Posts for: troysal
Jul 6, 2021 17:01:56 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
To be honest, I found this one a little chaotic...... (show quote)
Well, I don't know what to say . . . uh thanks?
No, I get it. Even I can admit that some of my articles are better than others.Jul 4, 2021 16:44:31 #
Rose42 wrote:
No, you have yet to acknowledge one.
Over the years I’ve seen many people go down rabbit holes convinced they had found ‘truth’.
Over the years I’ve seen many people go down rabbit holes convinced they had found ‘truth’.
I'll be waiting for those sources you referenced.
Jul 4, 2021 16:13:51 #
Rose42 wrote:
Articles like yours have been refuted by others many times. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Yeah you keep saying that but I have yet to see such refutation. Could you provide me with a source that I can check out?
Jul 4, 2021 13:30:13 #
Rose42 wrote:
You are promoting yourself and your O-P-I-N-I-O-N, not truth. 
The same old criticism with absolutely no substance.
Jul 4, 2021 12:59:25 #
Rose42 wrote:
Here we go again with the self promotion......
Important to point out - that piece is an opinion piece. No more.
Important to point out - that piece is an opinion piece. No more.
Just promoting the truth and NO DUH! it's an opinion, just like every other thing written by men in their interpretations of scripture; this just happens to be an opinion that accords with the truth.
Jul 3, 2021 19:24:29 #
Trinitarian apologists really go to ridiculous lengths to find proof-texts for their belief that Jesus is God. John 12:37-41 is a good case in point. In this article I show why it doesn't work.
https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/why-john-1237-41-is-not-a-prooftext-for-the-deity-of-jesus/
https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/why-john-1237-41-is-not-a-prooftext-for-the-deity-of-jesus/
Jun 15, 2021 18:09:20 #
Rose42 wrote:
I knew his cheerleader would chime in. He was refuted, his pride made him deny it.
Now if he wants to continue puffing himself up I won’t stop him.
Now if he wants to continue puffing himself up I won’t stop him.
Mere words without substance, but then words without substance appears to be your forte.
Jun 15, 2021 16:52:14 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
What makes you think that an individual incapable of refuting you can provide a source refuting you??????
You're right. How silly of me.
Jun 15, 2021 08:14:50 #
Rose42 wrote:
Wrong again troy. I am refusing to engage and go down one of your rabbit holes. Would you like me to explain the difference?
I’ve seen you refuted elsewhere though your pride prevents you from acknowledging it.
I’ve seen you refuted elsewhere though your pride prevents you from acknowledging it.
Please provide the source of this supposed refutation.
Jun 15, 2021 07:56:06 #
Rose42 wrote:
No troy. I am quite able.
Now this is what refutation looks like. When your opponent cannot give an answer then you know you have refuted their claim.
Jun 14, 2021 17:40:44 #
Rose42 wrote:
Hypocrite much?
I take the fact that you haven't given me a straight answer to my question as meaning that you have no answer. It was a simple question, but for some reason you are unable to answer it.
Jun 14, 2021 17:35:25 #
Zemirah wrote:
The Jewish Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), encapsulating ... (show quote)
Your contention regarding the word 'elohim' is an outdated argument that even many Trinitarians scholars have refuted. So if the plural elohim means that God is a plural being, then what of the 50 times he is referred to with the singular 'eloha'? And what of the times when one of the false gods of the nations is referred to with 'elohim', does this mean the other nations had gods who were plural in being. This is why informed scholars reject this worn out argument and find it quite embarrassing. Also,why is the singular 'theos' used in the NT when quoting the OT where 'elohim" is used? Never once in the NT is the plural form of theos ever used of God. These are real problems with your view that must be dealt with honestly.
Your argument concerning 'echad' is just as foolish. There are literally hundreds of uses of the word echad in the Hebrew bible which have absolutely no connotation of "composite one." This is simply a false idea that some dimwit invented years ago and undiscerning Christians have been repeating it ever since, although, once again, real scholars would not risk their professional reputations by giving credence to this ludicrous proposition.
As for your interpretation of Is. 48:16, I know you are just repeating what some commentary asserted, but it really is absurd. Once again, there are many able Trinitarian commentators who don't see this passage as support for the Trinity. The most reasonable way to take the passage is that Isaiah is speaking at this point and is stating that Yahweh sent him with His spirit. Even if the passage was referring to Jesus being sent, it still says nothing about a triune God, you are simply wanting to see the trinity wherever you can. That is not how to do honest exegesis.
I must say, if these are the best arguments you can come up with for the Trinity, Biblical Unitarianism has nothing to worry about, Keep up the awful work.
Jun 14, 2021 17:09:48 #
Zemirah,
Of course you totally avoided dealing with the specific objection I raised. I can only surmise that you do not have a good answer or else you would have given it. Instead I get a 'I'm better than you are ' attitude from you. So let's try again. According to your original post and confirmed in your last response to me, your view of the one God is that he, I mean it, is a thing, a what, a non-personal entity. This non-personal entity is comprised of three distinct divine persons. Since the one God is this non-personal thing then none of the three divine persons is the one God. I'm just wondering, where is this depiction of God found in the scriptures? God is presented as a personal being all throughout scripture, his name is Yahweh, but I can't recall any passage where he, I mean it, is presented as a non-personal entity. I am sure that even early church fathers wouldn't buy your view of the one God, since they all named the Father as the one God, you know, like the creed says, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty."
Of course you totally avoided dealing with the specific objection I raised. I can only surmise that you do not have a good answer or else you would have given it. Instead I get a 'I'm better than you are ' attitude from you. So let's try again. According to your original post and confirmed in your last response to me, your view of the one God is that he, I mean it, is a thing, a what, a non-personal entity. This non-personal entity is comprised of three distinct divine persons. Since the one God is this non-personal thing then none of the three divine persons is the one God. I'm just wondering, where is this depiction of God found in the scriptures? God is presented as a personal being all throughout scripture, his name is Yahweh, but I can't recall any passage where he, I mean it, is presented as a non-personal entity. I am sure that even early church fathers wouldn't buy your view of the one God, since they all named the Father as the one God, you know, like the creed says, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty."
Jun 14, 2021 07:24:10 #
Rose42 wrote:
You don’t know? 
What a cop-out! Why are you afraid to give me a straight answer?
Jun 13, 2021 16:42:04 #
Rose42 wrote:
The tragic absurdity of the unitarian view is no ‘simple human person’ could have done what he did.
You claimed you once believed in the trinity yet you got much of that wrong. A dubious claim.
You claimed you once believed in the trinity yet you got much of that wrong. A dubious claim.
Tell me who died when Christ hung on the cross?