New Testament at all?
I myself didn't know the answer to this, and had to go on a search.
Some of the verses I found were ones I already knew about, but for
some reason did not immediately come to mind. Anyway, the answer to
your question, I believe, is yes. Here are the verses I have found
(from the NIV):
Only one tiny little problem, Nico: your quotes proof ... nothing at
all. Otherwise, the books of Mrs. Rowling proof Hogwart to exist.
Granted. But to be fair, that wasn't my question. See above.
bogie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com |
04 Jun 2004 07:20:46 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 15:29:36 -0700, Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"bogie" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<t11wc.19394$Ba.10643@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
(1) There is one God.
Slightly off at a tangent, and just as a matter of interest, there is - as
far as I am aware - no point in the OT at which the Judeo-Christian God
ever says He is the only one. Instead, His comments and commands seem to
acknowledge the existence of others whilst insisting that His followers
worship Him alone. And His behaviour certainly seems to be that of
someone under pressure of competition.
This would be consistent with what I understand was the standard religious
model at the time of Abraham, under which each household or group - even
individuals - might have their own god or gods.
I'm just being lazy, I know. But, is the claim that "He is the only one" in
the New Testament at all?
I myself didn't know the answer to this, and had to go on a search.
Some of the verses I found were ones I already knew about, but for
some reason did not immediately come to mind. Anyway, the answer to
your question, I believe, is yes. Here are the verses I have found
(from the NIV):
[Romans 3:29-30] Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of
Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, who
will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
that same faith.
That doe snot say there is only one god, but that only one god can do the
job according to the writer.
[1 Corinthians 8:4] So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We
know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that THERE IS NO
GOD BUT ONE.
Again, you have a conflict. The writer claims to know there is but one god,
& yet, it mentions idols, which are considered betel's for other gods by
the society that worships them.
Now, like it or not, Yahweh closed down persoanl appearances at the end of
th Torah writings, & said add nothing to his word.
So where is the NT considered a legal document IAW Yahweh again.? In my
study's, I have managed to miss that part of the claims for & *by* Yahweh.
[1 Timothy 2:5] For THERE IS ONE GOD and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus,
The according to that passage, your non-existent Jesus the Christ [fact,
not fiction based on requirements failed by your Jesus the Christ if it
ever existed as claimed in your grimorie]
[James 2:19] You believe that THERE IS ONE GOD. Good! Even the demons
believe that–and shudder.
Yet, by definition, demons are gods. Mayhap not yours, but they are indeed
divine in nature & meet the base requirements to be called gods.
walksalone who has studied a few gods in his heyday, & that does include
the xian pantheon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
04 Jun 2004 05:03:14 PM |
|
|
"bogie" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm just being lazy, I know. But, is the claim that "He is the only
one" in the New Testament at all?
To be honest I am not sure. I did not want to claim that it was not, since
by the time of the NT a hierarchical faith had already been established
around this god, with a rigid 'command structure' of sorts, in the form of
the priesthood. It seems consistent with human nature that those who enjoy
power, prestige or influence as a result of participating in such an
arrangement are going to want to maintain it, and a claim that one's own
god is the only god would serve as justification for claiming that everyone
should subscribe to one's own order.
I hope that makes some sense.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: A Logically Coherent Model of the Trinity for the Editor of EvilBible.com (was: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)) |
03 Jun 2004 11:01:22 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: (Nico Demusopelous)
Date written: 3 Jun 2004 20:03:13 -0700
MsgID:<2c68d44e.0406031903.680e50df@posting.google.com>
So your position is that God is an organization of three
different entities and not an independent being?
That would be akin to positively asserting that the model reflects
reality, wouldn't it?
And what "reality" would that be, seeing as all you have are models and nothing
that is actually real. They don't call theology "the study of nothing" for
nothing.
What I said was "I am not asserting that this
description is true (i.e. that it reflects reality)." What I am
asserting is that the following seven points are neither logically
incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent:
(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
By "multipersonal", do you mean split-personality or a committee of three
people?
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
What "sense" would that | |
