And the Dialogue just keeps getting better and better (Or) A Sad Comment on the Current State of [liberal] Oxford Scholarship

I'm not sure whether someone actually felt the need to contact this person, or whether he had been in the discussion earlier, but was out for a while, then came back in again responding to some comments I had made in regards to the nature of God, and the Yahweh/El Elyon issue. Either way this fellow seemed intent on pushing his assertions on me in an almost strangely fundamentalist fashion. What's equally strange about this little discussion is that this gentleman is an Oxford graduate, but from his behaviour and handling of the dialogue you wouldn't actually know this unless he told you. And to be perfectly honest it's when he actually did end a post with his Oxford credentials that I found out he was from Oxford. Before I post the dialogue, I just want to point out to the reader the extremely sad, liberal, corruption that has made itself manifest in many once-solid grounded schools, (of course, this type of corruption has always been at Oxford and every school, but certainly not as much in the past as it is now) and consequently produce graduates who come out skeptical not only of the biblically inerrent texts, but also of past scholarship and by-gone values that we just don't see too often in this world today. Now, of course, Princeton, Oxford, Harvard, and many other universities do indeed contain persons who do apply honest research on issues regarding the Bible, the Church, the historicity of Christ, etc, but they are so few in a world filled with so many who are, well, deluded. I really don't think I have to continue explaining what I mean, since all you need do is take a look at the world around you and see for yourself.

As for this dialogue, not only is it an update on how the discussion is going, but also I want it to be educational especially on the current state of so-called scholarship. I do not consider myself a good debator, but I do consider myself a Christian with a desire to take a stand for the Truth. Now I have no doubt whatsoever many of you would have done a far superior job than I in this debate, but I can honestly say I did as best I could. This goes for any discussion or debate I frequently encounter, online or in person, with various people. I'm certainly no scholar, far, far, far from it in fact. My desire is to learn more and more, and I really do think learning is by experiencing. So, for me, this is a great learning experience.

***

THE DEBATE

(NOTE: In this first post you are about to read, I am responding to another gentleman named Walker. Walker quotes the Oxford graduate, Daniel, with whom I have this debate. The actual quote from Daniel is this:

"Heiser makes quite a few fallacious arguments in this paper. To begin with, this paper glosses over a number of concerns that lead me to believe it's written for a lay audience that won't think to question a lot of his premises. For instance, he neglects to mention the fact that the ml'k yhwh of the Hebrew Bible theophanies is textually suspect. Scholars are quite in agreement that the "ml'k" is a late interpolation meant to avoid direct contact between God and man. Certain texts, however, crept through. Exod 24:10, instance. See Nahum Sarna, Genesis = Be-reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 383; Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990), 296. These text-critical considerations are ignored by Heiser.)


Post #463
1 reply
You replied to Walker's post4 hours ago
"If you use 'humanoid' in the strict sense of resembling human characteristics, then I would agree. However, I hardly think Carol is using 'humanoid' as a synonym for 'anthropomorphic' (or 'theomorphic' in the case of humans)."

I can see your point. But judging from Carol's character it is extremely doubtful she is using it in any other way than the strictest sense.

"Heiser isn't the only scholar on this matter. He disagrees with Mark S. Smith and others that Yahweh was originally a son of El. And Daniel McClellan responded to Heiser's assertion in this case, which I don't believe you ever responded to. Allow me to repost..."

Daniel McClellan makes some strange fallacies here. First, the top scholars, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, would disagree with his assertions. First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT, which, contrary to your assertions, contain:

Genesis 14:22 Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,

Psalm 7:17 I will give thanks to the LORD according to His righteousness And will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.

Psalm 9:1 {For the choir director; on Muth-labben. A Psalm of David.} I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all Your wonders. 2 I will be glad and exult in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High.

Psalm 21:7 For the king trusts in the LORD, And through the loving kindness of the Most High he will not be shaken.

So unless McClellan discounts men such as Kenyon, who affirm that if there is so much as a tiny doubt to any passage of Scripture, we have literally hundreds of very early texts that we may easily refer to that shall clarify a certain translation if it is called into question. If he takes his sources from ancient pagan texts, I fail to see what this has to do at all with orthodox Judaism and Christianity, which rejected such ideas about God historically.

"Heiser also relies heavily on ad hoc fallacies. For instance, he claims Yahweh is incorporeal and invisible unless he "chooses to be detected." This argues from the conclusion, searching for a way to preserve god's incorporeality and explain texts where he is manifestly corporeal. John 4:24 no more indicates divine incorporeality than it indicates human incorporeality. The Greek of John 4 explains that "God is spirit" (NOT "God is a spirit"), but John 3 explains that all people born of the spirit are spirit. The predication is identical to that of John 4, so if one insists John 4:24 indicates God has no body, they must accept that John 3:6 indicates saved humans have no bodies. Heiser skips that consideration."

Once again, the Greek does not at all support your claim about God. John 4:24 actually says 'pnuema ho theos', literally Spirit=God, that His very essence is spirit. The Greek leaves no room whatsoever for the theory that the passage is simply saying God *has* a spirit. In fact, the Joseph Smith Translation totally rewrites this verse altogether to say exactly that. But allow me to demonstrate using the original autographs:

John 3:6 - ... καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.

John 4:24 - πνεῦμα ὁ θεός...

Now, does John 3:6 say that "spirit" is the very essence of every believer who comes to Christ? Nah, I don't think so either. The Greek wording is fundamentally different, therefore changing the meaning of both passages. God's essence is spirit, as I've just shown from the Greek. But Christians are born of the Holy Spirit, or as some translations say "The Spirit gives birth to spirit", an obvious metaphor refering to the regeneration of the soul which is quite obvious once examined in the original Greek.

"Heiser also explains that no humans can see Yahweh's true essence and live, but in Exod 24:10 it explains that Moses and his seventy saw the God of Israel. The next verse explains that they, in fact, were not killed. Heiser is begging the question by arguing that there must be some extenuating circumstances preventing Moses' death, and he presupposes the univocality of the text, which is quite naive."

Actually what he says, when taking the entire OT into context, is that they saw the visible Yaweh, but other biblical scholars propose they saw His glory. I prefer to visible Yahweh, who is rightly called God, as well as Angel of Yahweh. Once again, we must take Hesier into context.

"Lastly, Heiser ignores that intermediate conflation between the Ugaritic literature and that of exilic Judaism. Before the strict monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah and post-exilic Judaism, Yahweh was identified with Baal, but not with El. The Israelite El was identified with the Canaanite El. It wasn't until Yahweh and El were conflated during the monarchy that the second tier was vacated. At this point there was no "Second Power." It wasn't until the Second Temple Period, much later, that Jewish angelology inserted another participant. 1 Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the first and most clear manifestations of this. Heiser fails to account for the centuries of religious development between the Ugaritic texts (1500 - 1200 BCE) and Second Temple Judaism (500 BCE - 70 CE), when the "Second Power in Heaven" was relevant."

But then we have in the earliest accounts of Genesis a Second Power in Heaven, which the earliest Rabbinical literature we have to date say is a visible Yahweh. As I have shown befor, El Elyon is indeed Yahweh.

"They attributed His presence to the tabernacle, temple, or mountain, though you seem to have missed my point: a physical location (both in the case of Mount Zion and Kolob) is not necessarily to be viewed as literal."

Actually they viewed His presence beyond the temple and tabernacle too, since Solomon asked how a human-made house contain Yahweh. You've clearly missed my point that your early leaders always stressed the idea that Kolob was literal, and it is only modern-day LDS teaching, as opposed to early Mormon doctrine, that tries to reinterpret the idea.

Post #465
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your postabout an hour ago
Carmenn said:

Daniel McClellan makes some strange fallacies here. First, the top scholars, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, would disagree with his assertions.

++++++++++++

Frederic Kenyon died over fifty years ago. First learn to spell his name correctly, and then don't use phenomenally outdated scholarship to prop up your assumptions.

++++++++++++

First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT

++++++++++++

Of course not. Nowhere is there a promise that the biblical manuscripts will remain pristine.

++++++++++++

Genesis 14:22 Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,

++++++++++++

Actually the word "LORD" in that verse is a Common Era interpolation. It's not in the Greek, the Syriac, or at Qumran. The translation "possessor" is also incorrect. It's "creator" or "begetter." You're in the wrong millennium with your scholarship.

++++++++++++

Psalm 7:17 I will give thanks to the LORD according to His righteousness And will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.

Psalm 9:1 {For the choir director; on Muth-labben. A Psalm of David.} I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all Your wonders. 2 I will be glad and exult in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High.

++++++++++++

Both Second Temple Period compositions, and so irrelevant.

++++++++++++

So unless McClellan discounts men such as Kenyon,

++++++++++++

I absolutely do if those are his proof texts.

++++++++++++

Once again, the Greek does not at all support your claim about God. John 4:24 actually says 'pnuema ho theos', literally Spirit=God, that His very essence is spirit.

++++++++++++

Utterly ludicrous. It says nothing of the sort, although the prior chapter in John says the exact same thing about spirit and humans, so your exegesis fails even if your assertion were correct. They're both predications and nothing more. I suggest you learn Greek before you presume to lecture me about it.

++++++++++++

The Greek leaves no room whatsoever for the theory that the passage is simply saying God *has* a spirit.

++++++++++++

I never made any such comment. It says that God is spirit. The problem is, the previous chapter also says humans who are born again are also spirit. The copula is omitted in John 4, which is merely syntactical preference. There is no semantic distinction. Also, pay better attention.

++++++++++++

Now, does John 3:6 say that "spirit" is the very essence of every believer who comes to Christ? Nah, I don't think so either. The Greek wording is fundamentally different, therefore changing the meaning of both passages. God's essence is spirit, as I've just shown from the Greek. But Christians are born of the Holy Spirit, or as some translations say "The Spirit gives birth to spirit", an obvious metaphor refering to the regeneration of the soul which is quite obvious once examined in the original Greek.

++++++++++++

No, the Greek does not say that. You don't know Greek, so stop wasting everyone's time.

++++++++++++

Actually what he says, when taking the entire OT into context, is that they saw the visible Yaweh, but other biblical scholars propose they saw His glory. I prefer to visible Yahweh, who is rightly called God, as well as Angel of Yahweh. Once again, we must take Hesier into context.

++++++++++++

This does not address my concerns. In fact, it utterly ignores them. I'll say it again. The Bible is not univocal. If you would like to challenge that point then do so, but simply ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.

++++++++++++

But then we have in the earliest accounts of Genesis a Second Power in Heaven, which the earliest Rabbinical literature we have to date say is a visible Yahweh. As I have shown befor, El Elyon is indeed Yahweh.

++++++++++++

No, those are not even close to the "earliest accounts of Genesis," and early rabbinic literature is over a millennium secondary to the conflation of Yahweh and El. You don't even come close to engaging my points with these comments, and I'll thank you not to presume to lecture me about topics with which you have such severely deficient capacity.

Post #467
1 reply
You replied to Daniel's post40 minutes ago
"Frederic Kenyon died over fifty years ago. First learn to spell his name correctly, and then don't use phenomenally outdated scholarship to prop up your assumptions."

The fact you say Kenyon's work is *phenomenally* outdated really shows me just how "serious" you are about your scholarship. It seems to me whenever you folks find a scholar that disagrees and contradicts your assertions you simply dismiss them altogether. Prove his scholarship is outdated before you want to be taken seriouslly by rational people. Oh, and I find that you even addressed my mis-spelling of his name in the manner you did speaks volumes. A polite correction would have sufficed, wouldn't you say? :-)

"First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT

++++++++++++

Of course not. Nowhere is there a promise that the biblical manuscripts will remain pristine."

Actually, sir, there is quite a bit of evidence, but naturally you will just assume those passages ambiguous at best. For example,

Isaiah 40:8 - "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."

Or Matt. 16:18 - "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall never prevail."

Or lastly, 1 Peter 2:4-8 - "4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."[a] 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,[b]"[c] 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."[d] They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for."

But I realize that even though Yahweh promised the preservation of His Word and the everlasting stand of His Church, you still discount His promises because you don't believe God is Soverign, since Mormonism really is centered on the divinity of mankind. But that aside, any true Christian would take those Scripture passages to heart, but in this case with Mormonism we need further proof so here-

I surely hope you will not refuse the scholarship of Samuel Davidson, F.F. Bruce, Gleason Archer, Will Durant, F.E. Peters, Bruce Metzger, or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of the Bible, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most especially the OT, throughout the centuries. No LDS argument has ever gone up against this kind of scholarship, and I've only cited a few.

"Actually the word "LORD" in that verse is a Common Era interpolation. It's not in the Greek, the Syriac, or at Qumran. The translation "possessor" is also incorrect. It's "creator" or "begetter." You're in the wrong millennium with your scholarship."

No actually it is in the LXX, and the Jews being very precise about the accuracy of copying the texts have preserved the meaning. I would ask for you to substantiate your assertion from a credible scholar. The scholars I've mentioned (and have not mentioned) would not agree with you here. This same can go for the other passages I've cited, which you dismiss without any sort of credible evidence while I have provided different scholars who are experts on the subject.

"So unless McClellan discounts men such as Kenyon,

++++++++++++

I absolutely do if those are his proof texts."

Which already shows any rational person they simply cannot take your assertions seriously...

" Once again, the Greek does not at all support your claim about God. John 4:24 actually says 'pnuema ho theos', literally Spirit=God, that His very essence is spirit.

++++++++++++

Utterly ludicrous. It says nothing of the sort, although the prior chapter in John says the exact same thing about spirit and humans, so your exegesis fails even if your assertion were correct. They're both predications and nothing more. I suggest you learn Greek before you presume to lecture me about it."

So am I to understand you correctly that you are actually *denying* the fact that 'pneuma ho theos' means God's very essence is spirit? The leading Greek scholars alone would laugh at such a wild claim, but allow me to quote Shandon Guthrie, adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Navada, Las Vegas,

"The interpretation of 4:24 is simple, God is proposed to have the nature of spirit...It is just as feasible to translate 4:24 as 'God=spirit.' Now, when one 'worships in spirit', one [that is, we humans] is not being described. The word 'spirit' here is in the dative case, thereby denoting a medium through which the worship is carried out. This is different from the subject of those who are told to worship Him! In this context [that is, in reference to us], 'spirit' is the means of how we are to worship God, not a description of our ontological status [what our natures are like.]" - A Discussion on Mormonism

So actually, sir, contrary to your fallacious assertion, the Greek here is very much validating what I had first said.

"Now, does John 3:6 say that "spirit" is the very essence of every believer who comes to Christ? Nah, I don't think so either. The Greek wording is fundamentally different, therefore changing the meaning of both passages. God's essence is spirit, as I've just shown from the Greek. But Christians are born of the Holy Spirit, or as some translations say "The Spirit gives birth to spirit", an obvious metaphor refering to the regeneration of the soul which is quite obvious once examined in the original Greek.

++++++++++++

No, the Greek does not say that. You don't know Greek, so stop wasting everyone's time."

If that is supposed to be an sort of a refutation, I suggest you actually address the issue, viz., the Greek text and prove *from* the Greek text how the Greek does not say that.

" Actually what he says, when taking the entire OT into context, is that they saw the visible Yaweh, but other biblical scholars propose they saw His glory. I prefer to visible Yahweh, who is rightly called God, as well as Angel of Yahweh. Once again, we must take Hesier into context.

++++++++++++

This does not address my concerns. In fact, it utterly ignores them. I'll say it again. The Bible is not univocal. If you would like to challenge that point then do so, but simply ignoring it doesn't make it any less true."

Rather than ignoring it, sir, I've substantiated my claim more than once here with regards to the reliability of the biblical texts. It seems you are the one ignoring the issues I'm presenting.

"But then we have in the earliest accounts of Genesis a Second Power in Heaven, which the earliest Rabbinical literature we have to date say is a visible Yahweh. As I have shown befor, El Elyon is indeed Yahweh.

++++++++++++

No, those are not even close to the "earliest accounts of Genesis," and early rabbinic literature is over a millennium secondary to the conflation of Yahweh and El. You don't even come close to engaging my points with these comments, and I'll thank you not to presume to lecture me about topics with which you have such severely deficient capacity."

I really do wonder, sir, did you even take the time to watch my videos or read the material I presented relating to this subject? I find it very surprising that you have not once quoted anyone to base your claims on, while I have quoted not only Scripture but other noted scholars. Just out of curiosity, and I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but...who are you? I can't honestly say I've ever heard of you before, although on second thought your name does sound vaguely familiar. Are you a BYU professor? In any case, I do hope you take into consideration that by actually hearing the opponent's arguments before attempting a response is usually the best way to go. Judging by your answers to me (in a very rude attitude, I'll add, which is very unprofessional if you are a BYU professor) I'll take a guess and conclude you've only read a small portion of my arguments, or just briefly skimmed over the latest. Well, in any case, all the best :-)

Post #466
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post51 minutes ago
Carmenn said:

In ancient Jewish thought, God had no physical location, since Heaven is not so much a place as it is a state of being, so to speak, in a dimension not known to us since God Himself is even a Mystery.

++++++++++++

Flat wrong. To begin with "Jewish" thought didn't really begin until the Persian period. Prior to that we have Israelite thought, but I think you mean to refer to both, since the texts you cite are Israelite, and not Jewish.

Second, the heavens were the skies, and they were considered a palpable and solid boundary between the earth below and the waters above. They were the firmament in Genesis 1, and the early Israelites believed the gods lived over those waters. Second Temple Period Judaism expanded upon this considerably. The heavens were not intangible dimensions of being until just before the Rabbinic Period, when mystical Judaism assimilated Greek ideologies wholesale (which is also about the time the deanthropomorphization of God took place).

One example of this change, which also refutes the silly notion that God took up no physical space, is the variant reading of Exod 24:10 in the Septuagint. The MT reads, "And the saw the God of Israel, and under his feet there was a work like the pavement of sapphire stone." In LXX it reads, "And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood." The translations attests to a Vorlage that wanted to avoid intimating God was seen by Moses and his seventy, but they had not yet abandoned an anthropomorphic deity, since they point out that God was standing in a place. LXX continues to describe the same stone upon which God stood. If you'd like to learn more about this, I suggest you attend my paper at this November's annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans. I present on Sunday morning:

22-149
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
11/22/2009
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Room TBD - Hotel TBD

Theme: Textual Criticism and Problems of Method and Interpretation

Brent A. Strawn, Emory University, Presiding

Emanuel Tov, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac Translations of Hebrew Scripture vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text (25 min)

Steve Delamarter, George Fox University
Preparing to Write the Textual History of the Ethiopic Old Testament: Of Digitization, Social Editing and the Sociology of Scholarship (25 min)

Daniel O. McClellan, University of Oxford
Anthropomorphisms and the Vorlage to LXX Exodus (25 min)

You're way out of your league here.

Post #469
1 reply
You replied to Daniel's post22 minutes ago
In ancient Jewish thought, God had no physical location, since Heaven is not so much a place as it is a state of being, so to speak, in a dimension not known to us since God Himself is even a Mystery.

++++++++++++

Flat wrong. To begin with "Jewish" thought didn't really begin until the Persian period. Prior to that we have Israelite thought, but I think you mean to refer to both, since the texts you cite are Israelite, and not Jewish.


You're quite right in your conclusion that I use 'Jewish' and 'Israelite' synonomously, and therefore my first assertion is quite right. Unfortunatly, once again, you fail to provide the readers with any sort of rebuttle. I now see that you are indeed an Oxford professor (I'm flattered that someone went out of their way to contact you, sir, simply to respond to a nobody like me). I find it interesting that you feel the need to continually say I am out of my league or in much error, and yet provide no documentation. Well, perhaps you're just very busy and cannot provide the quotes just now.

"Second, the heavens were the skies, and they were considered a palpable and solid boundary between the earth below and the waters above. They were the firmament in Genesis 1, and the early Israelites believed the gods lived over those waters. Second Temple Period Judaism expanded upon this considerably. The heavens were not intangible dimensions of being until just before the Rabbinic Period, when mystical Judaism assimilated Greek ideologies wholesale (which is also about the time the deanthropomorphization of God took place)."

Actually, sir, if you consider the earliest texts, the "heavens" had more than one meaning even before the Rabbinic Period. The earliest versions of the Psalms alone prove this quite well. But I won't go into too much detail here. But as for deanthropomorphization (you spelt it wrong in your first post, but mistakes happen :-)) of God, this is just ridiculous at best. You cannot give me one quote from the earliest OT manuscripts that say in any way, shape, or form, that God is an exalted man. I assume this is what you refer to. But we all know what 'assume' stands for, so I'd like your clarification on that. You have not yet said anything about Our Lord's words in Jn.4:24 being a corruption, so I do ask you deal with that passage in relation to your assertion on the nature of God.

"One example of this change, which also refutes the silly notion that God took up no physical space, is the variant reading of Exod 24:10 in the Septuagint. The MT reads, "And the saw the God of Israel, and under his feet there was a work like the pavement of sapphire stone." In LXX it reads, "And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood." The translations attests to a Vorlage that wanted to avoid intimating God was seen by Moses and his seventy, but they had not yet abandoned an anthropomorphic deity, since they point out that God was standing in a place. LXX continues to describe the same stone upon which God stood. If you'd like to learn more about this, I suggest you attend my paper at this November's annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans. I present on Sunday morning:

22-149
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
11/22/2009
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Room TBD - Hotel TBD

Theme: Textual Criticism and Problems of Method and Interpretation

Brent A. Strawn, Emory University, Presiding

Emanuel Tov, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac Translations of Hebrew Scripture vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text (25 min)

Steve Delamarter, George Fox University
Preparing to Write the Textual History of the Ethiopic Old Testament: Of Digitization, Social Editing and the Sociology of Scholarship (25 min)

Daniel O. McClellan, University of Oxford
Anthropomorphisms and the Vorlage to LXX Exodus (25 min)

You're way out of your league here."

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this discussion (which is another I reason I don't believe you've even bothered to read my arguments or watch my video presentations) there must be a careful distinction between God's glory, the Angel of Yahweh, or Yahweh the Invisible. Considering the fact that Israel draws a relation between God and His Angel in his blessing over the boys must be taken into consideration as well. You must also deal with the fact God said in the same book "No man may see me and live". So in reality, Ex. 24:10 fits in perfectly well with historic Christendom and Judaism according to Moses. It seems, while others have noted this clear distinction, you sir, have not. I'm sorry but I just cannot take your assertions seriouslly in light of noted scholars on the subject. I'd like a copy of your paper, if I may, I think it'll be an interesting read.


Post #468
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post22 minutes ago
Carmenn said:

The fact you say Kenyon's work is *phenomenally* outdated really shows me just how "serious" you are about your scholarship. It seems to me whenever you folks find a scholar that disagrees and contradicts your assertions you simply dismiss them altogether. Prove his scholarship is outdated before you want to be taken seriouslly by rational people. Oh, and I find that you even addressed my mis-spelling of his name in the manner you did speaks volumes. A polite correction would have sufficed, wouldn't you say? :-)

++++++++++++

When you learn to be polite to me I'll respond in kind. If you require I address Kenyon directly, then I will do so. Please cite the publication in which Kenyon, a New Testament scholar, directly engages the question of the unity of Yahweh and El. I'll respond to that.

++++++++++++

Actually, sir, there is quite a bit of evidence, but naturally you will just assume those passages ambiguous at best. For example,

Isaiah 40:8 - "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."

++++++++++++

And this does not refer to any text, nor does it support the assumption that "word of God" = Bible.

++++++++++++

But I realize that even though Yahweh promised the preservation of His Word and the everlasting stand of His Church, you still discount His promises because you don't believe God is Soverign, since Mormonism really is centered on the divinity of mankind. But that aside, any true Christian would take those Scripture passages to heart, but in this case with Mormonism we need further proof so here-

++++++++++++

Same as above. "Word of God" does not necessarily equal "Bible."

++++++++++++

I surely hope you will not refuse the scholarship of Samuel Davidson, F.F. Bruce, Gleason Archer, Will Durant, F.E. Peters, Bruce Metzger, or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of the Bible, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most especially the OT, throughout the centuries.

++++++++++++

Bruce Metzger has nothing to do with the Old Testament, nor does F. F. Bruce or Will Durant. The others are evangelical scholars who have very clear biases, but none of them would be so naive as to assert the "remarkable preservation" of the OT to any degree that supports your assertions.

++++++++++++

Which already shows any rational person they simply cannot take your assertions seriously...

++++++++++++

Utterly meaningless. My specialization is Old Testament textual criticism and early Israelite theology. If you can point to a Kenyon text that appeals to the texts you cited in defending the pristine nature of the Old Testament texts I'll respond directly, but you've done nothing but vomit up fallacious and ignorant appeals to authority.

++++++++++++

So am I to understand you correctly that you are actually *denying* the fact that 'pneuma ho theos' means God's very essence is spirit?

++++++++++++

Of course. It does not at all mean that.

++++++++++++

So actually, sir, contrary to your fallacious assertion, the Greek here is very much validating what I had first said.

++++++++++++

Not at all.

++++++++++++

If that is supposed to be an sort of a refutation, I suggest you actually address the issue, viz., the Greek text and prove *from* the Greek text how the Greek does not say that.

++++++++++++

I already have. An omitted copula in no way supports your assertion, nor does a predicate nominative. They are both predications, which also does not support your assertion. Done.

++++++++++++

Rather than ignoring it, sir, I've substantiated my claim more than once here with regards to the reliability of the biblical texts. It seems you are the one ignoring the issues I'm presenting.

++++++++++++

Again, no engaging my concerns. You're just saying, "Nu-uh!"

++++++++++++
I really do wonder, sir, did you even take the time to watch my videos or read the material I presented relating to this subject? I find it very surprising that you have not once quoted anyone to base your claims on, while I have quoted not only Scripture but other noted scholars.

++++++++++++

No, you haven't quoted other scholars to me. You've simply written their names.

++++++++++++

Just out of curiosity, and I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but...who are you? I can't honestly say I've ever heard of you before, although on second thought your name does sound vaguely familiar. Are you a BYU professor?


++++++++++++

No.

++++++++++++

In any case, I do hope you take into consideration that by actually hearing the opponent's arguments before attempting a response is usually the best way to go.

++++++++++++

And I've been dealing with your particular brand of scholarship for years.

++++++++++++

Judging by your answers to me (in a very rude attitude, I'll add, which is very unprofessional if you are a BYU professor) I'll take a guess and conclude you've only read a small portion of my arguments, or just briefly skimmed over the latest. Well, in any case, all the best :-)

++++++++++++

If your only actual response is ad hominem then I'll conclude you have nothing of any substance to say regarding my criticisms of your assertions.


Post #471
You replied to Daniel's post56 seconds ago
"The fact you say Kenyon's work is *phenomenally* outdated really shows me just how "serious" you are about your scholarship. It seems to me whenever you folks find a scholar that disagrees and contradicts your assertions you simply dismiss them altogether. Prove his scholarship is outdated before you want to be taken seriouslly by rational people. Oh, and I find that you even addressed my mis-spelling of his name in the manner you did speaks volumes. A polite correction would have sufficed, wouldn't you say? :-)

++++++++++++

When you learn to be polite to me I'll respond in kind. If you require I address Kenyon directly, then I will do so. Please cite the publication in which Kenyon, a New Testament scholar, directly engages the question of the unity of Yahweh and El. I'll respond to that."

In light of your response to me, I have been most polite in replying to you sir. I specifically said Kenyon is an authority relating to the biblical texts, not the El Elyon/Yahweh issue.

"Actually, sir, there is quite a bit of evidence, but naturally you will just assume those passages ambiguous at best. For example,

Isaiah 40:8 - "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."

++++++++++++

And this does not refer to any text, nor does it support the assumption that "word of God" = Bible."

I see you ommitted the other passages I've offered. In fact those specific passages were in relation to the Church and the Scriptures. In fact, because the Word of God is contained within the Church, we are quite assured the Bible is is complete and accurate based on the evidence alone without the Divine Promise. I never said the "word of God" = bible, since I believe the Word of God is contained in the Church as well. You missed my entire point of quoting the other passages, sir, which you have not dealt with.


"But I realize that even though Yahweh promised the preservation of His Word and the everlasting stand of His Church, you still discount His promises because you don't believe God is Soverign, since Mormonism really is centered on the divinity of mankind. But that aside, any true Christian would take those Scripture passages to heart, but in this case with Mormonism we need further proof so here-

++++++++++++

Same as above. "Word of God" does not necessarily equal "Bible.""

Correct. And as I noted above, you did not address the other passages I cited. My question is: Why not?


"I surely hope you will not refuse the scholarship of Samuel Davidson, F.F. Bruce, Gleason Archer, Will Durant, F.E. Peters, Bruce Metzger, or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of the Bible, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most especially the OT, throughout the centuries.

++++++++++++

Bruce Metzger has nothing to do with the Old Testament, nor does F. F. Bruce or Will Durant. The others are evangelical scholars who have very clear biases, but none of them would be so naive as to assert the "remarkable preservation" of the OT to any degree that supports your assertions."

Once again, it's the same story: "those folks are biased, therefore we can't really trust them." Are you asserting that you are not biased, sir? I actually have a volume by F.F. Bruce on the OT. Even if he did not, I really don't understand why you discount Bruce and Metzger when I specifically and clearly said, "...or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of *the Bible*, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most *especially the OT*..." Context, context, context.

"Which already shows any rational person they simply cannot take your assertions seriously...

++++++++++++

Utterly meaningless. My specialization is Old Testament textual criticism and early Israelite theology. If you can point to a Kenyon text that appeals to the texts you cited in defending the pristine nature of the Old Testament texts I'll respond directly, but you've done nothing but vomit up fallacious and ignorant appeals to authority."

Speaking of speaking respectfully...Anyways, I'll provide two quotes from Sir Kenyon,

"The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries." - The Historian and the Believer, Religious Studies 2, no. 2, p. 23

"The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said for no other book in the world." (Kenyon, Frederic G. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941; pg. 23)

"So am I to understand you correctly that you are actually *denying* the fact that 'pneuma ho theos' means God's very essence is spirit?

++++++++++++

Of course. It does not at all mean that.

++++++++++++

So actually, sir, contrary to your fallacious assertion, the Greek here is very much validating what I had first said.

++++++++++++

Not at all.

++++++++++++

If that is supposed to be an sort of a refutation, I suggest you actually address the issue, viz., the Greek text and prove *from* the Greek text how the Greek does not say that.

++++++++++++

I already have. An omitted copula in no way supports your assertion, nor does a predicate nominative. They are both predications, which also does not support your assertion. Done."

Not done at all. Simply put: you don't have an answer. I can deal with that. I've documented the evidence, you've provided a void argument *without* documentation. I didn't even cite sources such as Thayer, or Low and Nida, and yet you already infallibly declare it wrong. Interesting... Let the reader decide.

"I really do wonder, sir, did you even take the time to watch my videos or read the material I presented relating to this subject? I find it very surprising that you have not once quoted anyone to base your claims on, while I have quoted not only Scripture but other noted scholars.

++++++++++++

No, you haven't quoted other scholars to me. You've simply written their names."

Case in point. Seeing as how you never read my material or watched the video clips, you obviously would not know I've quoted scholars. In fact, that's what I said in context :-)

"
In any case, I do hope you take into consideration that by actually hearing the opponent's arguments before attempting a response is usually the best way to go.

++++++++++++

And I've been dealing with your particular brand of scholarship for years.

++++++++++++

Judging by your answers to me (in a very rude attitude, I'll add, which is very unprofessional if you are a BYU professor) I'll take a guess and conclude you've only read a small portion of my arguments, or just briefly skimmed over the latest. Well, in any case, all the best :-)

++++++++++++

If your only actual response is ad hominem then I'll conclude you have nothing of any substance to say regarding my criticisms of your assertions."

Your words speak volumes about the type of scholarship you're into, sir. Like I say, let the reader judge. Any comment I would have on that would not mound to what you've already said.


Post #470
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post8 minutes ago
Carmenn said:

You're quite right in your conclusion that I use 'Jewish' and 'Israelite' synonomously, and therefore my first assertion is quite right.

++++++++++++

Actually your assertion isn't right for either of them.

++++++++++++

Unfortunatly, once again, you fail to provide the readers with any sort of rebuttle. I now see that you are indeed an Oxford professor (I'm flattered that someone went out of their way to contact you, sir, simply to respond to a nobody like me). I find it interesting that you feel the need to continually say I am out of my league or in much error, and yet provide no documentation. Well, perhaps you're just very busy and cannot provide the quotes just now.

++++++++++++

I'm a graduate student, not a professor. You haven't provided any texts to support your assertions, and since you don't respond when I do provide references, I figured I would save my time. If you'd like to provide any references for the assertion that God occupied no space in the earliest Jewish thinking, and that heaven was not an actual place, feel free.

++++++++++++

Actually, sir, if you consider the earliest texts, the "heavens" had more than one meaning even before the Rabbinic Period.

++++++++++++

None of which support your reading.

++++++++++++

The earliest versions of the Psalms alone prove this quite well. But I won't go into too much detail here.

++++++++++++

And you're going to turn around and accuse me of not providing appropriate citations? I have serious doubts that you even know which are the earliest Psalms.

++++++++++++

But as for deanthropomorphization (you spelt it wrong in your first post, but mistakes happen :-))

++++++++++++

No I didn't.

++++++++++++

You cannot give me one quote from the earliest OT manuscripts that say in any way, shape, or form, that God is an exalted man.

++++++++++++

I don't believe I ever said I could. This doesn't at all address anthropomorphization.

++++++++++++

I assume this is what you refer to.

++++++++++++

I'll thank you to stop assuming and just respond honestly to my posts.

++++++++++++

But we all know what 'assume' stands for, so I'd like your clarification on that. You have not yet said anything about Our Lord's words in Jn.4:24 being a corruption, so I do ask you deal with that passage in relation to your assertion on the nature of God.

++++++++++++

It's not a corruption, but the Greek doesn't at all support your assertion. All it says is that God is spirit. Nowhere does it say that quality precludes having a body. Since the previous chapter says that humans can be spirit in the same way, there's no reason to insist God cannot have a body.

++++++++++++

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this discussion (which is another I reason I don't believe you've even bothered to read my arguments or watch my video presentations) there must be a careful distinction between God's glory, the Angel of Yahweh, or Yahweh the Invisible.

++++++++++++

No such distinctions existed prior to the Second Temple Period. These are mystical Jewish ideologies developed from the juxtaposition of Judaism and Hellenism.

++++++++++++

Considering the fact that Israel draws a relation between God and His Angel in his blessing over the boys must be taken into consideration as well. You must also deal with the fact God said in the same book "No man may see me and live".

++++++++++++

You must then deal with Exod 24:10-11, where it says men saw God and yet did live. This is universally recognized as a reference to Exod 33:20. You just need to read your Bible more carefully. The ideology held that seeing God was deadly, not that it was impossible. The ideology also recognized the possibility of exceptions, of which Exod 24:10-11 is the main one.

++++++++++++

So in reality, Ex. 24:10 fits in perfectly well with historic Christendom and Judaism according to Moses. It seems, while others have noted this clear distinction, you sir, have not. I'm sorry but I just cannot take your assertions seriouslly in light of noted scholars on the subject. I'd like a copy of your paper, if I may, I think it'll be an interesting read.

++++++++++++

Send me your email address and I'll be happy to send a copy to you, but you've entirely misread my argument and the relevant texts from the Bible.


Post #473
You replied to Daniel's post6 minutes ago
"You're quite right in your conclusion that I use 'Jewish' and 'Israelite' synonomously, and therefore my first assertion is quite right.

++++++++++++

Actually your assertion isn't right for either of them."

Actually, it is. Since you feel no need to provide documentation, I'll just continue to make my assertion until a valid argument is brought forth.

"Unfortunatly, once again, you fail to provide the readers with any sort of rebuttle. I now see that you are indeed an Oxford professor (I'm flattered that someone went out of their way to contact you, sir, simply to respond to a nobody like me). I find it interesting that you feel the need to continually say I am out of my league or in much error, and yet provide no documentation. Well, perhaps you're just very busy and cannot provide the quotes just now.

++++++++++++

I'm a graduate student, not a professor. You haven't provided any texts to support your assertions, and since you don't respond when I do provide references, I figured I would save my time. If you'd like to provide any references for the assertion that God occupied no space in the earliest Jewish thinking, and that heaven was not an actual place, feel free."

If memory serves me correctly, I actually *did* provide a reference and that was the Psalms. But, you have seemingly forgotten that little detail. Considering that you've not provided one shred of evidence, you may indeed have wasted your time. But at least its a good demonstration for our readers on liberal scholarship.

" Actually, sir, if you consider the earliest texts, the "heavens" had more than one meaning even before the Rabbinic Period.

++++++++++++

None of which support your reading.

++++++++++++

The earliest versions of the Psalms alone prove this quite well. But I won't go into too much detail here.

++++++++++++

And you're going to turn around and accuse me of not providing appropriate citations? I have serious doubts that you even know which are the earliest Psalms."

It does seem that when a person is losing the argument they often refer to subtle ad hominem like the above line...It says a lot :-) But thanks, it's simply another demonstration of what I've been continually saying concerning this subject.

"You cannot give me one quote from the earliest OT manuscripts that say in any way, shape, or form, that God is an exalted man.

++++++++++++

I don't believe I ever said I could. This doesn't at all address anthropomorphization."

Actually it does very much so.

"I assume this is what you refer to.

++++++++++++

I'll thank you to stop assuming and just respond honestly to my posts."

Which I have been doing consistently, despite the wild claims you continue to make. It's for the readers' sakes in all honesty, those who are searching for a clue, since anyone with a rational thought would have been long gone shaking their heads.

"But we all know what 'assume' stands for, so I'd like your clarification on that. You have not yet said anything about Our Lord's words in Jn.4:24 being a corruption, so I do ask you deal with that passage in relation to your assertion on the nature of God.

++++++++++++

It's not a corruption, but the Greek doesn't at all support your assertion. All it says is that God is spirit. Nowhere does it say that quality precludes having a body. Since the previous chapter says that humans can be spirit in the same way, there's no reason to insist God cannot have a body."

Despite the quote I give, from an actual professor, and the authoritative lexicons I've cited, you continue to live in denial. Evidently you have no understanding whatsoever of the Greek 'Pnuema ho theos' but Greek scholars do, and they say contrary to your assertion. That says a lot.

"
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this discussion (which is another I reason I don't believe you've even bothered to read my arguments or watch my video presentations) there must be a careful distinction between God's glory, the Angel of Yahweh, or Yahweh the Invisible.

++++++++++++

No such distinctions existed prior to the Second Temple Period. These are mystical Jewish ideologies developed from the juxtaposition of Judaism and Hellenism."

There are actually. After the Second Temple Period the distinction became lost.

"Considering the fact that Israel draws a relation between God and His Angel in his blessing over the boys must be taken into consideration as well. You must also deal with the fact God said in the same book "No man may see me and live".

++++++++++++

You must then deal with Exod 24:10-11, where it says men saw God and yet did live. This is universally recognized as a reference to Exod 33:20. You just need to read your Bible more carefully. The ideology held that seeing God was deadly, not that it was impossible. The ideology also recognized the possibility of exceptions, of which Exod 24:10-11 is the main one."

I assure you sir I've read my Bible very carefully, and as you will see in my previous posts, I've addressed this issue. The God they say was indeed Yahweh, Yahweh the Visible that is. Taking the OT into context this is clearly seen. But I understand the biased interpretations do cloud clear texts like that.

"Send me your email address and I'll be happy to send a copy to you, but you've entirely misread my argument and the relevant texts from the Bible."

No actually what I've heard from you is parrotted by many Mormons and liberals so many times it's like hearing a song that's been played one too many times on the radio. But my email is paxchristus.massa@gmail.com. Much appreciated. God bless.


Post #472
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post12 minutes ago
Carmenn said:

In light of your response to me, I have been most polite in replying to you sir. I specifically said Kenyon is an authority relating to the biblical texts, not the El Elyon/Yahweh issue.

++++++++++++

You said that he would disagree with my assertions. If you don't mean the El/Yahweh question, please tell me specifically which assertions he would disagree with and cite the texts where I can find his disagreements. My gut is telling me you were just tossing out a name without knowing whether or not they disagree with me or even whether or not they engage the same topics I've engaged (Kenyon does not). You're welcome to prove me wrong, and I'll not respond to another word until you either admit that's what you were doing or you provide me with the texts I requested. If you can do either of those then I'll recognize you're being respectful, otherwise you are being anything but.


Post #474
You replied to Daniel's post2 seconds ago
"You said that he would disagree with my assertions. If you don't mean the El/Yahweh question, please tell me specifically which assertions he would disagree with and cite the texts where I can find his disagreements. My gut is telling me you were just tossing out a name without knowing whether or not they disagree with me or even whether or not they engage the same topics I've engaged (Kenyon does not). You're welcome to prove me wrong, and I'll not respond to another word until you either admit that's what you were doing or you provide me with the texts I requested. If you can do either of those then I'll recognize you're being respectful, otherwise you are being anything but."

All I'm going to say at this point is that our dialogue really does speak for itself. Any comment I have would not do anything to illuminate the subject further, so let them judge :-)

Anyways, once again you've failed to note the context of my mentioning Kenyon. If you rely on your gut feeling you will be extremely dissapointed in life, since gut feelings are not always correct and can in fact be completely wrong. That aside, allow me to provide the context that was omitted:

"Daniel McClellan makes some strange fallacies here. First, the top scholars, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, would disagree with his assertions. First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT, which, contrary to your assertions, contain..." - Carmenn Massa

Note first I am speaking on the reliability of the biblical texts, hence my mentioning of Kenyon. He would indeed disagree with your assertions because the validity of the earliest texts draws real historians and scholars to conclusions contrary to the ideas you are reaching. I hope this does clarify the issue.


1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post15 minutes ago
Carmenn said:

All I'm going to say at this point is that our dialogue really does speak for itself.

++++++++++++

And this is how you are disrespectful and insulting to my intelligence, and this is my primary problem with your argumentation. You make up facts and refuse to take responsibility for it, rather relying on ad hominem to deflect that responsibility. That kind of dishonesty doesn't fly in the work that I do and I won't let it fly here. I'm done with you.
Reply to DanielReport

Post #476
You replied to Daniel's post2 seconds ago
"All I'm going to say at this point is that our dialogue really does speak for itself.

++++++++++++

And this is how you are disrespectful and insulting to my intelligence, and this is my primary problem with your argumentation. You make up facts and refuse to take responsibility for it, rather relying on ad hominem to deflect that responsibility. That kind of dishonesty doesn't fly in the work that I do and I won't let it fly here. I'm done with you."

Daniel, I could not pay for that kind of response. And if I had made it up, no one would believe me. Obviouslly you clearly do not in any way understand the meaning of "it speaks for itself", and immedietly assume I am "attacking" you. Why do you feel attacked? I'm supposed to be the religious nut here, screaming that I'm being attacked but no...It's quite the opposite here. Unlike persons of your sort, I treat the reader as an intelligent human being who can rationalize and think logically and do his/her research on the material presented here. Your attitude seems to imply that you would hope they do otherwise, and simply take your word for it. Since I'm the one who provided the documentation, the reader may easily search and varify for his/her personal satisfaction that what I've said is entirely accurate. Indeed, this discussion does speak for itself.


END

Source

Trinity vs. Oneness Debate

________________________________________
Trinity vs Oneness debate - quo vs Schmit

Diane S we ask permission for a debate between us only.


The discussion will go as follows:

1. Oneness Introduction [Up to 500 WORDS]
2. Trinitarian Introduction [Up to 500 WORDS]

3. Oneness first constructive [Up to 1000 WORDS]
4. Trinitarian first constructive [Up to 1000 WORDS]

5. Oneness first rebuttal [Up to 1000 WORDS]
6. Trinitarian first rebuttal [Up to 1000 WORDS]

7. Oneness Counter rebuttal [500 Words]
8. Trinitarian Counter rebuttal [500 Words]

QUESTION from Oneness 1-2-3-4-5 [Up to five questions and 100 WORDS for each Question]
QUESTION from Trinitarian 1-2-3-4-5 [Up to five questions and 100 WORDS for each Question]

Answers O1-2-3-4-5 [Must answer the questions each with up to 500 WORDS]
Answers T1-2-3-4-5 [Must answer the questions each with up to 500 WORDS]
A additional 500 words TOTAL! can be used in case of lengthy need for a couple of these, So one could spend 100 words on five or 1000 on one or 250 words on 2 of the 5.

9. Oneness second constructive [Up to 500 WORDS]
10. Trinitarian second constructive [Up to 500 WORDS]

NO NEW MATERIAL must follow constructive...

11. Oneness second rebuttal [Up to 500 WORDS]
12. Trinitarian second rebuttal [Up to 500 WORDS]


NO NEW MATERIALS must make a statement with material presented...

13 Oneness counter rebutal [500 Words]
14.Trinity counter rebuttal [500 Words]

15. Oneness summary and conclusion [Up to 500 WORDS Each]
16. Trinitarian summary and conclusion [Up to 500 WORDS Each]

End
no further posts any further discussion should be on Oneness board or a board of your choosing.

Both participants shall follow and have agreed to the basic idea of "Hedges Rules of Controversy" as found in Christian, Contend for thy Cause by James D. Bales pg 39-40.

The Reader's Digest Version:

Hedge's Rule Of Controversy states, "The parties should mutually consider each other, as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right." Mr. Hedge also states that "As truth, and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lesson the force of his reasoning, by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy."

Each party has up to seven days to respond. If an emergency should arise, the debate would be suspended until the party in crisis can return.

QuoVadisDomine accepted in message to me this was acceptable.
He will debate me Schmit aka Aaron Deskin.
Holidays ae coming so we are not going to be under any time pressure as much to start and I accept his word on that to me and expect the same.

QuoVadisDomine 12-21-2008 08:53 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 3973552)
Diane S we ask permission for a debate between us only.


The discussion will go as follows:

1. Oneness Introduction [Up to 500 WORDS]
2. Trinitarian Introduction [Up to 500 WORDS]

3. Oneness first constructive [Up to 1000 WORDS]
4. Trinitarian first constructive [Up to 1000 WORDS]

5. Oneness first rebuttal [Up to 1000 WORDS]
6. Trinitarian first rebuttal [Up to 1000 WORDS]

7. Oneness Counter rebuttal [500 Words]
8. Trinitarian Counter rebuttal [500 Words]

QUESTION from Oneness 1-2-3-4-5 [Up to five questions and 100 WORDS for each Question]
QUESTION from Trinitarian 1-2-3-4-5 [Up to five questions and 100 WORDS for each Question]

Answers O1-2-3-4-5 [Must answer the questions each with up to 500 WORDS]
Answers T1-2-3-4-5 [Must answer the questions each with up to 500 WORDS]
A additional 500 words TOTAL! can be used in case of lengthy need for a couple of these, So one could spend 100 words on five or 1000 on one or 250 words on 2 of the 5.

9. Oneness second constructive [Up to 500 WORDS]
10. Trinitarian second constructive [Up to 500 WORDS]

NO NEW MATERIAL must follow constructive...

11. Oneness second rebuttal [Up to 500 WORDS]
12. Trinitarian second rebuttal [Up to 500 WORDS]


NO NEW MATERIALS must make a statement with material presented...

13 Oneness counter rebutal [500 Words]
14.Trinity counter rebuttal [500 Words]

15. Oneness summary and conclusion [Up to 500 WORDS Each]
16. Trinitarian summary and conclusion [Up to 500 WORDS Each]

End
no further posts any further discussion should be on Oneness board or a board of your choosing.

Both participants shall follow and have agreed to the basic idea of "Hedges Rules of Controversy" as found in Christian, Contend for thy Cause by James D. Bales pg 39-40.

The Reader's Digest Version:

Hedge's Rule Of Controversy states, "The parties should mutually consider each other, as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right." Mr. Hedge also states that "As truth, and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lesson the force of his reasoning, by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy."

Each party has up to seven days to respond. If an emergency should arise, the debate would be suspended until the party in crisis can return.

QuoVadisDomine accepted in message to me this was acceptable.
He will debate me Schmit aka Aaron Deskin.
Holidays ae coming so we are not going to be under any time pressure as much to start and I accept his word on that to me and expect the same.
________________________________________
I do agree:)

SCHMIT 12-29-2008 10:55 AM
________________________________________
Start Debate Opening Oneness position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentleman, I come to you in this debate holding Biblical truth that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty and as such is our God and Father!
Jesus has been and always will be the one true God, he is not second to another, not a part of God, not a member in a godhead.
The Bible is clear there is ONE and only One Lord God Dt.6:4
That God is Spirit John 4:24
That God is the Father Eph.4:6
That this God our Father is the ONLY true God John17:3 and either Jesus is God according to John 20:28 or a non-true God that is a fraud and only a individual named the Father is God according to 1 COR.8:6 AND EPH.4:6.

God is not a man, the Son of God was the man CHRIST!
The term Son of God is God enfleshed and not God is flesh.
God was in Christ 2 Cor.5:19 and manifest in the flesh 1 Tim.3:16, not was a flesh man.

The very term Son tells you it is not God, for Son and Father are not the same, but Jesus was both Son=Man and the Father=God.
Jesus stated that Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have LUKE24:39
So that body, his flesh was not God, but was God's body nonetheless.
God counted his body of flesh as his own in ZECH.12:10, yet in the very same passage made it look as if that body was aloof from him and someone else, showing how God could show distinction in his role as God and the Son position, the human Christ.

My opponent will have to show that God is something the Bible does not state he is and that is a Trinity, three persons which the word defines, a triune god, a triunity a co-equal godhead for his position to be true and from outside the Bible, as the Bible is devoid of any such idea as trinitarians present.

Thus the proof is on him to find such and me to reject such false teaching.
I will present that Jesus is the one true GOD and that no other God exists by him, that he is the only "BLESSED AND POTENTATE" 1TIM.6:15.

Oneness Apostolics have held the same truth about God since the Bible, my opponent must insert false man made ideas and terms to support him and put a twist on what the Bible does not say about a deity called TRINITY.
The Lord himself never taught such, neither his Disciples and my opponent must find where they did to prove a position he holds.
The O.T. Jews never held this and still don't today save in a minority of liberals and Kabbalist followers.
History is replete with this gentile paganistic teaching of a triad and I see my opponents position no less than such.

I look forward seeing where he goes with his three person non-biblical theory & what I hold is mere Catholic teaching.
SCHMIT

QuoVadisDomine 12-29-2008 10:41 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4012767)
Start Debate Opening Oneness position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentleman, I come to you in this debate holding Biblical truth that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty and as such is our God and Father!
Jesus has been and always will be the one true God, he is not second to another, not a part of God, not a member in a godhead.
The Bible is clear there is ONE and only One Lord God Dt.6:4
That God is Spirit John 4:24
That God is the Father Eph.4:6
That this God our Father is the ONLY true God John17:3 and either Jesus is God according to John 20:28 or a non-true God that is a fraud and only a individual named the Father is God according to 1 COR.8:6 AND EPH.4:6.

God is not a man, the Son of God was the man CHRIST!
The term Son of God is God enfleshed and not God is flesh.
God was in Christ 2 Cor.5:19 and manifest in the flesh 1 Tim.3:16, not was a flesh man.

The very term Son tells you it is not God, for Son and Father are not the same, but Jesus was both Son=Man and the Father=God.
Jesus stated that Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have LUKE24:39
So that body, his flesh was not God, but was God's body nonetheless.
God counted his body of flesh as his own in ZECH.12:10, yet in the very same passage made it look as if that body was aloof from him and someone else, showing how God could show distinction in his role as God and the Son position, the human Christ.

My opponent will have to show that God is something the Bible does not state he is and that is a Trinity, three persons which the word defines, a triune god, a triunity a co-equal godhead for his position to be true and from outside the Bible, as the Bible is devoid of any such idea as trinitarians present.

Thus the proof is on him to find such and me to reject such false teaching.
I will present that Jesus is the one true GOD and that no other God exists by him, that he is the only "BLESSED AND POTENTATE" 1TIM.6:15.

Oneness Apostolics have held the same truth about God since the Bible, my opponent must insert false man made ideas and terms to support him and put a twist on what the Bible does not say about a deity called TRINITY.
The Lord himself never taught such, neither his Disciples and my opponent must find where they did to prove a position he holds.
The O.T. Jews never held this and still don't today save in a minority of liberals and Kabbalist followers.
History is replete with this gentile paganistic teaching of a triad and I see my opponents position no less than such.

I look forward seeing where he goes with his three person non-biblical theory & what I hold is mere Catholic teaching.
SCHMIT
________________________________________
First, I like to state my belief in the Holy Trinity is not because of what synods, councils, or popes have said throughout the ages. Whatever they have said concerning the Trinity is not "new revelation" but rather reiterating what the Sacred Texts have already revealed, and what the first Christians already understood to be doctrine. As a very basic starter, on what the Trinity is and is not: the Holy Trinity is a belief in One Supreme God in Three Distinct Persons, seperate yet one within the other, literally of the same substance. I believe that the Divine Name of God, 'Jehovah,' is applied to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that each share in the common work of salvation for every human being. This has been the belief of orthodox Christianity, and the teaching of Scripture from the time Christ ascended into heaven. Anyone who teaches contrary to this, a 'new gospel' so to speak, is, in the word of the Apostle Paul: "anthama". The Holy Trinity is not a belief in three serpate gods, though being one in purpose and unity, of different substances, having different degrees of divinity. This is paganism, and is viciously rejected by God, His written Word, and the earliest Christians. My goal is to defend the doctrine from Scripture that God is Father, God is Son, God is Holy Spirit, yet three seperate Persons. I will begin by citing the Oneness favorite passage, Deut. 6:4.

SCHMIT 12-31-2008 11:32 AM
________________________________________
1ST AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL OF TRINITY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opponent is saddled with a dubious task and that is to find what the Bible and the Bible characters never propose or hint at, and that is A TRINITY, while I must simply prove that there is one God and Jesus is that only true God and is so as the Father who is the eternal one and not a membership group of three persons or more.
I say three persons or more because if one accepts that personality means persons (Trinitarian idea), then he must tell me how WISDOM IS NOT a person as well and UNDERSTANDING too in this coporate deity.
Prov.7:4 "Say unto wisdom, Thou art my Sister; and call understnading my kinswoman:"
Prov.8:1 "Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?"
Prov. 8:12-16,Prov.9:1 simply put my friend here quo must accept these as well as PERSONS in a godhead and not limit it to three as he is inclined to do with a Trinity.

As well my opponent has to start seeing that he uses totally Non-Biblical terms to define something which he wants to call God, but cannot seem to find in the scriptures, he talks about his Orthodoxy in his opening, but who is to say that is true Christianity if it does not hold to Bible and Bible alone?
He uses the following terms and phrases as a Trinitarian and has to, to bail out his ideas...
TRINITY
A TRINITY
THE TRINITY
THREE IN ONE
THREE PERSONS
PERSONS OF GOD
PERSONS
TRIUNE GODHEAD
TRIUNITY
TRIAD
FIRST PERSON
SECOND PERSON
THIRD PERSON
GOD THE SON
GOD THE HOLY GHOST
Eternal Son
Eternally begotten Son
Eternally generated Son
Individuals
Beings
Members
parts of God.

These are what the Trinitarians and I expect what my opponent must use and say to prop up the old pagan notion of many persons needing to make one God.
I DENY THIS TEACHING AS FALSE!

I deny the way this church used force to further itself and tear down it's opponents whom I say is the true Church and as well other pagan cults and false beliefs as well.

So my opponent is in a world of hurt relying on so called Orthodox religion, for it is not anywhere close to Christianity.
If it was, it would have murdered and had wars against one another, would not have burned men at the stake and dunked pregnant woman and raped and tortured, my church didn't do that, but his trinity "Orthodoxy" did.

Now lets look at truth!
One God
One Spirit
One Lord
One and not each of those standing for seperate beings.
AND JESUS is all of those
God is Spirit John4:24
God is One DT.6:4
God is Lord Gen.2:4
God is Holy Lev.11:44-45
God is never stated to be persons, but rather the Bible is clear he is one person or a person Job13:8 KJV,Gal.3:20 Amplfied and the Greek Grammar of Heis Theos supports such.

My opponent like all trinitarians must take a passage and slice and dice God up to mean that one is Lord and another is God and one is Spirit and thee are thus seperate persons as they do in EPH.4:4-6.
They determine who is which of their three gods in places like John 1:1, where the first is the Father( but not the Father of Jesus) and the second is the "Son God" , though it says the Word and not Son because the Son was not yet begotten.

We state Jesus is God, he is the Father, Lord, I AM, YHWH,adonai, elohim, el and etc.
Jesus was deity as to being the Father and the Father is eternal ISA.9:6 and in that verse Jesus is to be called by name GOD AND FATHER and then is fulfilled in REV.21:6-7 in himself when he says I will be your God and you will be my son (if I am his son and trinitarians apparently are not, then he is my FATHER!).

Jesus is the FIRST AND LAST and Beginning and end and there is only one of those, not three or he a part of such.
He is the ALPHA AND OMEGA and I will be interested to see if Jesus is such in Rev.21:6-7 from my opponent.

Jesus is the only wise God our Savior Jude25
Jesus alone is the Great God and Savior Titus 2:13,
The BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTATE Tim.6:14-15.
Thomas stated and rightly so and I hold to it, He is the Lord of me and the God of me John 20:28.

Jesus is the one God in totality, he is not second to another or part of a godhead, he is not a untrue God as TRINITARIANS must teach from JN.17:3, for Jesus speaks of the Father as the only true God, if that be so and a trinity of persons was a real doctrine, then only the Father and he alone is God and Jesus is well a lesser god or untrue one.

Trinitarians have a godhead person which needs to pray for help and who needed help in bailing him out of hell when there second god died!
We hold that the man Christ Jesus died and that God cannot die and never did die, but that the SON OF GOD died .

Jesus declares in Mark12:29 that DT.6:4 IS THE GREATEST OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One."
rightly dividing the word, then Jesus if God is that God and he is the one and according to a multitude of passages using singular personal pronouns he is the Holy One, the God with none other beside him, the God who is alone and by himself.

We speak of the Oneness of God, this means in God's quality or distinctive God is an entity of ONE.
It refers to God and his being one and the doctrine itself and the followers (us Apostolic Oneness) and the truths about such.

Jesus is God, there is no Trinity.

SCHMIT

QuoVadisDomine 01-03-2009 09:15 AM
________________________________________
First off, SCHMIDT uses the old "your church killed people!" routine, somehow this proving that the Trinitarian notion must indeed be pagan. I remind the cults that Israel's kings did much wickedness, including murder, yet this does not take away from the fact God set up Israel and her kings. The cults, including Oneness, deny Christ's words "And the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against My Church." I have asked them to show me where in church history their unique doctrines have been taught, since these things have only come into existance in the third century by the Roman priest, Sabellius, after whose beliefs the Oneness cult follows in. No such teaching can be found within the church fathers taught under the apostles. That settled, let us leave behind childish "my church is better than yours!" cop-outs, and stick with the subject at hand and its theology.

The favorite passage of the Oneness cult is Deut. 6:4, "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is ONE Lord." In Hebrew: ע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה ׀ אֶחָד

The stress, of course, on the word "ONE", indicating that God is indeed one God, that the verse does not say "one God in three persons" or of that like, therefore showing that God is indeed solely one God as one Person. This smacks of sulfur and deception. The Hebrew word for ONE in this passage is "echod", literally meaning 'composite unity.' If Moses had intended to say God is solely one Person as the Oneness tell us, he would have used the Hebrew word 'yachid', which literally means absolute and only one (ref. Genesis 22:2; Judges 11:34; Proverbs 4:3). For other passages in which 'echod' is used meaning composite unity: Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh," and Ezra 2:64. Ironically enough God's very name is Echod - Zechariah 14:19: "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." The Hebrew 'echod' is used in this passage. SCHMIDT said: "The O.T. Jews never held this and still don't today save in a minority of liberals and Kabbalist followers." This is misleading. The orthodox Jewish prayer book confirm that God is indeed a composite unity: “I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is a Unity, and there is no Unity in any manner like unto His, and that He alone is our God, who was, is and is to come.” Daily Prayer Book, Dr. A. Th. Philips, Hebrew Publishing Company. 77-79 Delancey Street New York, Page 165.

For one last example, in Numbers 13:23 we are told two men are carrying a vine of grapes. In the original Hebrew it literally says they carried ONE GRAPE. Even though there were a bunch of grapes on a single vine, the Hebrews understood this to record it as one grape, knowing the composite unity of those grapes.

The Hebrew word 'Elohim' itself is plural, according to the Jewish Almanac: “Although Elohim is technically a plural form, it is generally used as a singular.” The Jewish Almanac: Compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins, Bantaam books, New York, 1980. Page 499.

“Elohim: This word for God is used more frequently than either of the others in the Old Testament. It is a plural form.” Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Lawrence O. Richards, the Zondervan Corporation, Grande Rapids, Michigan, 1985, page 313.

“The first name of God: Elohim (Genesis 1:1). This name is plural in form but is joined to a singular verb.” Willington’s Guide to the Bible, H.L. Willington, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois, 1984, page 595.

Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Hebrew and Chaldean Dictionary, page 13.

430: “Elohiym: Plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article.) of the supreme God.
433: Eloahh: prolonged from 410 (El - the strong one); a deity or the Deity

Note: The word Elohim, is used both of the God of the Bible, and the false pagan Gods.
For example: Exodus 20:2 through Exodus 20:3 I am the LORD thy God, (Elohim) which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods (elohim) before me.

Moving on, SCHMIDT said that God is Spirit. This kills his theology because Jesus is God the Father according to him, yet Jesus has human flesh even today. Christ always spoke of the Father and Himself in terms of "Us," "We", clearly two seperate identities here. Matt. 3:16-17: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Here we see the Holy Trinity in this scene seperatly. God the Father spoke from Heaven, God the Holy Spirit desecended upon the baptized God the Son. This could not happen if Jesus is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 'yachid'.

Matt.28:19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Here's a little lesson in Greek. Granville Sharp's Rule tells us: "And as the insertion of the copulative kai (Grk. "and") between nouns (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles." In other words applying this rule, which is a not a "new rule" but rather explains already what the Greek text is saying, shows that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three seperate Persons somehow sharing the same singular Name.

Acts 7:55-56 says, "55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

Here again we see both Christ and the Father indeed very seperate Persons, yet they are not seperate gods.

Passages such as John 1:1 "...the Word was WITH God and the Word was God..." - the word WITH shows that there are two Persons in the scene, yet both are the same 'Echod' God.

As if Scripture were not enough, the early church (before Nicea) had this to say:

The Letter of Barnabas

"And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5 [A.D. 74] emphasis added).

Hermas

"The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6–8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added).

Justin Martyr

"God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness.’ . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 [A.D. 155]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155] emphasis added).

Mathetes

"[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world. . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old. . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son" (Letter to Diognetus 11 [A.D. 160] emphasis added).

Irenaeus

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189] emphasis added).

Tertullian

"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).
"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other.
. . . I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person" (ibid. 9:1).

Hippolytus

"Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained [the position] after which he so eagerly pursued, he [Pope Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]).

Novatian

"[W]ho does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, ‘Let us make man in our image and our likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]? Or when he reads [as having been said] to Christ: ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the heathens for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession’ [Ps. 2:7–8]? Or when also that beloved writer says: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I shall make your enemies the stool of your feet’ [Ps. 110:1]? Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: ‘Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord’? Or when he reads: ‘I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me’ [John 6:38]? Or when he finds it written: ‘Because he who sent me is greater than I’ [cf. John 14:24, 28]? Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: ‘Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me’ [cf. John 8:17–18]?" (Treatise on the Trinity 26 [A.D. 235]).

"And I should have enough to do were I to endeavor to gather together all the passages [of the kind in the previous quotation] . . . since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that he always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father himself permitted to him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that he is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if he be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?" (ibid.)

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).


Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

QuoVadisDomine

SCHMIT 01-06-2009 10:27 AM
________________________________________
WARNING RULES VIOLATION IN DEBATE see agreed upon format.
Let me state here in a off the debate remark to set my opponent straight, he did not follow the format of the debate and post a afirmation limited as I did to 1000 words, he got carried away with cut and pastes and posted a 2411 word post which means he is over by 1411 words and though I am not generally going to complain with 15-20 words over to finish off a point, but 1411 is a bit much and so I will simply take a additional 1411 or so and use it to rebutt and affirm my position along with my given amount.

But let it be known if quovadidomine cannot stay to the rules he will have lost this debate not only by substance, but also by breaking what he agreed to.
Just so you know Quo, you can use Microsoft Works or a Word processer and do a word count, instead of counting them all up with your fingers.
Now this will take me twice as long to respond to numerous overflow here, which I am hoping was not the intent to merely overload me with verbiage that doesn't help prove his point anyway.

QuoVadisDomine 01-07-2009 02:07 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4050579)
WARNING RULES VIOLATION IN DEBATE see agreed upon format.
Let me state here in a off the debate remark to set my opponent straight, he did not follow the format of the debate and post a afirmation limited as I did to 1000 words, he got carried away with cut and pastes and posted a 2411 word post which means he is over by 1411 words and though I am not generally going to complain with 15-20 words over to finish off a point, but 1411 is a bit much and so I will simply take a additional 1411 or so and use it to rebutt and affirm my position along with my given amount.

But let it be known if quovadidomine cannot stay to the rules he will have lost this debate not only by substance, but also by breaking what he agreed to.
Just so you know Quo, you can use Microsoft Works or a Word processer and do a word count, instead of counting them all up with your fingers.
Now this will take me twice as long to respond to numerous overflow here, which I am hoping was not the intent to merely overload me with verbiage that doesn't help prove his point anyway.
________________________________________
My apologies. Let me tell you I do not have Micro Word or the processor, simply a notepad on the computer. I was in great rush. However no use crying over spilt milk, so take the extra words and use them to state your side, and good luck with it too, since nothing you have said proves your side in the slightest.

SCHMIT 01-08-2009 04:54 PM
________________________________________
1289 of 1411 extra words for me as further affirmation and my rebuttal to still come regarding your first affirmation.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Psalm 45:6
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Now lets look at Heb.1:8
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Not exactly a verbatim idea carried through.

We see addition to the text with "But unto the Son he saith", which is not found in the Hebrew, but appears to be a scribe addition to the passage to prop up the Trinitarian teachings.


The Power New Testament 'Revealing Jewish Roots by William Morford reads...

"But to the Son,
"Your Throne, God, is forever and ever, and the scepter is the righteous scepter of Your kingdom."
Does not present the verse as one God saying to another God, but a statement to the Son.
Which is your Throne ---God is forever and ever (eternal) and the scepter is righteous and of a righteous kingdom of it.



What does the Old English say about this verse before the battlelines got drawn on this verse as we have today amongst the Trinitarian and those who disagree with their brand of doctrinal threeness!

Wycliffe N.T. Bible 1380

"but to the sone he seith, god thi trone is in to the world of world : a zerd of equite is the zerd of thi rewme,"

Translated :'To the son he saith, God thy throne is in the world of worlds: a staff of equity and the staff of thy realm'.
God is that, not the Son.

Tyndale Bible 1534
But vnto the sonne he sayth: God thy seate shal-be forever and ever. The cepter of thy kyngdome is a right cepter."

Translated :'But unto the son He saith: God thy seate shall be forever and ever. The sceptre of the Kingdom is a right sceptre.'

The Coverdale Bible 1535
"But vnto ye sonne he sayeth: God, yi seate endureth for euer & euer: the cepter of yi kyngdome is a right cepter."


So we see the three oldest English Versions do not state the Son is God, but God is thy throne and this is how the original English was and one amazing fact was that The two oldest Alexandrian texts had either not been found or was not available to Wycliff to translate from and these support the idea of God is the Son's throne and not the Son is God.

Scholars

A.T.Roberston Word Pictures of the New Test. Vol.5 pg 339
"8. O God(ho Theos)....It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative 9adress with the nominative form as in John 20:28) with the Messiah termed Theos as is possible, John 1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood:
"God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God." Either makes good sense."

Now we see when comparing this to the Oldest English translators they saw it as the latter and not as in the KJV.
If we see the quote from Psalms, the quote definitely , is not a verbatim quote if the Son is made out to be God, for Son is not in Psalms.


Bart Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture pg 265
under
Anti-patripassianist Corruptions of Scripture
"...Heb 1:8, ....The author quotes Psalm 45-6-7 as a declaration of God to (pros) Christ:
"Your throne O God is forever and ever; and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom."
Interpretive problems abound in the passage, in part because the nominative o Theos, normally construed as a vocative ("O God"), could also be taken as a predicate.
In that case, the introductory clause would be rendered, "Your throne is God forever and ever,..." Understood in this way, the text no longer calls Christ "God".

For a variety of contextual reasons, however, the majority of scholars prefer to understand the nominative as a vocative.
Recognizing the exegetical issue, however, makes the textual problem at the end of the verse all the more interesting. For the second person pronoun sov ("your" kingdom) has been changed to the third person avtov in some of the best Alexandrian witnesses from the third century (p46 N B). with this reading, the kingdom is said not to be Christ's but God's. The change affects the interpretation of the first element of the dystich as well; now must be God's throne that is "forever and ever." In other words, the textual change at the end of the verse naturally leads one to understand the earlier nominative o Theos as a predicate rather than a vocative, so that now the verse reads " God is your throne forever and ever; the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom."

Most scholars reject the ALEXANDRIAN reading because it does not fit as well into the context. Why, though, was the change made in the first place?
It dates to the period of our concern and appears to resolve a problematic feature of the verse. Christ is no longer identified as the one God (o Theos) himelf, but is in some sense (in the economy!) made subordinate to him: "God[himself] is your throne."

There are of course, other N.T. passages that have traditionally been understood to designate Christ explicitly as God."


So the oldest Greek MSS do not fall in line with the rendering of those using other Greek MSS and making the Son God, but rather that God is the throne of the Son.

Oneness scholar Dr. Marvin Treece The Literal Word, Hebrews pg 12
"vs 8 [He first gives the passage in the KJV and then the Literal Translation as follows]
"Translation- But to the Son, "God is your throne into the ages of ages, and the rod of uprightness (is) the rod of His kingdom."

Psalms 45:6 KJV
"Your divine throne, Oh God (is) forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness (is) the scepter of your kingdom."

Commentary
But to the Son, "God is your throne." The Writer is quoting the LXX where the nominative ho theos is used instead of the vocative. In the next quotation (v10) we have the vocative kurie. Robertson says... (see above).
Vincent says "I retain the vocative, although the translation of the Hebrews is doubtful.
The following renderings have been proposed : "thy throne (which is a throne) of God"
"thy throne is (a throne) of God" " God is thy throne" (Word Studies in the N.T. Vol. 6 pg 390) The Tenach translates it "Your throne is from God."

I have held to the literal translation of the text; however, I must agree with Nicholl when he says "It does not matter therefore whether we translate, 'Thy throne is God" or "thy trhone, O God,' for the point here to be affirmed is not that the Messiah is Divine, but that he has a throne and everlasting dominion."
(Expositors Greek Test. vol. 4 pg 255)

Raymond Brown in
Jesus God and Man pg 24-25
"Vincent Taylor admits that in vs 8 the expression 'O God" is vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but servants. Therefore in the citation no major point was being made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God."

I myself would state “dominion” and from time going forward into eternity , not a eternity past so that a second person Son is with God the Father first person.

SCHMIT 01-09-2009 11:01 PM
________________________________________
REBUTTAL OF QUO'S post

PARA1
bottom line your church is shown to be non-christian, it murders just like Muslims.[/COLOR]


Deut.6:4 remark

Never said three lord/three god, you just gave me the victory with that, Jesus quoted it in Mark 12:29 as well. Must have been his favorite verse.


Para 3[/COLOR]
see Heis Theos affirmation.[/COLOR]


Quo makes mistake and says echad means composite unity and yachid would have to be used for a absolute one.

answer me this QUO,

Genesis2:21 And LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one (echad) of his ribs.
How many ribs? Maybe God took a single rack of ribs (As you would receive a rack of barbecue ribs).

Genesis22:2
one (echad)of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
How many mountains did Abraham go to?

Exodus25:19 And make one (echad) cherub on the one (different word) end and the other cherub on the other end.
How many cherubs on one side?

Leviticus16:5
one (echad) ram for a burnt offering.
How many rams? Maybe God meant a "whole herd"? He said one; Trinitarians claim that one is supposed to mean a group.

Numbers10:4
one (echad) trumpet,
Were they supposed to blow with an orchestra of trumpets in unison?

Of the 943 times echad is translated "one," it is translated to indicate a single character 901 times. In the remaining instances it still means one.





Numbers 13:23
IT WASN'T ONE GRAPE, IT WAS ONE CLUSTER OF THEM, you misrepresented what it meant.
YOU WERE WRONG ON ECHAD.


'Elohim' itself is plural, says opponent,
Oneness Keith Morehead said this...

El is the singular form of the word God, when -im is added e.g. Elohim, it is made plural. When used to refer to God Almighty, Elohim is similar to a uniplural noun. A uniplural noun can be used to indicate an object in the singular or plural sense.

The word sheep can be used to describe one sheep or many sheep.
Even though Elohim is the plural form of the word, it is ALWAYS translated in the singular form when used in reference to the one true God. There are times when elohim is translated in the plural sense when referring to pagan gods, but it is also translated singularly to describe a pagan deity. Since elohim describes more than one god when translated in the plural form and is used so frequently as a name for God, Trinitarians use it to promote the concept of plurality in reference to God Almighty. Some Trinitarians interpret the word GOD (Elohim) to mean a group of individuals in one unit, specifically, three persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, as one God. They believe that the very word elohim sends messages of plurality within the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity uses the word Elohim to give support to its argument that three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, can exist as one God. This uniplural interpretation of the word elohim is used to support the Trinitarian dogma in texts of the Bible where the solitary "Oneness" of God is disputed.

When applying the Trinitarian explanation of the word Elohim, we find that God's presentation of His nature is incompatible with Trinitarian thought. Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God (El- -singular); Genesis 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God (Elohim- -plural) talked with him. God (El- -singular) appeared to Abram. Only one individual appeared in Genesis 17:1, but in 17:3, that same individual, God (Elohim- -plural), appeared to Abram. Was God alone during one moment and accompanied by the other two members of the Trinity in the the next, while Abram continually saw only one LORD? This would be a very difficult feat regardless of the semantic side stepping. The method of explanation implemented by Trinitarians to avoid this potential contradiction in their doctrine is to believe that the triune nature of God was appearing to Abram and talking to him.





Strongs
Elohiym:
God was never interpreted by this to mean a plurality of beings by Jews and literally as gods or three god.




“SCHMIDT said that God is Spirit. “

Bible said it John 4:24 and thus speaks of Jesus as Deity as such and not as Man~, thanks for helping me.



Matt. 3:16-17:
One person present, Jesus in water .
a voice from heaven and God gives voice to his presence
and a form like a dove as proof for John, no three persons seen here at all.




Matt.28:19

Apostles only baptized in singular name of Jesus! Acts 2;38,8:16,10:48&19:5 see context of 1COR.1:10-15,proof on my side.




Granville Sharp

This verse never used by Granville Sharp fulfilling his rule in any of his writings and this was a most important verse to prove such idea, Also the rules have exceptions to them and this verse is such, it states nothing about persons, but things or positions of that One who is F,S& H.G, JESUS!

Acts 7:55-56, Opponent misses that Stephen calls out to his God and calls him LORD JESUS~ NOT TRINITY or Father and Son vs 59.

One person seen and glory of God~JESUS.


.

Echod is not in JN1:1.
The word with doesn't show such a thing, the Greek is pros ton theon and means in things pertaining to God, not two persons, opponent needs para in the passage and it ain't there.


Letter of Barnabas
Spurious work attributed to Barnabas, not counted as authentic by Lightfoot and Harmer.



Hermas
Only part in all of Hermas that lends itself to a eternal Son, most of Hermas is monarchianistic and he baptized in a name and not titles.
His half brother was a monarchian Bishop.
Likely copyist addition.


Ignatius of Antioch
Virgina Corwin in her book stated "If one term must be chosen to indicate the tendency of his thought, Ignatius must be said to be monarchian." St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch. p126.



Justin Martyr
this fellow used the term 'deuteros Theos'
two god in respect to Jesus as a Second god and this is whom quo wants to support him.
Note how Justyn treats Jesus being Second to the eternal God in the quote my opponent uses at the end of his post.

NOT CHRISTIAN!




Nothing Trinitarian in writings of Polycarp/Mathetes

Irenaeus

A hybrid not fully developed doctrinally.



Tertullian
ANTICHRISTIAN HERETIC, demolished his own position.

CHAPTER 3 AGAINST PRAXEAS

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who
always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the
dispensation
(of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws
them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God...


They are constantly
throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods,
while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being
worshippers of the One God...








Hippolytus
THE ANTI-BISHOP was excommunicated by MONARCHIAN BISHOP AS WELL!
Why didn't you tell folks that?




Novatian
Trinitarian, I reject his wrong thinking.


The Didache

see
(Didache 9).



Schmit

QuoVadisDomine 01-10-2009 07:24 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4063357)
1289 of 1411 extra words for me as further affirmation and my rebuttal to still come regarding your first affirmation.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Psalm 45:6
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Now lets look at Heb.1:8
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Not exactly a verbatim idea carried through.

We see addition to the text with "But unto the Son he saith", which is not found in the Hebrew, but appears to be a scribe addition to the passage to prop up the Trinitarian teachings.


The Power New Testament 'Revealing Jewish Roots by William Morford reads...

"But to the Son,
"Your Throne, God, is forever and ever, and the scepter is the righteous scepter of Your kingdom."
Does not present the verse as one God saying to another God, but a statement to the Son.
Which is your Throne ---God is forever and ever (eternal) and the scepter is righteous and of a righteous kingdom of it.



What does the Old English say about this verse before the battlelines got drawn on this verse as we have today amongst the Trinitarian and those who disagree with their brand of doctrinal threeness!

Wycliffe N.T. Bible 1380

"but to the sone he seith, god thi trone is in to the world of world : a zerd of equite is the zerd of thi rewme,"

Translated :'To the son he saith, God thy throne is in the world of worlds: a staff of equity and the staff of thy realm'.
God is that, not the Son.

Tyndale Bible 1534
But vnto the sonne he sayth: God thy seate shal-be forever and ever. The cepter of thy kyngdome is a right cepter."

Translated :'But unto the son He saith: God thy seate shall be forever and ever. The sceptre of the Kingdom is a right sceptre.'

The Coverdale Bible 1535
"But vnto ye sonne he sayeth: God, yi seate endureth for euer & euer: the cepter of yi kyngdome is a right cepter."


So we see the three oldest English Versions do not state the Son is God, but God is thy throne and this is how the original English was and one amazing fact was that The two oldest Alexandrian texts had either not been found or was not available to Wycliff to translate from and these support the idea of God is the Son's throne and not the Son is God.

Scholars

A.T.Roberston Word Pictures of the New Test. Vol.5 pg 339
"8. O God(ho Theos)....It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative 9adress with the nominative form as in John 20:28) with the Messiah termed Theos as is possible, John 1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood:
"God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God." Either makes good sense."

Now we see when comparing this to the Oldest English translators they saw it as the latter and not as in the KJV.
If we see the quote from Psalms, the quote definitely , is not a verbatim quote if the Son is made out to be God, for Son is not in Psalms.


Bart Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture pg 265
under
Anti-patripassianist Corruptions of Scripture
"...Heb 1:8, ....The author quotes Psalm 45-6-7 as a declaration of God to (pros) Christ:
"Your throne O God is forever and ever; and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom."
Interpretive problems abound in the passage, in part because the nominative o Theos, normally construed as a vocative ("O God"), could also be taken as a predicate.
In that case, the introductory clause would be rendered, "Your throne is God forever and ever,..." Understood in this way, the text no longer calls Christ "God".

For a variety of contextual reasons, however, the majority of scholars prefer to understand the nominative as a vocative.
Recognizing the exegetical issue, however, makes the textual problem at the end of the verse all the more interesting. For the second person pronoun sov ("your" kingdom) has been changed to the third person avtov in some of the best Alexandrian witnesses from the third century (p46 N B). with this reading, the kingdom is said not to be Christ's but God's. The change affects the interpretation of the first element of the dystich as well; now must be God's throne that is "forever and ever." In other words, the textual change at the end of the verse naturally leads one to understand the earlier nominative o Theos as a predicate rather than a vocative, so that now the verse reads " God is your throne forever and ever; the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom."

Most scholars reject the ALEXANDRIAN reading because it does not fit as well into the context. Why, though, was the change made in the first place?
It dates to the period of our concern and appears to resolve a problematic feature of the verse. Christ is no longer identified as the one God (o Theos) himelf, but is in some sense (in the economy!) made subordinate to him: "God[himself] is your throne."

There are of course, other N.T. passages that have traditionally been understood to designate Christ explicitly as God."


So the oldest Greek MSS do not fall in line with the rendering of those using other Greek MSS and making the Son God, but rather that God is the throne of the Son.

Oneness scholar Dr. Marvin Treece The Literal Word, Hebrews pg 12
"vs 8 [He first gives the passage in the KJV and then the Literal Translation as follows]
"Translation- But to the Son, "God is your throne into the ages of ages, and the rod of uprightness (is) the rod of His kingdom."

Psalms 45:6 KJV
"Your divine throne, Oh God (is) forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness (is) the scepter of your kingdom."

Commentary
But to the Son, "God is your throne." The Writer is quoting the LXX where the nominative ho theos is used instead of the vocative. In the next quotation (v10) we have the vocative kurie. Robertson says... (see above).
Vincent says "I retain the vocative, although the translation of the Hebrews is doubtful.
The following renderings have been proposed : "thy throne (which is a throne) of God"
"thy throne is (a throne) of God" " God is thy throne" (Word Studies in the N.T. Vol. 6 pg 390) The Tenach translates it "Your throne is from God."

I have held to the literal translation of the text; however, I must agree with Nicholl when he says "It does not matter therefore whether we translate, 'Thy throne is God" or "thy trhone, O God,' for the point here to be affirmed is not that the Messiah is Divine, but that he has a throne and everlasting dominion."
(Expositors Greek Test. vol. 4 pg 255)

Raymond Brown in
Jesus God and Man pg 24-25
"Vincent Taylor admits that in vs 8 the expression 'O God" is vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but servants. Therefore in the citation no major point was being made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God."

I myself would state “dominion” and from time going forward into eternity , not a eternity past so that a second person Son is with God the Father first person.
________________________________________
Very briefly, using half or less of my 1,000 words to answer the objections brought up here: Context, context, context. SCHMIDT dwells on one verse, suggesting that since God Himself is the Throne, the Son cannot be God. At first I thought this was a joke, since I couldn't believe the poor apologetics presented here by the Oneness advocate. To show the weakness of his argument, I'll just give him his arguement: I'll suppose he is entirely correct. But he still must deal with vs. 9

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Now pardon me, but it is clear SCHMIDT does not know Greek or Hebrew (as I will shortly show), but one need only look at the English to see that the Son is refered to as God, and His God (the Father) is the one who annointed Him. Again, two different Persons are spoken of in this same verse alone. There are not two Gods, but two Persons, one Person annointed the Second Person. Otherwise, who has annointed God? God's God has annointed Him, is precisely what this verse is saying, in plain English, and even plainer Greek.

SCHMIDT: (concerning the phrase "But unto the Son")
We see addition to the text with "But unto the Son he saith", which is not found in the Hebrew, but appears to be a scribe addition to the passage to prop up the Trinitarian teachings.

Forgive me for laughing, but this alone shows Schmidt's ignorance of the Word. "But unto the Son" is certainly not in the original Hebrew, no one has claimed that. The phrase is penned by the writer of Hebrews, clearly not intending to be an addition to the original Psalm text, but merely pointing out that the verse he is quoting was spoken to the Son, namely Christ. If SCHMIDT is trying to say that the phrase "But...the Son" is not found in the original Book of Hebrews then I will be emberressed for him. We can both take a look at the original text and then I will ask him to tell me what it says. Until then, unless you want to look it up for yourself, the phrase is in the original Greek, so don't tell me it's not there; read the original for yourself.

QuoVadisDomine 01-14-2009 12:31 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4069738)
PARA1
bottom line your church is shown to be non-christian, it murders just like Muslims.[/color]


Deut.6:4 remark

Never said three lord/three god, you just gave me the victory with that, Jesus quoted it in Mark 12:29 as well. Must have been his favorite verse.


Para 3[/color]
see Heis Theos affirmation.[/color]


Quo makes mistake and says echad means composite unity and yachid would have to be used for a absolute one.

answer me this QUO,

Genesis2:21 And LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one (echad) of his ribs.
How many ribs? Maybe God took a single rack of ribs (As you would receive a rack of barbecue ribs).

Genesis22:2
one (echad)of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
How many mountains did Abraham go to?

Exodus25:19 And make one (echad) cherub on the one (different word) end and the other cherub on the other end.
How many cherubs on one side?

Leviticus16:5
one (echad) ram for a burnt offering.
How many rams? Maybe God meant a "whole herd"? He said one; Trinitarians claim that one is supposed to mean a group.

Numbers10:4
one (echad) trumpet,
Were they supposed to blow with an orchestra of trumpets in unison?

Of the 943 times echad is translated "one," it is translated to indicate a single character 901 times. In the remaining instances it still means one.





Numbers 13:23
IT WASN'T ONE GRAPE, IT WAS ONE CLUSTER OF THEM, you misrepresented what it meant.
YOU WERE WRONG ON ECHAD.


'Elohim' itself is plural, says opponent,
Oneness Keith Morehead said this...

El is the singular form of the word God, when -im is added e.g. Elohim, it is made plural. When used to refer to God Almighty, Elohim is similar to a uniplural noun. A uniplural noun can be used to indicate an object in the singular or plural sense.

The word sheep can be used to describe one sheep or many sheep.
Even though Elohim is the plural form of the word, it is ALWAYS translated in the singular form when used in reference to the one true God. There are times when elohim is translated in the plural sense when referring to pagan gods, but it is also translated singularly to describe a pagan deity. Since elohim describes more than one god when translated in the plural form and is used so frequently as a name for God, Trinitarians use it to promote the concept of plurality in reference to God Almighty. Some Trinitarians interpret the word GOD (Elohim) to mean a group of individuals in one unit, specifically, three persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, as one God. They believe that the very word elohim sends messages of plurality within the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity uses the word Elohim to give support to its argument that three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, can exist as one God. This uniplural interpretation of the word elohim is used to support the Trinitarian dogma in texts of the Bible where the solitary "Oneness" of God is disputed.

When applying the Trinitarian explanation of the word Elohim, we find that God's presentation of His nature is incompatible with Trinitarian thought. Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God (El- -singular); Genesis 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God (Elohim- -plural) talked with him. God (El- -singular) appeared to Abram. Only one individual appeared in Genesis 17:1, but in 17:3, that same individual, God (Elohim- -plural), appeared to Abram. Was God alone during one moment and accompanied by the other two members of the Trinity in the the next, while Abram continually saw only one LORD? This would be a very difficult feat regardless of the semantic side stepping. The method of explanation implemented by Trinitarians to avoid this potential contradiction in their doctrine is to believe that the triune nature of God was appearing to Abram and talking to him.





Strongs
Elohiym:
God was never interpreted by this to mean a plurality of beings by Jews and literally as gods or three god.




“SCHMIDT said that God is Spirit. “

Bible said it John 4:24 and thus speaks of Jesus as Deity as such and not as Man~, thanks for helping me.



Matt. 3:16-17:
One person present, Jesus in water .
a voice from heaven and God gives voice to his presence
and a form like a dove as proof for John, no three persons seen here at all.




Matt.28:19

Apostles only baptized in singular name of Jesus! Acts 2;38,8:16,10:48&19:5 see context of 1COR.1:10-15,proof on my side.




Granville Sharp

This verse never used by Granville Sharp fulfilling his rule in any of his writings and this was a most important verse to prove such idea, Also the rules have exceptions to them and this verse is such, it states nothing about persons, but things or positions of that One who is F,S& H.G, JESUS!

Acts 7:55-56, Opponent misses that Stephen calls out to his God and calls him LORD JESUS~ NOT TRINITY or Father and Son vs 59.

One person seen and glory of God~JESUS.


.

Echod is not in JN1:1.
The word with doesn't show such a thing, the Greek is pros ton theon and means in things pertaining to God, not two persons, opponent needs para in the passage and it ain't there.


Letter of Barnabas
Spurious work attributed to Barnabas, not counted as authentic by Lightfoot and Harmer.



Hermas
Only part in all of Hermas that lends itself to a eternal Son, most of Hermas is monarchianistic and he baptized in a name and not titles.
His half brother was a monarchian Bishop.
Likely copyist addition.


Ignatius of Antioch
Virgina Corwin in her book stated "If one term must be chosen to indicate the tendency of his thought, Ignatius must be said to be monarchian." St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch. p126.



Justin Martyr
this fellow used the term 'deuteros Theos'
two god in respect to Jesus as a Second god and this is whom quo wants to support him.
Note how Justyn treats Jesus being Second to the eternal God in the quote my opponent uses at the end of his post.

NOT CHRISTIAN!




Nothing Trinitarian in writings of Polycarp/Mathetes

Irenaeus

A hybrid not fully developed doctrinally.



Tertullian
ANTICHRISTIAN HERETIC, demolished his own position.

CHAPTER 3 AGAINST PRAXEAS

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who
always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the
dispensation
(of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws
them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God...


They are constantly
throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods,
while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being
worshippers of the One God...








Hippolytus
THE ANTI-BISHOP was excommunicated by MONARCHIAN BISHOP AS WELL!
Why didn't you tell folks that?




Novatian
Trinitarian, I reject his wrong thinking.


The Didache

see
(Didache 9).



Schmit
________________________________________
I find it disturbing that you, claiming to be a Christian, use "apologetics" and sarcasm from an atheistic website: http://www.answering-christianity.com/echad.htm. Anyone can look at the questions on that link and see where you copied and pasted your remarks (which arent even yours) concerning Echod. Both you and the atheists are so unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew that you both make yourself look foolish. I'll answer your questions with surprising ease. Hebrew grammar does not flow like our simplistic English, remember that, and if you studied it, even the basics, you would know that.

1|) God took one "echod" of Adam's 24 ribs. Adam did not have a sole "yachid" rib in his body, but 24; the rib God took was not his sole rib. In Hebrew where there is more than one sole thing (a group), "echod" is used in Hebrew to translate "one of" from out of that group. Considered together, they are one.

2) Same applies

3) There are countless cherubim in heaven, but God said to make only one of those countless cherubim. The other word for "one" is "yachid", since there was only one sole end on that side.

4) can be translated as: "one of the many rams"

Of Numbers, in the original Hebrew is says literally "one grape." Prove me wrong by showing us the Hebrew text. I'd love to see it. As we can see, you are the one wrong, and no Hebrew scholar would ever take you or your atheist friends on the website seriouslly were you to present that case to them.

I never said Elohim meant many gods in refernce to God (check my post). You misrepresnted my statment. Go back and re-read it.

If God the Father is spirit, and Jesus is the Father, you have a problem. The Father is spirit, you as Oneness teach Jesus is the Father (and dont pretend that you dont because I can give you references from your own cult that prove it). Christ has flesh, that is not spirit only. You're the one with the dilemma.

Matt. 3:16-17 - now you're ignoring the text itself and adding in your own personal misinterpretation. Everyone saw the dove, just as all heard God's voice "This is MY BELOVED SON..." it was the Father Himself.

To baptize in the "name" of Jesus if you look at the original text meant they baptized by the authority of Jesus. He Himself said baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Compare it to "Stop! in the name of the law." The law has no name but you mean for the person to stop by authority of the law. Or even Paul when he said to his captors "I come in the name of Jesus," means by the authority of Jesus.

Sharp's Rule has absolitly no exceptions. Prove your point by showing me evidense.

"look i see the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" shows to completely different Persons in the picture. Stephen was right in calling Jesus God because He is God the Son.

Wow, your take on pros ton theon is just the opposite. I encourage all reading this to just look it up for themselves. Wow...talk about twisting the text

Your take on the fathers is as shallow as one can get. If you even dared, sir, even DARED to look at each and everyone one of them in full and I might add in Greek, you will find they do not at all teach what you teach.

SCHMIT 01-14-2009 04:39 PM
________________________________________
Another Warning and your LAST!
My opponent, he does not know how to follow rules.

He broke the rule regarding how many words to post and I got additional words because he got carried away.

But a worse violation of the rules is his ridiculing which was against the rules and shows he has lost this debate.
He did so in the first partial rebuttal and continued here, here he used the word that i look 'foolish', this is against the rules of HEDGES FAIRNESS IN DEBATE as posted in the first post and which he agreed to.
In the first post he uses such phrases as my "poor apologetics" instead of dealing with material, he slanders.
He makes comment what I wrote was a joke to him and thus he cannot deal with the material adequately, but uses cavalier speech and fursthe states my point is shallow (post 2) and he pretends to use superior dialog as proof by stating I don't know Greek and I most certainly do, but we are not debating whether I know or not,but what Greek I may use.
He also uses I am the one with a "dilema" and not dealing with my points but ridicule.
In post (1) rebuttal he also uses the statement "forgive me for laughing", once again not dealing with debate material, but ridicule.

So if my opponent continues this in another part of the debate, I will have considered not only winning this debate on material and context, but also because he cannot abide by a rule layed out and must break them.

Mr. Hedge also states that "As truth, and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lesson the force of his reasoning, by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy."



The rule he ageed to.

QuoVadisDomine 01-15-2009 02:28 PM
________________________________________
you have got to be kidding me...

Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4092485)
Another Warning and your LAST!
My opponent, he does not know how to follow rules.

He broke the rule regarding how many words to post and I got additional words because he got carried away.

But a worse violation of the rules is his ridiculing which was against the rules and shows he has lost this debate.
He did so in the first partial rebuttal and continued here, here he used the word that i look 'foolish', this is against the rules of HEDGES FAIRNESS IN DEBATE as posted in the first post and which he agreed to.
In the first post he uses such phrases as my "poor apologetics" instead of dealing with material, he slanders.
He makes comment what I wrote was a joke to him and thus he cannot deal with the material adequately, but uses cavalier speech and fursthe states my point is shallow (post 2) and he pretends to use superior dialog as proof by stating I don't know Greek and I most certainly do, but we are not debating whether I know or not,but what Greek I may use.
He also uses I am the one with a "dilema" and not dealing with my points but ridicule.
In post (1) rebuttal he also uses the statement "forgive me for laughing", once again not dealing with debate material, but ridicule.

So if my opponent continues this in another part of the debate, I will have considered not only winning this debate on material and context, but also because he cannot abide by a rule layed out and must break them.

Mr. Hedge also states that "As truth, and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lesson the force of his reasoning, by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy."



The rule he ageed to.
________________________________________
Seiriouslly? You want to talk about ridiculing? Let's do it. Allow me to remind you of your words:

"Thus the proof is on him to find such and me to reject such FALSE TEACHING"

You, in your very first post, condemned my belief as false teaching, therefore breaking the rule: "Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that is possible, therefore, THAT HE MAY BE IN THE WRONG, and his adversary in the RIGHT." If you really want to play this ad hominem game, you lose. Your own words condemn you. As a matter of fact, before this debate even began you broke that rule by replying to me on your own wall post:

"As to the Eucharest, I will debate this after a debate on the Trinity versus the Oneness of God as I would like to call it and we finish that if you so choose after getting your backside kicked all over the place."

This shows me you really have no respect for Hedge's rule unless it is in your favor.


"Oneness Apostolics have held the same truth about God since the Bible, my opponent MUST INSERT FALSE MAN MAN IDEAS and terms to support him and PUT A TWIST on what the Bible DOES NOT SAY about a deity called TRINITY."

Not once, but TWICE you break that rule...in the very same post.

"If it was, it would have murdered and had wars against one another, would not have burned men at the stake and dunked pregnant woman and raped and tortured, my church didn't do that, but his trinity "Orthodoxy" did."

Once again, you revert to ad hominem and not only seek to attack me, but also my Church instead of going after the theology. Not only do you attack it, but you misrepresent the facts which, if you dont belive me, I would be most happy to review them with you.

"My opponent like all trinitarians must take a passage and slice and dice..." Now you accuse me and fellows with Trinitarian beliefs of "slicing and dicing" the Scriptures. Again, Hedge's rule is broken.

You really should try and follow Hedge's rule: "As truth, and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lesson the force of his reasoning, by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy."

Obviously, you have not. You have spent your last post accusing me of saying things I did not say, such as: "In the first post he uses such phrases as my "poor apologetics" instead of dealing with material, he slanders." Truth hurt - when ANYONE looks at the defenses youve posted, and views them in CONTEXT, they will clearly see just how poor your defenses truly are. I am merely stating a fact which can be backed up, and which I have proven by addressing what you have said in context. Furthermore, I specifically said, "Both you and the atheists are so unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew that you both make yourself look foolish." This is the case with anything and anybody. If you dont know the way the ancient language flows, you will make yourself look foolish by trying to make it say something it is definetly not saying. I am not a scholar in Hebrew, but I know enough of it (and I can quote to you as many Hebraic scholars as you like) that take my side in this debate.

You said, " He also uses I am the one with a "dilema" and not dealing with my points but ridicule."

As I have shown, you are the one using the ridicule and I have answered your points as anyone reading this can clearly see. If you would like me to expound on one or more point feel free to let me know and I will gladly do so.

"So if my opponent continues this in another part of the debate, I will have considered not only winning this debate on material and context, but also because he cannot abide by a rule layed out and must break them."

As we have seen, you are the one who broke your own rules you yourself laid out...in your very first post. You demand that I stick to answering the theology, I ask you do the same.

SCHMIT 01-16-2009 11:49 AM
________________________________________
That is not a attack on your personally and you did so to me, if you pull one more trick and stay off the subject of debate and start attacking me as foolish, a joke and as I stated in my NON-DEBATE POST, BUT WARNING TO YOU, you will be through and will have lost.
You entered this debate statting you would follow rules and you have not.
You posted over in one post and in two others ridiculed and tried using derogatory wit.
My previous opponents did not do so during the debate and what happens after is fine with me, I can take it and dish it out.

My statement of your church and what it did is not personal ridicule, but again against your church, you apaprently cannot see the difference in personal attacks by you on me versus your church being called out foe what it did and historicly.

Slicing and dicing is not a personal attack as stating I am foolish or a joke or ignorant.

WARNING, don't get off again on such.

What is stated in any other thread outside of this debate post has nothing to do with the debate and please refrain from referring to such, it matters none to me and has no part in the posting here.

As a matter of fact, before this debate even began you broke that rule by replying to me on your own wall post:

"As to the Eucharest, I will debate this after a debate on the Trinity versus the Oneness of God as I would like to call it and we finish that if you so choose after getting your backside kicked all over the place."

This shows me you really have no respect for Hedge's rule unless it is in your favor.


That was not in this debate, follow the rules.

Neither this or the other warning posts have a thing to do with the debate, but the tactics and problems you have, I have not used my counter rebuttal of 500 words yet either, stick to the debate at hand and not side show demonstrations as you did with me as already shown DURING THE DEBATE.

You also have a counter rebuttal of my response of 500 words yet.

I have had two good debates with yodas prodigy and james and hope that we can finish this on the merits of debate topics and not me personally.

QuoVadisDomine 01-16-2009 12:52 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4101737)
That is not a attack on your personally and you did so to me, if you pull one more trick and stay off the subject of debate and start attacking me as foolish, a joke and as I stated in my NON-DEBATE POST, BUT WARNING TO YOU, you will be through and will have lost.
You entered this debate statting you would follow rules and you have not.
You posted over in one post and in two others ridiculed and tried using derogatory wit.
My previous opponents did not do so during the debate and what happens after is fine with me, I can take it and dish it out.

My statement of your church and what it did is not personal ridicule, but again against your church, you apaprently cannot see the difference in personal attacks by you on me versus your church being called out foe what it did and historicly.

Slicing and dicing is not a personal attack as stating I am foolish or a joke or ignorant.

WARNING, don't get off again on such.

What is stated in any other thread outside of this debate post has nothing to do with the debate and please refrain from referring to such, it matters none to me and has no part in the posting here.

As a matter of fact, before this debate even began you broke that rule by replying to me on your own wall post:

"As to the Eucharest, I will debate this after a debate on the Trinity versus the Oneness of God as I would like to call it and we finish that if you so choose after getting your backside kicked all over the place."

This shows me you really have no respect for Hedge's rule unless it is in your favor.


That was not in this debate, follow the rules.

Neither this or the other warning posts have a thing to do with the debate, but the tactics and problems you have, I have not used my counter rebuttal of 500 words yet either, stick to the debate at hand and not side show demonstrations as you did with me as already shown DURING THE DEBATE.

You also have a counter rebuttal of my response of 500 words yet.

I have had two good debates with yodas prodigy and james and hope that we can finish this on the merits of debate topics and not me personally.
________________________________________
Have you even read what I read? I showed how you personally attacked me and the church, you obiviously deny it. Youre the one using ad hominem as I have repeatedly shown: you have not even answered to my first point made that you yourself broke Hedge's rule in your very first post. Dont think youre the first Oneness I have debated sir, and let me asure you I have debated men who show more respect for their opponents than you do. I have respect for your very own Rob Sabin, who you can see debated with the truly unforgettable Walter Martin on the John Ankerburg Show, I've also seen the debate between Sabin and James White that took place in 1999. I still have respect for the man. So do not try and make me to look like the bad guy. I have neither attacked you, nor your church, but am going after your theology. Your statments that I must "twist Scripture" and "insert man made doctrines" is not only a personal attack up ME, but also breaking the rule that you must see your opponent as being possibly correct. Those quotes and others made by you do not in any way follow that rule. If anything, I have the option of pronouncing this rule as reason enough to stop this debate because you have already broken it, but out of interest in debating with you I have decided against it. Even before my use of more words (which I had apologized for) you threw the rule in the trash, more than once, exceeding your warnings. Youve said your say, Ive shown how you misrepresented it. I will not explain again something you have clearly chosen to ignore, including the claim that I called you personally foolish. I never called you ignorant, please show me where I alledgely said this. As for the claim on the church being a killer, I answered this more than once, even offered to look at the history with you: do you decline or accept? If you do not want to answer my statments regarding the theology, just say so and we shall be done with the debate. If you intend to present your rebuttle, on behalf of all those watching this unfold, I ask you present it now and we continue on.

SCHMIT 01-17-2009 05:31 PM
________________________________________
Forgive me for laughing, but this alone shows Schmidt's ignorance of the Word.

THAT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK, saying how you people slice and dice is not, it is how you break up God and make a false godhead.

[COLOR="Red"][B]You brok the rules and taking things from outside the debate thread is another false accusation that I did something in the debate.
You agreed to hold to them in debate and have not done so and then try accusing me of some violations outside this debate and also misstating that slice and dice is like saying someone is a joke and mine meant exactly how you people illustrate GOD, or rather your gods.


I find you a man that has no scruples and doesn't abide by rules and tries to state I have called you soemthing and from outside the debate and it is you and you alone that called others names.

Oh and the first line was your mouth running wild talking about my ignorance and not again dealing with material, so don't go playing coy with me, you will either stop or lose and I will expose your posts and show why you cannot debate, because youa re to busy calling names and falsifying what I say and trying to make it seem as if I did something in this dabet, while tying things outside of it.

I will continue my COUNTER REBUTTAL sir
within the time alloted and you just finished your rebutall, so I have time.
I have you several times speaking of ME PERSONALLY, you have me speaking of your false religion and not you in any such way.

SO STOP AND NOW!


You have never debated and pretedning you have is folly, for you cannot but avoid to run your mouth against your opponent and not deal with all his material or barely a smidgen.

"At first I thought this was a joke, since I couldn't believe the poor apologetics presented here by the Oneness advocate. To show the weakness of his argument" quo's statement



more personal attacks in the debate, not outside of it's threads.

So please stick to material and arrirmations and defense, not what you think about me and my foolish and ignorance and laughing and joking, thank you.
SCHMIT

QuoVadisDomine 01-17-2009 07:04 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4108266)
Forgive me for laughing, but this alone shows Schmidt's ignorance of the Word.

THAT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK, saying how you people slice and dice is not, it is how you break up God and make a false godhead.

[b]You brok the rules and taking things from outside the debate thread is another false accusation that I did something in the debate.
You agreed to hold to them in debate and have not done so and then try accusing me of some violations outside this debate and also misstating that slice and dice is like saying someone is a joke and mine meant exactly how you people illustrate GOD, or rather your gods.


I find you a man that has no scruples and doesn't abide by rules and tries to state I have called you soemthing and from outside the debate and it is you and you alone that called others names.

Oh and the first line was your mouth running wild talking about my ignorance and not again dealing with material, so don't go playing coy with me, you will either stop or lose and I will expose your posts and show why you cannot debate, because youa re to busy calling names and falsifying what I say and trying to make it seem as if I did something in this dabet, while tying things outside of it.

I will continue my COUNTER REBUTTAL sir
within the time alloted and you just finished your rebutall, so I have time.
I have you several times speaking of ME PERSONALLY, you have me speaking of your false religion and not you in any such way.

SO STOP AND NOW!


You have never debated and pretedning you have is folly, for you cannot but avoid to run your mouth against your opponent and not deal with all his material or barely a smidgen.

[color="Red"]"At first I thought this was a joke, since I couldn't believe the poor apologetics presented here by the Oneness advocate. To show the weakness of his argument" quo's statement



more personal attacks in the debate, not outside of it's threads.

So please stick to material and arrirmations and defense, not what you think about me and my foolish and ignorance and laughing and joking, thank you.
SCHMIT
________________________________________
None of which you have posted are personal attacks and I have already proven that. I am getting the impression you are stalling for answers to my statments regarding the theology. Is that true? You may write any thing about me you please, I will do the immediete follow up with all words in context, chapter and verse, so to speak, as I have here, and which you have ignored, reverting back to the same old "he's attacking me" routine. Is it my fault you never once quoted the bible in context? This shows ignorance. That is a fact of logic. Instead you moved to an atheist site to find answers to my theological statments, and when that has proven faulty, you suddenly attacked me by saying I attacked you. So go right ahead and show how I cannot debate, use all the quotes of mine you want. I will simply, as I said, show my words in context. Not only have you continually taken them out of context here, but you have in your previous posts. It's actually quite sad to see a grown man (I assume, since I havent met you in person) resort to childish tactics just to get his own way. So again I say, go right ahead and write all about how I attack you, I will be only too glad to present all my quotes in context.

Oh and the first line was your mouth running wild talking about my ignorance and not again dealing with material,

Really? In which post, may I ask? I hope you dont mean the line you have highlighted in green because that certainly was not my first line. Do you remember why I said that, Schmidt? Allow me to refresh the memory:

SCHMIDT: (concerning the phrase "But unto the Son")
We see addition to the text with "But unto the Son he saith", which is not found in the Hebrew, but appears to be a scribe addition to the passage to prop up the Trinitarian teachings.

To which I specifically said, "Forgive me for laughing, but this alone shows Schmidt's ignorance of the Word. "But unto the Son" is certainly not in the original Hebrew, no one has claimed that. The phrase is penned by the writer of Hebrews, clearly not intending to be an addition to the original Psalm text, but merely pointing out that the verse he is quoting was spoken to the Son, namely Christ. If SCHMIDT is trying to say that the phrase "But...the Son" is not found in the original Book of Hebrews then I will be emberressed for him. We can both take a look at the original text and then I will ask him to tell me what it says."

You have still not answered that. Anytime I see a gross butchering of sacred text, I am amazed at the theological ignorance behind it. If all you plan to do, sir, is attack me personally again and again, not answering any of my theological statments, then I can tell you right now I will not put up with this childishness. The only reason I have responded so far is to defend my name, and hopefully to continue the debate, but seeing as how that has not brought us anywhere, write any dirt on me you like, but don't expect an answer from me - that still leaves you with my claims to answer. So once again, on behalf of all those reading this debate, I ask you: post your rebuttle.

SCHMIT 01-19-2009 03:18 PM
________________________________________
You are not now in debate, you are further breaking the rules by addressing points of the debate.
That first line was your writing, I didn't say it was the first line in something you wrote, but was what I was speaking about in my post.

I will post my rebuttle when I fell within the time frame given and likely will be tommorow, I am on a computer right now witgh limited time, my office where I have my computer that I am on generally had a pipe freeze and break Friday and caused considerably damage in my office and a partners, so I will be on Tuesday likely alot more than I can tonight.

I am not going to respond to extra written material in this post, re-bring it up in a counter rebuttal p[ost and leave out your smart remarks.

The childish one is you and you further continue it and when I am done I will tell you totally what I think of you.


YOU DID SAY THE FOLLOWING AND BROKE THE RULES

To which I specifically said, "Forgive me for laughing, but this alone shows Schmidt's ignorance of the Word.



Lastly so you know, Friday I was responding to your post when the Pipe broke and started a indoor flood, but know nothing you say causes me to break a sweat, it just makes me know how folks are duped by their false trinity Pastors and teachers and Popes.

SCHMIT 01-20-2009 11:00 AM
________________________________________
500 WORD COUNTER REBUTTAL added to your post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very briefly, using half or less of my 1,000 words to answer the objections brought up here: Context, context, context. SCHMIDT dwells on one verse, suggesting that since God Himself is the Throne, the Son cannot be God. At first I thought this was a joke, since I couldn't believe the poor apologetics presented here by the Oneness advocate. To show the weakness of his argument, I'll just give him his arguement: I'll suppose he is entirely correct. But he still must deal with vs. 9

MERE RIDICULE

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

OBVIOUS WAS DEALING WITH A MAN WHO WOULD HAVE FELLOWS, HE
WOULD BE DEALING WITH EITHER MEN OR ANGELS.

Now pardon me, but it is clear SCHMIDT does not know Greek or Hebrew (as I will shortly show), but one need only look at the English to see that the Son is refered to as God, and His God (the Father) is the one who annointed Him. Again, two different Persons are spoken of in this same verse alone. There are not two Gods, but two Persons, one Person annointed the Second Person. Otherwise, who has annointed God? God's God has annointed Him, is precisely what this verse is saying, in plain English, and even plainer Greek.

MY OPPONENT USES AGAIN A CAVILLING SPIRIT
I KNOW GREEK, GOD WAS NOT ANOINTED, A MAN WAS.

SCHMIDT: (concerning the phrase "But unto the Son")
We see addition to the text with "But unto the Son he saith", which is not found in the Hebrew, but appears to be a scribe addition to the passage to prop up the Trinitarian teachings.

Forgive me for laughing, but this alone shows Schmidt's ignorance of the Word. "But unto the Son" is certainly not in the original Hebrew, no one has claimed that. The phrase is penned by the writer of Hebrews, clearly not intending to be an addition to the original Psalm text, but merely pointing out that the verse he is quoting was spoken to the Son, namely Christ. If SCHMIDT is trying to say that the phrase "But...the Son" is not found in the original Book of Hebrews then I will be emberressed for him. We can both take a look at the original text and then I will ask him to tell me what it says. Until then, unless you want to look it up for yourself, the phrase is in the original Greek, so don't tell me it's not there; read the original for yourself.

AGAN USES A PERSONAL ATTACK,

I REFUTED IN DEPTH HEB.1:8 AS WRITTEN IN KJV AND SHOWED IT MEANS THAT GOD IS THE SON’S THRONE. IT ALSO IS NOT IN PSALMS AS IN Book of Hebrews.

I find it disturbing that you, claiming to be a Christian, use "apologetics" and sarcasm from an atheistic website: http://www.answering-christianity.com/echad.htm. Anyone can look at the questions on that link and see where you copied and pasted your remarks (which arent even yours) concerning Echod. Both you and the atheists are so unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew that you both make yourself look foolish. I'll answer your questions with surprising ease. Hebrew grammar does not flow like our simplistic English, remember that, and if you studied it, even the basics, you would know that.


Did not answer what I Posted, I also got the text and gave the source as Keith Morehead a Oneness Pentecostal and did not get it from the site you found it on, the Muslims borrowed it.Not my problem that they do.
http://www.whoisjesus.com/echad.html

1|) God took one "echod" of Adam's 24 ribs. Adam did not have a sole "yachid" rib in his body, but 24; the rib God took was not his sole rib. In Hebrew where there is more than one sole thing (a group), "echod" is used in Hebrew to translate "one of" from out of that group. Considered together, they are one.

So you say God took a slab or all of them?!

JUST ONE SINGLE RIB Quo!

2) Same applies

NUMERIC ONE WAS MEANT.

3) There are countless cherubim in heaven, but God said to make only one of those countless cherubim. The other word for "one" is "yachid", since there was only one sole end on that side.

QUO messed up again, the one cherub on one end was called echad.

4) can be translated as: "one of the many rams"

I believe he took and killed only ONE!, not many.

He did not get any of those right.

Of Numbers, in the original Hebrew is says literally "one grape." Prove me wrong by showing us the Hebrew text. I'd love to see it. As we can see, you are the one wrong, and no Hebrew scholar would ever take you or your atheist friends on the website seriouslly were you to present that case to them.

I didn’t subscribe to atheists. One grape is not a cluster and not what was stated by Jews they meant one cluster, not a HUGE GRAPE. Wrong Again.

I never said Elohim meant many gods in refernce to God (check my post). You misrepresnted my statment. Go back and re-read it.
The Hebrew word for ONE in this passage is "echod", literally meaning 'composite unity.' If Moses had intended to say God is solely one Person as the Oneness tell us, he would have used the Hebrew word 'yachid', which literally means absolute and only one.

My opponent forgot what he wrote , ALL HIS EXAMPLES SHOWED plurality as a unity, one could only take that it meant a membership for the word and a sole individual one for yachid only, he was thus proven wrong.

If God the Father is spirit, and Jesus is the Father, you have a problem. The Father is spirit, you as Oneness teach Jesus is the Father (and dont pretend that you dont because I can give you references from your own cult that prove it). Christ has flesh, that is not spirit only. You're the one with the dilemma.

No pretending the Father is Spirit and Jesus as such is our God and Father as Spirit and the Son is the flesh of God, his body or tabernacle.

Matt.3:16-17 - now you're ignoring the text itself and adding in your own personal misinterpretation. Everyone saw the dove, just as all heard God's voice "This is MY BELOVED SON..." it was the Father Himself.


God is Spirit John4:24 and not a dove, the dove was a temporary appearance for the sake of John , though other may have seen it was well.
A VOICE IS NOT A PERSON, IT SHOWS THE PRESENCE OF GOD AND JESUS IS THAT GOD AND FATHER, as well as the SON.


To baptize in the "name" of Jesus if you look at the original text meant they baptized by the authority of Jesus. He Himself said baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Compare it to "Stop! in the name of the law." The law has no name but you mean for the person to stop by authority of the law. Or even Paul when he said to his captors "I come in the name of Jesus," means by the authority of Jesus.


The old fallacy that baptism was only in the “authority only” scheme.
Sorry the Bible is correct, Baptism was only in Jesus name ACTS 2:38,8:16,10:48,19: and 1Cor.1:10-15.
This site refutes “authority only”…
http://forums.delphiforums.com/goldb...ages?msg=511.8
Baptism not in titles originally.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums...authority+only

http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

Above is quotations against trinity baptism.

Sharp's Rule has absolitly no exceptions. Prove your point by showing me evidence.
Sharp’s rule has exceptions and Sharp never ever used Mt.28:19 to support his rules.
exceptions
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/Doctrines/granville_sharp.htm


"look i see the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" shows to completely different Persons in the picture. Stephen was right in calling Jesus God because He is God the Son.
Stephen called on his God and not gods and said LORD JESUS!

Wow, your take on pros ton theon is just the opposite. I encourage all reading this to just look it up for themselves. Wow...talk about twisting the text

Opponent needs “para ton theon” to actually be 'with' and not pros ton theon, see Rom.15:17,Heb 2;17 and 5:1. “in those things pertaining to God".

Your take on the fathers is as shallow as one can get. If you even dared, sir, even DARED to look at each and everyone one of them in full and I might add in Greek, you will find they do not at all teach what you teach.

ad hominem attack
Ignatius was monarchian, Hermas spoke as monarchian save one verse.
I agreed several he used were tritheists.
Most never used Trinity or three persons that early on.

Would be nice if you dealt with my material.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:17 PM. Page 1 of 3 1 2
3
>

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
copyright CARM 2006,2007,2008,2009

Page 2 of 3 <
1
2 3
>

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


CARM.ORG - Christian Discussion Forums (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/index.php)
- Private Debate - Theological (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/forumdisplay.php?f=69)
- - Trinity vs Oneness debate - quo vs Schmit (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=146772)

QuoVadisDomine 01-21-2009 02:07 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4121194)
500 WORD COUNTER REBUTTAL added to your post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very briefly, using half or less of my 1,000 words to answer the objections brought up here: Context, context, context. SCHMIDT dwells on one verse, suggesting that since God Himself is the Throne, the Son cannot be God. At first I thought this was a joke, since I couldn't believe the poor apologetics presented here by the Oneness advocate. To show the weakness of his argument, I'll just give him his arguement: I'll suppose he is entirely correct. But he still must deal with vs. 9

MERE RIDICULE

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

OBVIOUS WAS DEALING WITH A MAN WHO WOULD HAVE FELLOWS, HE
WOULD BE DEALING WITH EITHER MEN OR ANGELS.

Now pardon me, but it is clear SCHMIDT does not know Greek or Hebrew (as I will shortly show), but one need only look at the English to see that the Son is refered to as God, and His God (the Father) is the one who annointed Him. Again, two different Persons are spoken of in this same verse alone. There are not two Gods, but two Persons, one Person annointed the Second Person. Otherwise, who has annointed God? God's God has annointed Him, is precisely what this verse is saying, in plain English, and even plainer Greek.

MY OPPONENT USES AGAIN A CAVILLING SPIRIT
I KNOW GREEK, GOD WAS NOT ANOINTED, A MAN WAS.

SCHMIDT: (concerning the phrase "But unto the Son")
We see addition to the text with "But unto the Son he saith", which is not found in the Hebrew, but appears to be a scribe addition to the passage to prop up the Trinitarian teachings.

Forgive me for laughing, but this alone shows Schmidt's ignorance of the Word. "But unto the Son" is certainly not in the original Hebrew, no one has claimed that. The phrase is penned by the writer of Hebrews, clearly not intending to be an addition to the original Psalm text, but merely pointing out that the verse he is quoting was spoken to the Son, namely Christ. If SCHMIDT is trying to say that the phrase "But...the Son" is not found in the original Book of Hebrews then I will be emberressed for him. We can both take a look at the original text and then I will ask him to tell me what it says. Until then, unless you want to look it up for yourself, the phrase is in the original Greek, so don't tell me it's not there; read the original for yourself.

AGAN USES A PERSONAL ATTACK,

I REFUTED IN DEPTH HEB.1:8 AS WRITTEN IN KJV AND SHOWED IT MEANS THAT GOD IS THE SON’S THRONE. IT ALSO IS NOT IN PSALMS AS IN Book of Hebrews.

I find it disturbing that you, claiming to be a Christian, use "apologetics" and sarcasm from an atheistic website: http://www.answering-christianity.com/echad.htm. Anyone can look at the questions on that link and see where you copied and pasted your remarks (which arent even yours) concerning Echod. Both you and the atheists are so unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew that you both make yourself look foolish. I'll answer your questions with surprising ease. Hebrew grammar does not flow like our simplistic English, remember that, and if you studied it, even the basics, you would know that.


Did not answer what I Posted, I also got the text and gave the source as Keith Morehead a Oneness Pentecostal and did not get it from the site you found it on, the Muslims borrowed it.Not my problem that they do.
http://www.whoisjesus.com/echad.html

1|) God took one "echod" of Adam's 24 ribs. Adam did not have a sole "yachid" rib in his body, but 24; the rib God took was not his sole rib. In Hebrew where there is more than one sole thing (a group), "echod" is used in Hebrew to translate "one of" from out of that group. Considered together, they are one.

So you say God took a slab or all of them?!

JUST ONE SINGLE RIB Quo!

2) Same applies

NUMERIC ONE WAS MEANT.

3) There are countless cherubim in heaven, but God said to make only one of those countless cherubim. The other word for "one" is "yachid", since there was only one sole end on that side.

QUO messed up again, the one cherub on one end was called echad.

4) can be translated as: "one of the many rams"

I believe he took and killed only ONE!, not many.

He did not get any of those right.

Of Numbers, in the original Hebrew is says literally "one grape." Prove me wrong by showing us the Hebrew text. I'd love to see it. As we can see, you are the one wrong, and no Hebrew scholar would ever take you or your atheist friends on the website seriouslly were you to present that case to them.

I didn’t subscribe to atheists. One grape is not a cluster and not what was stated by Jews they meant one cluster, not a HUGE GRAPE. Wrong Again.

I never said Elohim meant many gods in refernce to God (check my post). You misrepresnted my statment. Go back and re-read it.
The Hebrew word for ONE in this passage is "echod", literally meaning 'composite unity.' If Moses had intended to say God is solely one Person as the Oneness tell us, he would have used the Hebrew word 'yachid', which literally means absolute and only one.

My opponent forgot what he wrote , ALL HIS EXAMPLES SHOWED plurality as a unity, one could only take that it meant a membership for the word and a sole individual one for yachid only, he was thus proven wrong.

If God the Father is spirit, and Jesus is the Father, you have a problem. The Father is spirit, you as Oneness teach Jesus is the Father (and dont pretend that you dont because I can give you references from your own cult that prove it). Christ has flesh, that is not spirit only. You're the one with the dilemma.

No pretending the Father is Spirit and Jesus as such is our God and Father as Spirit and the Son is the flesh of God, his body or tabernacle.

Matt.3:16-17 - now you're ignoring the text itself and adding in your own personal misinterpretation. Everyone saw the dove, just as all heard God's voice "This is MY BELOVED SON..." it was the Father Himself.


God is Spirit John4:24 and not a dove, the dove was a temporary appearance for the sake of John , though other may have seen it was well.
A VOICE IS NOT A PERSON, IT SHOWS THE PRESENCE OF GOD AND JESUS IS THAT GOD AND FATHER, as well as the SON.


To baptize in the "name" of Jesus if you look at the original text meant they baptized by the authority of Jesus. He Himself said baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Compare it to "Stop! in the name of the law." The law has no name but you mean for the person to stop by authority of the law. Or even Paul when he said to his captors "I come in the name of Jesus," means by the authority of Jesus.


The old fallacy that baptism was only in the “authority only” scheme.
Sorry the Bible is correct, Baptism was only in Jesus name ACTS 2:38,8:16,10:48,19: and 1Cor.1:10-15.
This site refutes “authority only”…
http://forums.delphiforums.com/goldb...ages?msg=511.8
Baptism not in titles originally.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums...authority+only

http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

Above is quotations against trinity baptism.

Sharp's Rule has absolitly no exceptions. Prove your point by showing me evidence.
Sharp’s rule has exceptions and Sharp never ever used Mt.28:19 to support his rules.
exceptions
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/Doctrines/granville_sharp.htm


"look i see the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" shows to completely different Persons in the picture. Stephen was right in calling Jesus God because He is God the Son.
Stephen called on his God and not gods and said LORD JESUS!

Wow, your take on pros ton theon is just the opposite. I encourage all reading this to just look it up for themselves. Wow...talk about twisting the text

Opponent needs “para ton theon” to actually be 'with' and not pros ton theon, see Rom.15:17,Heb 2;17 and 5:1. “in those things pertaining to God".

Your take on the fathers is as shallow as one can get. If you even dared, sir, even DARED to look at each and everyone one of them in full and I might add in Greek, you will find they do not at all teach what you teach.

ad hominem attack
Ignatius was monarchian, Hermas spoke as monarchian save one verse.
I agreed several he used were tritheists.
Most never used Trinity or three persons that early on.

Would be nice if you dealt with my material.
________________________________________
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

OBVIOUS WAS DEALING WITH A MAN WHO WOULD HAVE FELLOWS, HE
WOULD BE DEALING WITH EITHER MEN OR ANGELS.

Men are not gods. If this is a man in the Hebrews passage he is worshiped by others, even the angel. Only God alone is given adoration. I encourage others to read the entire book of Hebrews in context: it speaks for itself :) Btw, "Messiah" means "annointed one" - Jesus was annointed

I KNOW GREEK, GOD WAS NOT ANOINTED, A MAN WAS.

"Theos" (God) always means "God" unless specifically noted to mean men (cf. Psalm 82)

I REFUTED IN DEPTH HEB.1:8 AS WRITTEN IN KJV AND SHOWED IT MEANS THAT GOD IS THE SON’S THRONE. IT ALSO IS NOT IN PSALMS AS IN Book of Hebrews.

And I've proven how this doesn't support your view of Oneness at all.

So you say God took a slab or all of them?!

JUST ONE SINGLE RIB Quo!

"echod" is used in Hebrew to translate "ONE OF". Context...

NUMERIC ONE WAS MEANT.

Context...lack of in this case...context is beautiful. Above applies for all examples. Look it up for yourselves.

I didn’t subscribe to atheists. One grape is not a cluster and not what was stated by Jews they meant one cluster, not a HUGE GRAPE. Wrong Again.

Of Numbers, in the original Hebrew is says literally "one grape." Prove me wrong by showing us the Hebrew text. Still dont see Hebrew text...

My opponent forgot what he wrote , ALL HIS EXAMPLES SHOWED plurality as a unity, one could only take that it meant a membership for the word and a sole individual one for yachid only, he was thus proven wrong.

All my examples are taken from the Bible. which SHOWED plurality ... Hmm that should tell us something...

No pretending the Father is Spirit and Jesus as such is our God and Father as Spirit and the Son is the flesh of God, his body or tabernacle.

Ahh, light Mormonism. If God is solely One as you say then He cannot have a tabernacle "God is spirit" (John) "A spirit DOES NOT HAVE flesh and bone..." (Luke)

God is Spirit John4:24 and not a dove, the dove was a temporary appearance for the sake of John , though other may have seen it was well.
A VOICE IS NOT A PERSON, IT SHOWS THE PRESENCE OF GOD AND JESUS IS THAT GOD AND FATHER, as well as the SON.

God the Holy Spirit came as a dove. Who says the dove was for John's sake? Where does it say that in the Bible? Voices dont just come out of nowhere, they come from persons....

The old fallacy that baptism was only in the “authority only” scheme.
Sorry the Bible is correct, Baptism was only in Jesus name ACTS 2:38,8:16,10:48,19: and 1Cor.1:10-15.
This site refutes “authority only”…
http://forums.delphiforums.com/goldb...ages?msg=511.8
Baptism not in titles originally.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums...authority+only

http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

Above is quotations against trinity baptism.

I dont have time to refute every single point so I suggest to you, dear readers, that you check my view by researching it for yourself.

Sharp’s rule has exceptions and Sharp never ever used Mt.28:19 to support his rules.
exceptions
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Belie...ille_sharp.htm

Still havent proven the exceptions. Sharp did not use every single verse in the Bible that fit his rule as examples, he only showed a few examples. Given the context of the Greek grammar in Mt 28:19, we can clearly see how the rule applies.

Opponent needs “para ton theon” to actually be 'with' and not pros ton theon, see Rom.15:17,Heb 2;17 and 5:1. “in those things pertaining to God".

Funny how the Greek scholars throughout the ages who know more Greek than you or I ever will disagree with you...(look it up for yourself folks)

Ignatius was monarchian, Hermas spoke as monarchian save one verse.
I agreed several he used were tritheists.
Most never used Trinity or three persons that early on.

Whenever you want to prove that by looking at the fathers in context let me know and I'll be happy to oblige. They were Trinitarian, starting with Ignatius.

SCHMIT 01-23-2009 10:34 AM
________________________________________
Five questions to Trinitarian from Oneness Schmit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want my opponent to answer these Questions...
1) What person of God dwells in Jesus Christ?
Also is Jesus in the godhead or the godhead in Jesus?

2) According to John 17:3 Jesus refered to someone, some person, called the Father as THE ONLY TRUE GOD, SO HOW DOES THIS NOT UNDEIFY JESUS THE SON AND YOUR SECOND PERSON AND WHO IS JESUSING CALLING THE "ONLY" TRUE GOD?
Then tell me how Jesus is not a untrue God based on his own words if the trinity of three persons is supposed to be true according to you people.

3)How many persons are seen on the throne in scripture? as in Rev.4:?

4)Why is it I can find proof of God being only one person in passages like Job 13:8 and Gal. 3:20 Amplified version and Gal. 3:20 Greek Grammar of Heis Theos and you Trinitarians cannot find one passage that says God is three persons anywhere.
Where is your passages that states clearly like mine that God is three persons?
The Bible has 7,770 verses that use singular personal pronouns and you take a handful of passages and try to get a plurality of beings out of it, the Bible is clear, your creedal language is not.

5)Can you find anywhere where Jesus/God gave a message in murdering, raping ,stealing and torturing others who don't abide in your doctrine? as well as causing wars and killing people who would not accept the Trinity Churches doctrines?
Your church is proven as a cult for doing such in FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS AND MARTYRS MIRROR AND other Histocial sources.
You people are not Christian to me and I want to understand how you think you are based on those facts.
Can you as well find monarchians doing such?
I say blood is on your churches hands.

______________________________________

Now post five questions limited to 100 each to me.

thank you
SCHMIT

QuoVadisDomine 01-28-2009 11:12 AM
________________________________________
flu...

Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4136917)
Five questions to Trinitarian from Oneness Schmit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want my opponent to answer these Questions...
1) What person of God dwells in Jesus Christ?
Also is Jesus in the godhead or the godhead in Jesus?

2) According to John 17:3 Jesus refered to someone, some person, called the Father as THE ONLY TRUE GOD, SO HOW DOES THIS NOT UNDEIFY JESUS THE SON AND YOUR SECOND PERSON AND WHO IS JESUSING CALLING THE "ONLY" TRUE GOD?
Then tell me how Jesus is not a untrue God based on his own words if the trinity of three persons is supposed to be true according to you people.

3)How many persons are seen on the throne in scripture? as in Rev.4:?

4)Why is it I can find proof of God being only one person in passages like Job 13:8 and Gal. 3:20 Amplified version and Gal. 3:20 Greek Grammar of Heis Theos and you Trinitarians cannot find one passage that says God is three persons anywhere.
Where is your passages that states clearly like mine that God is three persons?
The Bible has 7,770 verses that use singular personal pronouns and you take a handful of passages and try to get a plurality of beings out of it, the Bible is clear, your creedal language is not.

5)Can you find anywhere where Jesus/God gave a message in murdering, raping ,stealing and torturing others who don't abide in your doctrine? as well as causing wars and killing people who would not accept the Trinity Churches doctrines?
Your church is proven as a cult for doing such in FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS AND MARTYRS MIRROR AND other Histocial sources.
You people are not Christian to me and I want to understand how you think you are based on those facts.
Can you as well find monarchians doing such?
I say blood is on your churches hands.

______________________________________

Now post five questions limited to 100 each to me.

thank you
SCHMIT
________________________________________
Schmidt,

If its ok with you I'm requesting more time until answering. I've come down with a bad case of the flu and my head is already pounding looking at the screen. Havent forgotten about the debate but I will post soon as I'm well enough (hopefully in a few days), so I am requesting more time before answering. Thanks, God bless

SCHMIT 01-28-2009 07:10 PM
________________________________________
Ok, i had it in december out of the blue and accept such request.
Get well.

QuoVadisDomine 02-06-2009 11:23 AM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4136917)
Five questions to Trinitarian from Oneness Schmit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want my opponent to answer these Questions...
1) What person of God dwells in Jesus Christ?
Also is Jesus in the godhead or the godhead in Jesus?

2) According to John 17:3 Jesus refered to someone, some person, called the Father as THE ONLY TRUE GOD, SO HOW DOES THIS NOT UNDEIFY JESUS THE SON AND YOUR SECOND PERSON AND WHO IS JESUSING CALLING THE "ONLY" TRUE GOD?
Then tell me how Jesus is not a untrue God based on his own words if the trinity of three persons is supposed to be true according to you people.

3)How many persons are seen on the throne in scripture? as in Rev.4:?

4)Why is it I can find proof of God being only one person in passages like Job 13:8 and Gal. 3:20 Amplified version and Gal. 3:20 Greek Grammar of Heis Theos and you Trinitarians cannot find one passage that says God is three persons anywhere.
Where is your passages that states clearly like mine that God is three persons?
The Bible has 7,770 verses that use singular personal pronouns and you take a handful of passages and try to get a plurality of beings out of it, the Bible is clear, your creedal language is not.

5)Can you find anywhere where Jesus/God gave a message in murdering, raping ,stealing and torturing others who don't abide in your doctrine? as well as causing wars and killing people who would not accept the Trinity Churches doctrines?
Your church is proven as a cult for doing such in FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS AND MARTYRS MIRROR AND other Histocial sources.
You people are not Christian to me and I want to understand how you think you are based on those facts.
Can you as well find monarchians doing such?
I say blood is on your churches hands.

______________________________________

Now post five questions limited to 100 each to me.

thank you
SCHMIT
________________________________________
Five Questions to Oneness

First off thanks to Schmidt for being willing to cease the debate until I got over this flue. Muchly appreciated

Questions:

1) Why does Jesus speak of the Father and Holy Spirit in terms of "we" and "us" and blatantly diginuishes the Holy Spirit as a seperate person (cf. John) rather just saying He Himself would return as the Paraclete?

2) Why is God called 'Echod' (lit. Composite Unity) if God is supposed to be solely one Person, and why does He refer to 'Us' and 'We' in Genesis and distinguish between persons in Isaiah 6:8, Proverbs 30:4 ?

3) In Zech. 12:10 God says "They shall look upon Me...they shall mourn for Him" - Why does the grammar shift from first person singular to third person, and how in John 3:16 can God send someone else (the Son) if the Son is already the Father?

4) Eccl. 12:1, word focus: creator. Why in the original Hebrew is the word 'bara' found, literally translated as "creators" plural, and Isaiah 54:5 "maker" is literally "makers."?

5) Why is it that your Oneness doctrine cannot be found in the apostolic fathers until the heretic Sabbellius in the third century?

QuoVadisDomine 02-11-2009 12:25 PM
________________________________________
Answers to Questions

Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4136917)
Five questions to Trinitarian from Oneness Schmit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want my opponent to answer these Questions...
1) What person of God dwells in Jesus Christ?
Also is Jesus in the godhead or the godhead in Jesus?

2) According to John 17:3 Jesus refered to someone, some person, called the Father as THE ONLY TRUE GOD, SO HOW DOES THIS NOT UNDEIFY JESUS THE SON AND YOUR SECOND PERSON AND WHO IS JESUSING CALLING THE "ONLY" TRUE GOD?
Then tell me how Jesus is not a untrue God based on his own words if the trinity of three persons is supposed to be true according to you people.

3)How many persons are seen on the throne in scripture? as in Rev.4:?

4)Why is it I can find proof of God being only one person in passages like Job 13:8 and Gal. 3:20 Amplified version and Gal. 3:20 Greek Grammar of Heis Theos and you Trinitarians cannot find one passage that says God is three persons anywhere.
Where is your passages that states clearly like mine that God is three persons?
The Bible has 7,770 verses that use singular personal pronouns and you take a handful of passages and try to get a plurality of beings out of it, the Bible is clear, your creedal language is not.

5)Can you find anywhere where Jesus/God gave a message in murdering, raping ,stealing and torturing others who don't abide in your doctrine? as well as causing wars and killing people who would not accept the Trinity Churches doctrines?
Your church is proven as a cult for doing such in FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS AND MARTYRS MIRROR AND other Histocial sources.
You people are not Christian to me and I want to understand how you think you are based on those facts.
Can you as well find monarchians doing such?
I say blood is on your churches hands.

______________________________________

Now post five questions limited to 100 each to me.

thank you
SCHMIT
________________________________________
1) What person of God dwells in Jesus Christ?
Also is Jesus in the godhead or the godhead in Jesus?

Two persons of God dwell in Jesus: person of the Father, and person of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ Himself is the second person of God. But God cannot be divided, even though He may appear to be seperate, He is one because all three persons share the same substance and dwell within each other. Jesus Christ, being second person of God, is in the Godhead. You must have all three.

2) According to John 17:3 Jesus refered to someone, some person, called the Father as THE ONLY TRUE GOD, SO HOW DOES THIS NOT UNDEIFY JESUS THE SON AND YOUR SECOND PERSON AND WHO IS JESUSING CALLING THE "ONLY" TRUE GOD?
Then tell me how Jesus is not a untrue God based on his own words if the trinity of three persons is supposed to be true according to you people.

On the contrary, it shows the Diety of Jesus. First of all He is praying to someone, certainly not His very Self, but someone other than Him: the first Person, the Father. Jesus Christ accepted worship from Thomas when he said "My Lord and Jehovah God!" Even better, verse 5 of the passage you quoted mentions Christ asking to be glorified with the Father's glory which Jesus already had when He was WITH the Father before the ages. No undeification here at all. What you have here are two persons communicating with each other. In your theology you have hopless contradictions if Jesus is supposed to be the Father and Holy Spirit Themselves.

3)How many persons are seen on the throne in scripture? as in Rev.4:?

One Person: the Father. The second Person arrives into the picture in the very next chapter:

Revelation 5:

6And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven (L)horns and seven eyes, which are (N)the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. 7And He came and took (O)the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

Compare with Acts 7:56 "...and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

4)Why is it I can find proof of God being only one person in passages like Job 13:8 and Gal. 3:20 Amplified version and Gal. 3:20 Greek Grammar of Heis Theos and you Trinitarians cannot find one passage that says God is three persons anywhere.
Where is your passages that states clearly like mine that God is three persons?
The Bible has 7,770 verses that use singular personal pronouns and you take a handful of passages and try to get a plurality of beings out of it, the Bible is clear, your creedal language is not.

The implicit meaning is certainly there, i.e. where God calls Himself 'Us' and 'We' and is described as not just a Creator in the original Hebrew but 'Creators' and a 'Unity.' The very fact the Bible describes God in these terms only a handful of times puts a dent in your theology. As Trinitarians the singular usages of God fit in perfectly well with the plural usages. The implicity of the Trinity is certainly there and the phrase "Holy Trinity" does not need to be found in the Bible for it to be true, just as "Bible" is not found in the Bible.

5)Can you find anywhere where Jesus/God gave a message in murdering, raping ,stealing and torturing others who don't abide in your doctrine? as well as causing wars and killing people who would not accept the Trinity Churches doctrines?
Your church is proven as a cult for doing such in FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS AND MARTYRS MIRROR AND other Histocial sources.
You people are not Christian to me and I want to understand how you think you are based on those facts.
Can you as well find monarchians doing such?
I say blood is on your churches hands.

First of all your facts are entirly inaccurate and we could spend an entire debate on that alone. Secondly Foxes Book of Martyrs was written by "cultists" by your theology because they worshiped the Holy Trinity, since the people were of the Church of England. What the Catholic Church did is no different than what the Protestants did in return in their own butcherings of Catholics. Blood is on both hands yes, but this is practice and not doctrine, a sin Israel committed also but certaintly this does not take away from the fact Israel as a faith and nation were built by God.
What your church does is worse, by sending people to hell as you proclaim a false gospel and false christ, a different jesus, as St. Paul words it. Because of this the damned souls of millions who buy into Oneness theology are lost, and you and all others who hold to the doctrine will be held accountable for their loss.

SCHMIT 02-11-2009 02:22 PM
________________________________________
1) Why does Jesus speak of the Father and Holy Spirit in terms of "we" and "us" and blatantly diginuishes the Holy Spirit as a seperate person (cf. John) rather just saying He Himself would return as the Paraclete?

Schmit Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have liked to have specific verses that quo wanted me to respond to, but I will take it he means verses like John 10:30.
Jesus spoke the way he did because as a man he did not grasp after divine prerogatives and call himself openly God, Spirit, Father because as a man that was a distinct nature or role/mode or capacity he was in.
Jesus was not speaking of a second person, but as in his position he spoke not from his godhead, but from his sonship.
He stated "I AND MAY FATHER ARE ONE"
He did not say I am God with the Father , but spoke of the uniqueness of He (as Son) and his Father (his God) were actually one and Oneness would understand this as two natures being one in Jesus.
Jesus would not say I AM GOD, he would speak in proverbs though 'I AM', thus driving the Jewish Pharisees nuts.
You say that the Holy Ghost is a seperate person, but the scriptures say nothing of the kind and if anything, the Holy Ghost seems to be truant in the majority of Father and Son passages, thus weakening the Trinity position and making this the Trinity's weakest link.

I deny that the Holy Ghost is a third person, but rather is Jesus in another role or mode or way of expression.

The word for this Holy Ghost used in John 14: is "paraclete" in the Greek, it says that "another" or allos would be sent and this is the Spirit of Jesus sent to us, the CHRIST IN YOU THE HOPE OF GLORY Col.1:27
Context clearly shows Jesus meant such in John14:6,17-21, That Jesus himself was coming and not at his second coming, but as the paraclete.

Now the most damaging news for Quo and Trinitarians is 1 JOHN 2:1, for here we see the name of the paraclete and it is JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS and thus is clearly named and destroys a third person idea or "another" seperate person.
Quo needs to deal with his not knowing Jesus is the paraclete himself.

If my opponent knew Greek, he would have seen this and would not have avoided the proof against him.

Gen.1:26 is God speaking in plural of majesty or deliberation, not to other members of a godhead.
God spoke internal to himself Eph.1:11 or external to his angelic host and this is what the Jews have held.

Vs 27 shows that God is only one person, for if we are made in his image, then we see only one person in a mirror and not three, thus a person is not a good representative term here for us to be three persons!


2) Why is God called 'Echod' (lit. Composite Unity) if God is supposed to be solely one Person, and why does He refer to 'Us' and 'We' in Genesis and distinguish between persons in Isaiah 6:8, Proverbs 30:4 ?

As previous shown my opponent does see the word "echad" as meaning only a composite unity of more than one and not what the word most of the time means and that is a sole numeric one (w/o needing to resort to using just yachid).

I showed that Adam had one rib taken and that meant a ONE-ECHAD and not a slab of ribs. Gen.2:21
Abraham went to one mountain, not many Mountains and repeated over and over the act of then pretending to offer his son again and again, he id it just once on one MT.Gen.22:2
ONE ANGEL echad was on each side of the Ark of the Covenant, not a bunch of angels on each side as in MANY. Exo.25:19
One trumpet was blown, not many trumpets together and thus echad meant just one and not a composite or plurality as he keeps on trying to insist and failing at.Num.10:4

Sad fact is that Quo misunderstood my material and stated it was from a Muslim source and it wasn't, it was from a Oneness Pentecostal Minister.
From http://www.whoisjesus.com/echad.html
By Keith Morehead
the Muslims were merely quoting him.

ONE=ECHAD MEANT ONE SOLE NUMERIC ONE IN ALL THOSE
Echad thus does not mean, a literal composite sole-y.

Now Isa. 6:8 Passage can easily be God speaking in a plural of majesty or for all the heavenly host, not for made up persons in a godhead.
I hold that God speaks to and about his angels as they were there and not to other persons sitting beside one another.
Which of your gods spoke there quo? was that finally the Holy Ghost getting a word in edge wise?

Gen.3:22 appears to be Angels and Jewish scholars and Rabbis have stated such, same with Gen.11:6-7 One may want to see how this is stated in the Pentateuch and Haftorahs by Dr. Hertz.

Proverbs 30:4 Is speaking of God and the name of that God is the name of he that was also come as the Son of God, which is Jesus.
Jesus said he came in his Father's name and Heb1: states that Jesus received that name by inheritance, I received my name as well by such and thus am no different in how Jesus as the first born received his as the man Christ from his Father and God.

According to my opponent, Adam lost an entire side in the making of Eve and not "one" RIB AS STATED !
One doesn't mean a real one to Quo, it means generally three or more.

Anytime one is stated with ECHAD, Quo thinketh this means anything but a real numeric One.
I believe in one true God and not gods as in many god.
Jimmy Swaggart a Trinitarian stated that God was like the word sheep, you can say one sheep or two sheep, etc. and one must surmise from such ideas that he means ONE God to mean one or two or three god!
Trinitarianism cannot escape such rationalizatons.




3) In Zech. 12:10 God says "They shall look upon Me...they shall mourn for Him" - Why does the grammar shift from first person singular to third person, and how in John 3:16 can God send someone else (the Son) if the Son is already the Father?

Context shows that God=YHWH here speaks of the body being pierced as his own, though God is Spirit, God/YHWH still counted this body as his own and states that they "shall look upon me whom they pierced"
[SAYS NOTHING OF A SON SAYING THIS OR REFERRING TO A SON]
God can speak of that body or flesh or tabernacle of his as if his, because it is in the sense that he needed to beget or make this to dwell in, yet it does switch to the third person speech and makes it look as if God is aloof or seperate from his physical body and as Spirit he could thus speak as such as well.
Jesus did this on the reverse side as the man, by speaking as if the Father was another , because as a man he had to.

PROBLEM for the Trinitarians, one God speaks here, and then quo must determine that it is just one person of a godhead speaking then a different part here as a different person and I don't need to do this, I understand that JESUS sees the body as his own and yet shows clear distinction in it from his DEITY nature to the man Christ THE HUMANITY NATURE which in time he added unto himself.

It shifts because Jesus is God and Jesus was the man Christ, thus fulfilling two identities, DIVINE AND HUMAN.

I see this as having the trinity position wincing, for it hs one speaker God and not two god speaking and HE STATES THIS WAS HIS BODY and then speaks as if it is not his but some other's body.

John 3:16, GOD=SPIRIT sends his SON=Man Christ a human lamb, offering, sacrifice, tabernacle, flesh man.
Oneness do not believe that the Father is the Son or the Son the Father, but rather the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.

Two different natures, not one nature, one person, not two.
Jesus is both Father and Son, but not as the same nature.

Trinitarians many times misrepresent us on this point that we believe the Father is the Son, that is not Oneness Apostolic teaching.
see Magee Is Jesus in the Godhead or the Godhead in Jesus about pg 17 or Bernard in THE ONENESS OF GOD pg 127.




4) Eccl. 12:1, word focus: creator. Why in the original Hebrew is the word 'bara' found, literally translated as "creators" plural, and Isaiah 54:5 "maker" is literally "makers."?

But my friend no one is translating it as thus, because they understand from he Hebrew that it does not modify God as persons or beings or gods!, but as the one maker and the plurality is not seperate individuals, but of God's power in creation and making.

No place did the Hebrew state it was CREATORS, though as you state bara could be such, but not for a sole solitary deity of the Hebrews.
Thus they stated it meant just one who created MAL.2:10 AND HE WAS THE FATHER AND GOD.
It may be read by you people that this means a group or corporate deity, but I see it meaning that a plural of power and position is GOD'S alone and there was no place where makers is translated from that literal as such, but is CREATOR and showing his alone creative ability in a massive power way.

You need to find the Passage being translated as you state, to support your position, not what a word ending could mean, but didn't in relationship to God by Jew or Christians of the first and second century church who were NOT Trinitarian.

This is one of the weakest arguments I think I have ever seen, especially since nothing supports it from TRANSLATED MSS INTO A TEXT.

The Hebrew has a peculiar way of expressing a point in their language, one sees the ending on say ELOHim, with the 'im' being a plural ending, but what happens is a way of expressing a point that cannot be expressed as in our language with a plural end as "s", they use im to mean something like
GREAT-GREATER-GREATEST, the same is in the plural ending for bara, it shows the power of creation, but never meant there was CREATORS.
Bara can be made creators if dealing with several men making something, but never modifies and makes God literally gods as creators the way you wish.


5) Why is it that your Oneness doctrine cannot be found in the apostolic fathers until the heretic Sabbellius in the third century?


Oh my, I don't think quo knows his history very well and hasn't studied about us and maybe only read trinity sources and not that
many of them.
Before Sabellius who showed up late 2nd or early 3rd century
Virginia Corwin[not Oneness] in
'St Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch'
"IF ONE TERM MUST BE CHOSEN TO INDICATE HE TENDENCY OF HIS THOUGHT, IGNATIUS MUST BE SAID TO BE MONARCHIAN."
{My opponent may attempt to refer to spurious books alluded to have been written by him, which are rejected by LIGHTFOOT AND HARMER and as well the Longer {Catholic inserted} Recensions, but they were not written by him}.
Clement of Rome (who stated nothing about a Trinity or came close)
Bishop Noetus, Bishop Polycarp, Hermas, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Praxeas,Theodotian,Commodian all Oneness Monarchians.
According to Harnack a succession of Bishops of Rome as Eletherus , Victor, Zephrynius and Callistus (History of Dogma vol.3 about pg 150){left book at home} were also Modalist Monarchians.
I state they all were Onenes till 222 a.d. and no proof of a
Trinitarian had that Bishopric till Urban the first known trinitarian came about.

So how is it my doctrine got started way after all of these fellows, sounds like quo didn't do his homework on these,
even his scholars state we were there and J.N.D. Kelly in his book History of Christian Church pg 124 stated that Monarchians "Zephrynius and Callistus were.. Conservatives holding fast to a Monarchian tradition which antedated the whole : movement of thought of the Apologist."[Catholics].

The late first early second century group called the Alogi appear to have been Monarchian and many others before Sabellius.

I don't think Quo was close on refuting us on this point, or the others really.

Thomas Weisser, David Bernard, William Chalfant, show even Trinitarians sources agreeing that Oneness were there in the entire second century and Delroy Gayle shows in his Book OUR ROOTS After the Way Called Heresy that Oneness Baptism was usurped by Trinitarians and their Trinity title baptism and was before the Trinitarian doctrine.

I have found out that most Trinitarians do not look very far and search us and what others have stated about us.

One can notice a huge gap in time from what Trinitarians say was those teaching Trinity (and most never stated a word of such a thing or even three persons) and supposedly the First century Christian which say absolutely nothing as well of a Trinity.
I agree the 3rd century saw the coming out of a three person deity, before that was smoke and mirrors.

Oneness have asked and never seen any proof of a three person, triune, Trinity named deity!
No God the Son or God the Holy Ghost either.
Nothing about a First, second or third person or persons!

The trinity has more holes than the holes in Swiss cheese.




176 WORDS TOTAL QUO VADIS

SCHMIT 02-11-2009 02:41 PM
________________________________________
Next Quo is a 500 word smaller constructive be each of us.
New material may be used here, but after this affirmative post rebuttals and closing must follow only the material posted up till now--NOW NEW MATERIAL.

Thanks
Aaron

SCHMIT 02-11-2009 03:43 PM
________________________________________
Smaller 500 word affirmation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trinitarian problems, such as the Word Elohim to mean that God is more than one person.
Lets see if this is so, all called Elohim below
2 KINGS1:2 Baalzebub
Ex.7:1 Moses
1 Sam28:13Samuel
Judges6:31 Baal
Ex.32:8 Calf
Now is there more than one Moses,Samuel,Baal,Baalzebub or Golden Calf?
Reason for Elohim as plural...
Hebrew could not show comparable degree as in good-Better-Best; or much, more, most.
To show strength or compare they made a word plural!!

John 1:1"...and the Word was with God."
Greek(pros ton theon)
Always in every other place in scripture it (pros ton theon) is translated
"pertaining to God"
Heb.2:17,Heb.5:1,Rom.15:17
but here Trinitarians translate it "WITH" God and this WOULD BE "para ton theon", not pros ton theon.
God's word pertains to God as does his breath ps33:6, his hand ez.2:9, his arm isa. 51:9.

PARA is what Trinies need,
Mt22:5 THERE WAS WITH US...
JOHN14:17...HE DWELLETH WITH YOU AND SHALL BE IN YOU
JOHN14:25 HAVE I SPOKEN ...BEING...PRESENT WITH YOU.

The "and" folly; Trinitarians say that "and" denotes persons.
Does it?
Col.2:2,Eph.5:20 "THE MYSTERY OF GOD,AND OF THE FATHER, AND OF CHRIST."
Problem add in Holy Ghost and there is four persons in the godhead!
Rev.1:6 "...AND MADE US KINGS AND PRIESTS UNTO GOD AND HIS FATHER.
Problem This Shows a grandfather in the godhead and the Holy Ghost and Jesus added make 4 persons.
Isa.45:11 "THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL AND HIS MAKER."
The Lord Jehovah has a maker.
CONCLUSION: The Word 'and' does not not insist upon another person.

"ALONE" Jn 8:16 I AM NOT ALONE, BUT I AND THE FATHER...."
Trinitarians say there must be someone near him, with him or in him.

Answer : John 14:10"...THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME HE DOETH THE WORKS."

I see two
NOT PERSONS, BUT NATURES
ONE IS FLESH JOHN 1:1&14
AND
THE GOD THAT INHABITS THE FLESH
1 TIM.3:16,2COR.5:19,2 COL.2:9

Syllogism test
I
Jesus is the Son of God lk 1:35
The Son is begotten jn 3:16
conclusion:
Jesus is the begotten Son of God.
II
Jesus is God John 20:28
God is eternal Dt. 33:27
conclusion
Jesus is eternal
III
That which is begotten has a beginning (Webster)
That which is eternal has no beginning (Webster)
Conclusion
That which is Begotten cannot be eternal
IV
The Son is begotten Jn 3:16
That which is begotten cannot be eternal (syl#3)
Conclusion
The Son cannot be Eternal.
V
God is the Son and the Son is God (no scripture by Trinies)
The Son cannot be eternal (syl#4)
conclusion
GOD CANNOT BE ETERNAL
VI
Jesus is Eternal (Syl#2)
The Son is not eternal (syl#4)
conclusion
Jesus is not the Son
VII
Jesus is God Jn20:28
God is Spirit Jn4:24
conclusion
Jesus is SPIRIT
VIII
Jesus is not the Son (syl#6)
Jesus is Spirit (syl#7)
conclusion
Spirit is not the Son
IX
God is Spirit Jn 4:24
Spirit is not the Son (syl#8)
conclusion
GOD IS NOT THE SON

CONCLUSION:
QUO should renounce his position

QuoVadisDomine 02-16-2009 02:59 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4233650)
Smaller 500 word affirmation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trinitarian problems, such as the Word Elohim to mean that God is more than one person.
Lets see if this is so, all called Elohim below
2 KINGS1:2 Baalzebub
Ex.7:1 Moses
1 Sam28:13Samuel
Judges6:31 Baal
Ex.32:8 Calf
Now is there more than one Moses,Samuel,Baal,Baalzebub or Golden Calf?
Reason for Elohim as plural...
Hebrew could not show comparable degree as in good-Better-Best; or much, more, most.
To show strength or compare they made a word plural!!

John 1:1"...and the Word was with God."
Greek(pros ton theon)
Always in every other place in scripture it (pros ton theon) is translated
"pertaining to God"
Heb.2:17,Heb.5:1,Rom.15:17
but here Trinitarians translate it "WITH" God and this WOULD BE "para ton theon", not pros ton theon.
God's word pertains to God as does his breath ps33:6, his hand ez.2:9, his arm isa. 51:9.

PARA is what Trinies need,
Mt22:5 THERE WAS WITH US...
JOHN14:17...HE DWELLETH WITH YOU AND SHALL BE IN YOU
JOHN14:25 HAVE I SPOKEN ...BEING...PRESENT WITH YOU.

The "and" folly; Trinitarians say that "and" denotes persons.
Does it?
Col.2:2,Eph.5:20 "THE MYSTERY OF GOD,AND OF THE FATHER, AND OF CHRIST."
Problem add in Holy Ghost and there is four persons in the godhead!
Rev.1:6 "...AND MADE US KINGS AND PRIESTS UNTO GOD AND HIS FATHER.
Problem This Shows a grandfather in the godhead and the Holy Ghost and Jesus added make 4 persons.
Isa.45:11 "THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL AND HIS MAKER."
The Lord Jehovah has a maker.
CONCLUSION: The Word 'and' does not not insist upon another person.

"ALONE" Jn 8:16 I AM NOT ALONE, BUT I AND THE FATHER...."
Trinitarians say there must be someone near him, with him or in him.

Answer : John 14:10"...THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME HE DOETH THE WORKS."

I see two
NOT PERSONS, BUT NATURES
ONE IS FLESH JOHN 1:1&14
AND
THE GOD THAT INHABITS THE FLESH
1 TIM.3:16,2COR.5:19,2 COL.2:9

Syllogism test
I
Jesus is the Son of God lk 1:35
The Son is begotten jn 3:16
conclusion:
Jesus is the begotten Son of God.
II
Jesus is God John 20:28
God is eternal Dt. 33:27
conclusion
Jesus is eternal
III
That which is begotten has a beginning (Webster)
That which is eternal has no beginning (Webster)
Conclusion
That which is Begotten cannot be eternal
IV
The Son is begotten Jn 3:16
That which is begotten cannot be eternal (syl#3)
Conclusion
The Son cannot be Eternal.
V
God is the Son and the Son is God (no scripture by Trinies)
The Son cannot be eternal (syl#4)
conclusion
GOD CANNOT BE ETERNAL
VI
Jesus is Eternal (Syl#2)
The Son is not eternal (syl#4)
conclusion
Jesus is not the Son
VII
Jesus is God Jn20:28
God is Spirit Jn4:24
conclusion
Jesus is SPIRIT
VIII
Jesus is not the Son (syl#6)
Jesus is Spirit (syl#7)
conclusion
Spirit is not the Son
IX
God is Spirit Jn 4:24
Spirit is not the Son (syl#8)
conclusion
GOD IS NOT THE SON

CONCLUSION:
QUO should renounce his position
________________________________________
I will be posting my 500 word affirmation either tonight or tomorrow. Schmidt seeing as how you are banned, know that it in no way affects the time limit to respond to the debate. If your ban goes beyond 7 days, so be it, we will continue when you return.

QuoVadisDomine 02-16-2009 03:49 PM
________________________________________
500 Word Affirmation

Hebrews 1:1-3 "God...hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son...Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His subtance [cf. 'hupostaseos] sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." How does Jesus sit down on the right hand Majesty (distinct character from Jesus in the narrative) when He Himself is the sole person Majesty?

You imply God the Father changed into the Son, then into the Holy Spirit. If God was first the Father then explain this verse: Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not..."

Isaiah 6:8 "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" Who is us?

Genesis 11:6-7 "And the Lord said...Come, let US go down..." Who's us?

Col. 3:1 "...where Christ sitteth at the right of God." Two distinct persons mentioned. Is Christ sitting at the right hand of Himself?

1 Tim. 2:25 "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." How can Christ mediate when there is no one for Him to mediate to?

Romans 8:32,34 "He (God) spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us...who is even at the right hand of God." If Jesus is the Father and the Son, why is the passage speaking of God having a Son, distinctly seperate from Himself, who also is sitting beside Him?

John 4:24 "God is Spirit." How can Christ say He is 'pneuma' when He has a body, if God is simply one sole Person?

Revelation 1:5-6 "And from Jesus Christ who...hath made us kings and priests unto God His Father..." Either the solely one Person God of Oneness has a father, or Jesus Christ, God the Son, has His Father, God the first Person.

Revelation 3:12 "To him that overcometh I will make a pillar in the temple of my God..." Who's God? This is Jesus talking. You say Christ is Himself the Father. This passage is understood clearly as the Son speaking about the Father, two Persons of the Trinity.

Revelation 3:2 "...I have not found thy works perfect before God." Meaning, not perfect before His Father. We understand this just fine. How do you interpret this if Christ is Himself God in one sole Person?

Revelation 12:5 "...and her child was caught up unto God and to His throne." The child is obviously Christ. How can Christ be caught up to God (the Father) if Christ is the Father? Two distinct Persons are seen here.

Revelation 12:10 "Now is come salvation...and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ..." Two Persons here: one God.

Acts 8:55 "...and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Two Persons.




CONCLUSION:

Onessness theology lacks in every credible scholarship, exegesis, and Christian orthodoxy. One word to Oneness: Repent.

SCHMIT 02-20-2009 12:27 PM
________________________________________
Will post shortly my rebuttal to your last constructive and questions.

Yes I was on ban till 2-19 for , well I cannot tell you or I would get in trouble with mods again regarding me getting blocked on chat for no reason.

I do have my rebuttal near done and will post it today.

I will be leaving town on a week vacation to S.C. and doing a seminar there and lots of Golf, so I will not get back till Monday March 2nd.Leaving in morning before snow storm hits.
I hadn't thought this would have quite lasted this long into this date, but we are nearing end and will work on counter rebuttal after I get back.

Aaron Deskin aka SCHMIT

SCHMIT 02-20-2009 12:41 PM
________________________________________
SCHMIT rebuttal
474 words were Quo's.
-------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by QuoVadisDomine (Post 4255820)
Hebrews 1:1-3 "God...hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son...Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His subtance [cf. 'hupostaseos] sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." How does Jesus sit down on the right hand Majesty (distinct character from Jesus in the narrative) when He Himself is the sole person Majesty?

God is invisible Spirit that is omnipresent, there is no literal right hand, but a place of power Luke22:69,2Cor.6:7,No two persons at all, just Jesus fulfilling roles/modes/ways he expressed himself.




You imply God the Father changed into the Son, then into the Holy Spirit. If God was first the Father then explain this verse: Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not..."

God added humanity to himself a body, God did not change, God is Spirit and Spirit is not flesh and bones Luke24:39.

Isaiah 6:8 "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" Who is us?
God speaking of heavenly host the angels with him.
I think Tinies miss the boat about what Jews thought of these "us" passages and don't tell the truth.

Genesis 11:6-7 "And the Lord said...Come, let US go down..." Who's us?
God speaking of angels See Dr. Hertz Pentateuch and Haftorahs according to the Jews.

Col. 3:1 "...where Christ sitteth at the right of God." Two distinct persons mentioned. Is Christ sitting at the right hand of Himself?

The man in the right hand of power mentioned above. God dwells in him the Christ and is in the right hand of POWER.

1 Tim. 2:25 "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." How can Christ mediate when there is no one for Him to mediate to?

CHRIST=SON-MAN mediates to his GOD(SPIRIT) & Father, for men (mankind).

Romans 8:32,34 "He (God) spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us...who is even at the right hand of God." If Jesus is the Father and the Son, why is the passage speaking of God having a Son, distinctly seperate from Himself, who also is sitting beside Him?

Symbolic figure of speech, right hand is not literal, how can a omnipresent God have a real right hand for someone to be sitting on or standing on or beside if God is everywhere?

John 4:24 "God is Spirit." How can Christ say He is 'pneuma' when He has a body, if God is simply one sole Person?

GOD=SPIRIT=the pneuma
Son of God=flesh-body
The Bible says God is one person with the Greek grammar of heis Theos/one God. Gal.3:20 Amplified.

Revelation 1:5-6 "And from Jesus Christ who...hath made us kings and priests unto God His Father..." Either the solely one Person God of Oneness has a father, or Jesus Christ, God the Son, has His Father, God the first Person.

The "Son" of God had a God and Father, obvious this is not understood by Trinitarians, for they have the Son being God, having a God.

Revelation 3:12 "To him that overcometh I will make a pillar in the temple of my God..." Who's God? This is Jesus talking. You say Christ is Himself the Father. This passage is understood clearly as the Son speaking about the Father, two Persons of the Trinity.

Human speaking of his God the Father. Jesus the Son of God, GOD! We don't say Christ is the Father or the Son is the Father. Jesus though is both, but by two different natures, Divine and Human.


Revelation 3:2 "...I have not found thy works perfect before God." Meaning, not perfect before His Father. We understand this just fine. How do you interpret this if Christ is Himself God in one sole Person?

Speaks of God and Man Christ.
BIBLE SAYS GOD IS ONE PERSON JOB 13:8KJV AND GAL.3:20 AMPLIFIED "God is only one person.."
You must deal with that.

Revelation 12:5 "...and her child was caught up unto God and to His throne." The child is obviously Christ. How can Christ be caught up to God (the Father) if Christ is the Father? Two distinct Persons are seen here.

Never said nor do we Oneness say Christ was Father, instead we say that Jesus is Father as Spirit deity, not as to his humanity.
JESUS IS BOTH LORD AND CHRIST.

Revelation 12:10 "Now is come salvation...and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ..." Two Persons here: one God.

God and his Christ, the Son of God a anointed man in whom God dwells 2COR.5:19, "GOD WAS IN CHRIST"
1TIM.3:16 "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH"
John14:10-11 "THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME"
I guess the doctrine of witnesses means little to Trinitarians.


Acts 7:55 "...and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Two Persons.

Didn't say he saw two persons, never said he saw God apart from Jesus whom in vs 59 he calls out to GOD and says "JESUS".
Right hand is not a literal place as you and I have, but a place of power.

CONCLUSION:

Onessness theology lacks in every credible scholarship, exegesis, and Christian orthodoxy. One word to Oneness: Repent.
________________________________________
Those who need repenting are the folks in the church that murdered and added to the word and changed it's doctrines, not us, but the trinity cult.


Short Rebutting your 5 answers.
1)God was in Christ 2 Cor.5:19, Col 2:9
Godhead was in Christ.
2)Jesus would have undeified himself if the Father is the "ONLY" TRUE GOD.
3)God is invisible, only person seen is the person of Christ and only 1 was ever seen Rev.4:2,Is.6:1,Ezk.1:26-28 when God used theophanies or angel of the Lord.
4)Don't think you ever did cover Heis Theos.
5)So your church murdered w/o authority and historians be they Trinity or not state so.

QuoVadisDomine 02-22-2009 03:51 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4274418)
Will post shortly my rebuttal to your last constructive and questions.

Yes I was on ban till 2-19 for , well I cannot tell you or I would get in trouble with mods again regarding me getting blocked on chat for no reason.

I do have my rebuttal near done and will post it today.

I will be leaving town on a week vacation to S.C. and doing a seminar there and lots of Golf, so I will not get back till Monday March 2nd.Leaving in morning before snow storm hits.
I hadn't thought this would have quite lasted this long into this date, but we are nearing end and will work on counter rebuttal after I get back.

Aaron Deskin aka SCHMIT
________________________________________
Thats fine, Lent is coming up and God has moved me to give up debating and reading just to get dive deeper into the more spiritual walk with Him. I'll try and finish up my rebuttle to your 500 and post it before Lent begins, which is Ash Wednesday. Anyways, if you're willing to push the pause button for 40 days, we'll continue after that. Let me know.

QuoVadisDomine 02-22-2009 04:19 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4233650)
Smaller 500 word affirmation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trinitarian problems, such as the Word Elohim to mean that God is more than one person.
Lets see if this is so, all called Elohim below
2 KINGS1:2 Baalzebub
Ex.7:1 Moses
1 Sam28:13Samuel
Judges6:31 Baal
Ex.32:8 Calf
Now is there more than one Moses,Samuel,Baal,Baalzebub or Golden Calf?
Reason for Elohim as plural...
Hebrew could not show comparable degree as in good-Better-Best; or much, more, most.
To show strength or compare they made a word plural!!

John 1:1"...and the Word was with God."
Greek(pros ton theon)
Always in every other place in scripture it (pros ton theon) is translated
"pertaining to God"
Heb.2:17,Heb.5:1,Rom.15:17
but here Trinitarians translate it "WITH" God and this WOULD BE "para ton theon", not pros ton theon.
God's word pertains to God as does his breath ps33:6, his hand ez.2:9, his arm isa. 51:9.

PARA is what Trinies need,
Mt22:5 THERE WAS WITH US...
JOHN14:17...HE DWELLETH WITH YOU AND SHALL BE IN YOU
JOHN14:25 HAVE I SPOKEN ...BEING...PRESENT WITH YOU.

The "and" folly; Trinitarians say that "and" denotes persons.
Does it?
Col.2:2,Eph.5:20 "THE MYSTERY OF GOD,AND OF THE FATHER, AND OF CHRIST."
Problem add in Holy Ghost and there is four persons in the godhead!
Rev.1:6 "...AND MADE US KINGS AND PRIESTS UNTO GOD AND HIS FATHER.
Problem This Shows a grandfather in the godhead and the Holy Ghost and Jesus added make 4 persons.
Isa.45:11 "THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL AND HIS MAKER."
The Lord Jehovah has a maker.
CONCLUSION: The Word 'and' does not not insist upon another person.

"ALONE" Jn 8:16 I AM NOT ALONE, BUT I AND THE FATHER...."
Trinitarians say there must be someone near him, with him or in him.

Answer : John 14:10"...THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME HE DOETH THE WORKS."

I see two
NOT PERSONS, BUT NATURES
ONE IS FLESH JOHN 1:1&14
AND
THE GOD THAT INHABITS THE FLESH
1 TIM.3:16,2COR.5:19,2 COL.2:9

Syllogism test
I
Jesus is the Son of God lk 1:35
The Son is begotten jn 3:16
conclusion:
Jesus is the begotten Son of God.
II
Jesus is God John 20:28
God is eternal Dt. 33:27
conclusion
Jesus is eternal
III
That which is begotten has a beginning (Webster)
That which is eternal has no beginning (Webster)
Conclusion
That which is Begotten cannot be eternal
IV
The Son is begotten Jn 3:16
That which is begotten cannot be eternal (syl#3)
Conclusion
The Son cannot be Eternal.
V
God is the Son and the Son is God (no scripture by Trinies)
The Son cannot be eternal (syl#4)
conclusion
GOD CANNOT BE ETERNAL
VI
Jesus is Eternal (Syl#2)
The Son is not eternal (syl#4)
conclusion
Jesus is not the Son
VII
Jesus is God Jn20:28
God is Spirit Jn4:24
conclusion
Jesus is SPIRIT
VIII
Jesus is not the Son (syl#6)
Jesus is Spirit (syl#7)
conclusion
Spirit is not the Son
IX
God is Spirit Jn 4:24
Spirit is not the Son (syl#8)
conclusion
GOD IS NOT THE SON

CONCLUSION:
QUO should renounce his position
________________________________________
I won't even bother with the 'elohim' part since I have already defined and answered the statment before in my previous posts. To answer this would be wasting words on a straw man argument.

Pros ton theon, your objection ignores the grammatical difference between John 1:1 and the Hebrews/Romans text. I.E Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 we have "ta pros ton theon" - "the things (ta) having to do with God." The use of the neuter plural noun "ta" changes the meaning of "pros."

Col.2:2,Eph.5:20 "THE MYSTERY OF GOD,AND OF THE FATHER, AND OF CHRIST."

A more accurate renderring reads: "that their hearts may be comforted, being united in love, and to all riches of the full assurance of the understanding, to the full knowledge of the secret of the God and Father, and of the Christ, - What you quoted is classic KJV, what I quoted was Young's Literal translation. As seen in this text (and the original Grk) the word "kai" (and) in this context is not connecting God, Father, and Christ, as one sole absolute person. There is a distinction between God who is the Father, and of a second person, the Christ.

Rev.1:6 "...AND MADE US KINGS AND PRIESTS UNTO GOD AND HIS FATHER.

More KJV. The original Grk reads "to God his Father". An english example may be found in Young's Literal, English Revised, and Darby.

Isa.45:11 "THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL AND HIS MAKER."

'Maker' refers to Israel's maker, which is God. The Hebrew reads: "The LORD is the Holy One and the maker of Israel."

John 8:16 says Christ stands WITH the Father. In 10:30 He says, in the orig. Grk, that He and His Father are in union, not one sole absolute person as you imply.

To say God inhabited the flesh of Jesus is to say Jesus is not God, but merely possessed of God. This is quite the claim considering you have to muddle through countless texts and re-interpret what they already clearly say.

SCHMIT 03-02-2009 07:41 PM
________________________________________
'elohim' My opponent continues to go against what Jews held that God was not multiple persons, but rather it stood for the supreme deity and how his attributes and power was beyond how the language could express without the ending "im".
Just like his attempt twice to say echad meant "literally" a composite deity with plurality of persons, when it never was stated by the Jews and actually rebuffed many times over.
My opponent has problems with support, no scripture, the Jews against him, history against his church for murdering, and torturing, etc.


Pros ton theon, your objection ignores the grammatical difference between John 1:1 and the Hebrews/Romans text. I.E Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 we have "ta pros ton theon" - "the things (ta) having to do with God." The use of the neuter plural noun "ta" changes the meaning of "pros."

So my opponent could not show any other way that "pros ton theon" was expressed in scripture, than in the majority situations as "pertaining to God".
Instead he went off on a tangent with the extra words used for "in things"
The WORD pertained to God, as did his hand (a figure of speech) etc.

Col.2:2,Eph.5:20 "THE MYSTERY OF GOD,AND OF THE FATHER, AND OF CHRIST."

A more accurate renderring reads: "that their hearts may be comforted, being united in love, and to all riches of the full assurance of the understanding, to the full knowledge of the secret of the God and Father, and of the Christ, - What you quoted is classic KJV, what I quoted was Young's Literal translation. As seen in this text (and the original Grk) the word "kai" (and) in this context is not connecting God, Father, and Christ, as one sole absolute person. There is a distinction between God who is the Father, and of a second person, the Christ.

My argument was about the "and" position trinitarians take and if rightly means a person, then they have GOD and another the FATHER and another the Christ and Holy Ghost is missing so they have four in the godhead & the Trinity is shot down.
Didn't say God was Father and then had another who is Christ, it had God AND Father AND Christ.
Jesus is clearly to be called the GOD AND FATHER IN ISA.9:6 and trinies just deny this. As well as Jesus himself showing he is God and we his Sons, thus making him our Father in REV.21:6-7.
Instead they conjure up additional Alphas and Omegas.

Rev.1:6 "...AND MADE US KINGS AND PRIESTS UNTO GOD AND HIS FATHER.

More KJV. The original Grk reads "to God his Father". An english example may be found in Young's Literal, English Revised, and Darby.

Oh so he switches this around, then when scriptures speak of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ it could well mean "even" the Lord Jesus Christ.
Showing just one person.

Isa.45:11 "THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL AND HIS MAKER."

'Maker' refers to Israel's maker, which is God. The Hebrew reads: "The LORD is the Holy One and the maker of Israel."

I am glad my opponent sees things the way we see things now and God doesn't have a maker or that there is MAKERS!
I think Quo is confused with his multiple persons idea and now is defending my Oneness truth position.

John 8:16 says Christ stands WITH the Father. In 10:30 He says, in the orig. Grk, that He and His Father are in union, not one sole absolute person as you imply.

Person is not meant in John 10:30, but a one is still meant with the emphatic neuter, that God is One is seen and not two as my opponent really needs it to say to be TWO PERSONS! making one God.
Jesus the Christ the Son of God is with his God the Father, the Spirit deity.

To say God inhabited the flesh of Jesus is to say Jesus is not God, but merely possessed of God. This is quite the claim considering you have to muddle through countless texts and re-interpret what they already clearly say.

I will let the scriptures speak.
GOD WAS IN CHRIST...2Cor.5:19
GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH...1TIM.3:16
THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME...JOHN14:10-11
FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD{{DEITY}}BODILY. COL.2:9
It would seem my opponent has a problem finding those passages proving my exact point.

Jesus is God, our God is Spirit and invisible and our Father. John4:24,Eph.4:6,Isa.9:6,Rev.21:6-7.

So we still have not seen any proof of a Trinity, three persons, a plurality of beings aka persons and Jesus with two others beside him and never will.

Quo needs to repent of this error and get right with JESUS!

SCHMIT 03-02-2009 07:42 PM
________________________________________
Yes I can see why someone would.

I will likely finish my closing piece sometime, so if you want to wait till lent is over for your closing after the counter rebutall that will be fine.
Take your time after I post my close if you wish.

SCHMIT 03-19-2009 05:47 PM
________________________________________
WE ARE ON TEMPORARY HOLD, while Quo is on Lent, I guess he needed to give up religious study and discussion to become a better religionist.
So soon as Lent is over and he gets the ash scrubbed off his head, we will continue.

QuoVadisDomine 04-16-2009 06:01 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4403062)
WE ARE ON TEMPORARY HOLD, while Quo is on Lent, I guess he needed to give up religious study and discussion to become a better religionist.
So soon as Lent is over and he gets the ash scrubbed off his head, we will continue.
________________________________________
Sorry for the delay, Easter was busy :) I'm back now and ready to begin.......but now we'll have to wait for Schmidt to get un-banned again. Let me know when you're ready Schmidt and we'll take it from there. God bless

SCHMIT 04-25-2009 03:48 PM
________________________________________
Are we at the place that you are to rebutt my 500 word affirmation, I already did yours.
See if I am correct about that.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 PM. Page 2 of 3 <
1
2 3
>

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
copyright CARM 2006,2007,2008,2009

Page 3 of 3 <
1
2
3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


CARM.ORG - Christian Discussion Forums (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/index.php)
- Private Debate - Theological (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/forumdisplay.php?f=69)
- - Trinity vs Oneness debate - quo vs Schmit (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=146772)

SCHMIT 04-25-2009 03:49 PM
________________________________________
debate still going on Diane and Quo , it is your rebuttal of my short 500 word affirmation.

SCHMIT 05-07-2009 06:56 PM
________________________________________
I guess the fellow is not coming back and finishing what he couldn't even get started in defedning the trinity.
First it was he was doing lent and giving up debating and I was fine with that, then it was he used my banning as a reason, though it was his time to post and not mine.
Now it has been weeks and he cannot come up with a 500 word post.

Hopefully he ain't deathly sick or in the morgue.
He is dead in the water in this debate though.

QuoVadisDomine 06-02-2009 06:12 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 4658064)
I guess the fellow is not coming back and finishing what he couldn't even get started in defedning the trinity.
First it was he was doing lent and giving up debating and I was fine with that, then it was he used my banning as a reason, though it was his time to post and not mine.
Now it has been weeks and he cannot come up with a 500 word post.

Hopefully he ain't deathly sick or in the morgue.
He is dead in the water in this debate though.
________________________________________
You hope to God that's the case. Actually there has been quite a lot of serious stuff going on in my personal life that you nor anyone else need know about. That said, I'm back now, and if I remember correctly it's your move

SCHMIT 06-05-2009 12:53 PM
________________________________________
No it was your move and you lost this debate. You can continue, but your tactics are appalling.

Try to follow along and see what it is you must do to at least finish.

500 word post rebutting me.

SCHMIT 08-04-2009 11:46 AM
________________________________________
debate officially closed and ended as my opponent did not come back and fuflill finishing the debate after the thrashing he took. I waited and gave ample time for him to finish and he avoided me and dd not respond in a timely fashion. Review the debate and see why, he could not stand up to a Oneness Pentecostal who knew his Bible and knew the truth.

Aaron Deskin aka SCHMIT

aussiedave 08-07-2009 09:37 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by QuoVadisDomine (Post 4097292)
Seiriouslly? You want to talk about ridiculing? Let's do it. Allow me to remind you of your words:

"Thus the proof is on him to find such and me to reject such FALSE TEACHING"

You, in your very first post, condemned my belief as false teaching, therefore breaking the rule: "Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that is possible, therefore, THAT HE MAY BE IN THE WRONG, and his adversary in the RIGHT." If you really want to play this ad hominem game, you lose. Your own words condemn you. As a matter of fact, before this debate even began you broke that rule by replying to me on your own wall post:

"As to the Eucharest, I will debate this after a debate on the Trinity versus the Oneness of God as I would like to call it and we finish that if you so choose after getting your backside kicked all over the place."

This shows me you really have no respect for Hedge's rule unless it is in your favor.


"Oneness Apostolics have held the same truth about God since the Bible, my opponent MUST INSERT FALSE MAN MAN IDEAS and terms to support him and PUT A TWIST on what the Bible DOES NOT SAY about a deity called TRINITY."

Not once, but TWICE you break that rule...in the very same post.

"If it was, it would have murdered and had wars against one another, would not have burned men at the stake and dunked pregnant woman and raped and tortured, my church didn't do that, but his trinity "Orthodoxy" did."

Once again, you revert to ad hominem and not only seek to attack me, but also my Church instead of going after the theology. Not only do you attack it, but you misrepresent the facts which, if you dont belive me, I would be most happy to review them with you.

"My opponent like all trinitarians must take a passage and slice and dice..." Now you accuse me and fellows with Trinitarian beliefs of "slicing and dicing" the Scriptures. Again, Hedge's rule is broken.

You really should try and follow Hedge's rule: "As truth, and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lesson the force of his reasoning, by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy."

Obviously, you have not. You have spent your last post accusing me of saying things I did not say, such as: "In the first post he uses such phrases as my "poor apologetics" instead of dealing with material, he slanders." Truth hurt - when ANYONE looks at the defenses youve posted, and views them in CONTEXT, they will clearly see just how poor your defenses truly are. I am merely stating a fact which can be backed up, and which I have proven by addressing what you have said in context. Furthermore, I specifically said, "Both you and the atheists are so unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew that you both make yourself look foolish." This is the case with anything and anybody. If you dont know the way the ancient language flows, you will make yourself look foolish by trying to make it say something it is definetly not saying. I am not a scholar in Hebrew, but I know enough of it (and I can quote to you as many Hebraic scholars as you like) that take my side in this debate.

You said, " He also uses I am the one with a "dilema" and not dealing with my points but ridicule."

As I have shown, you are the one using the ridicule and I have answered your points as anyone reading this can clearly see. If you would like me to expound on one or more point feel free to let me know and I will gladly do so.

"So if my opponent continues this in another part of the debate, I will have considered not only winning this debate on material and context, but also because he cannot abide by a rule layed out and must break them."

As we have seen, you are the one who broke your own rules you yourself laid out...in your very first post. You demand that I stick to answering the theology, I ask you do the same.
________________________________________
Since this thread/debate has been declared "officially" over by Scmidt, I think we jump in now.
I agree with your sentiments here - his post you answer here is nothing but a whine about how you broke the rules and in no way addressed your fine rebuttal - very telling.
The way Mr. Schmidt constantly plays to the 'audience' by refering to you in the second person is actually quite condescending, so I don't see why he gets so up in arms when he is criticised.
Also, I can't blame you for not wishing to continue this debate with Schmidty - he is absolutely ingracious and totally blind to the facts. Then has the temerity to claim victory! Good grief!
I thought your previous post on Hebrew grammar was a beauty - in it, you demolished his position. Rep coming.
ad.

QuoVadisDomine 08-12-2009 08:09 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by aussiedave (Post 5100609)
Since this thread/debate has been declared "officially" over by Scmidt, I think we jump in now.
I agree with your sentiments here - his post you answer here is nothing but a whine about how you broke the rules and in no way addressed your fine rebuttal - very telling.
The way Mr. Schmidt constantly plays to the 'audience' by refering to you in the second person is actually quite condescending, so I don't see why he gets so up in arms when he is criticised.
Also, I can't blame you for not wishing to continue this debate with Schmidty - he is absolutely ingracious and totally blind to the facts. Then has the temerity to claim victory! Good grief!
I thought your previous post on Hebrew grammar was a beauty - in it, you demolished his position. Rep coming.
ad.
________________________________________
Thank you. Actually I really didn't want to quite the debate...but unfortunatly there were some issues I'm not obliged to discuss here that prevented me from being able to continue the dialogue. In fact I now offer a formal apology to Schmidt since I had said I would be able to continue it, but then never returned! I take responsibility for that, again there were some issues that prevented my return - I didn't know those issues would come up but they did. Nothing serious, just life :-)

On that note, yes I do agree with you Schmidt's behavior has been atrocious. His attitude reminds me of men like Art Sippo and Kerry Shirts. It's just ridiculous the ad hominem that is used as a "argument" against the opponent. But I leave this discussion for the reader to judge, and I think that reason is quite obvious.

So even though Schmitd declared and defined the debate closed, and proclaimed himself winner, I now leave it to the audience to judge :-)

Many thanks and God bless you all.

QuoVadisDomine 08-12-2009 08:12 PM
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Originally Posted by SCHMIT (Post 5082572)
debate officially closed and ended as my opponent did not come back and fuflill finishing the debate after the thrashing he took. I waited and gave ample time for him to finish and he avoided me and dd not respond in a timely fashion. Review the debate and see why, he could not stand up to a Oneness Pentecostal who knew his Bible and knew the truth.

Aaron Deskin aka SCHMIT
________________________________________

[copied from my reply to aussiedave]

Thank you. Actually I really didn't want to quite the debate...but unfortunatly there were some issues I'm not obliged to discuss here that prevented me from being able to continue the dialogue. In fact I now offer a formal apology to Schmidt since I had said I would be able to continue it, but then never returned! I take responsibility for that, again there were some issues that prevented my return - I didn't know those issues would come up but they did. Nothing serious, just life :-)

On that note, yes I do agree with you Schmidt's behavior has been atrocious. His attitude reminds me of men like Art Sippo and Kerry Shirts. It's just ridiculous the ad hominem that is used as an "argument" against the opponent. But I leave this discussion for the reader to judge, and I think that reason is quite obvious.

So even though Schmitd declared and defined the debate closed, and proclaimed himself winner, I now leave it to the audience to judge :-)

Many thanks and God bless you all.