Trinity

[CoreIssue]

"God"


1. According to The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (SSC), the Hebrew word for "God" is "Elohim" and it means God (plural in majesy; plural in form, but singular in meaning, with a focus on greater power); gods (true grammatical plural); any person characterized by greatness or power; mighty one, great one, judge. - #430, page 1361


2. According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament (GHL), this word means (1) of any god, (2) mostly of the true God, (2-A) in a plural sense - of gods or deities in general, true or false. (3) Once applied to kings, (4) In a singular sense, of one god. (5) Of any divinity, (6) of anyone's GOd that they worship, (7) used for a divine, godlike appearance or form. Page 49


As the reader can plainly see, this word "God", "Elohim", is the plural form of "El", which means "The Gods" or magistrates, rulers. Since the context is speaking about deities, then the context must be "Gods" and nothing else, although the term "Rulers" could apply to God as well, for they are the sovereign rulers of the universe. The focus of the subject is that its "plural", meaning more than one. This is conclusive evidence that there is more than one God within the Law and the Prophets. One might question this concerning the other deifnitions given from these sourced, but the context of Genesis 1:26 defines all of this accordingly. Therefore, it must be "Elohim", as in "plural", for that is the true use of this word in context
Your 17 pages or argument are very convoluted and not based on linquistics but logical arguments stemming from a false foundation. False because:
1. The concept of plural of majesty was a European invention stemming from around 1200 AD. Did not exist in the OT.
2. You totally ignored the grammatical application in the OT. As in a plural used with plurals is plural. A plural used with singulars is a uniplural, meaning one composed of more than one. Every application of the One True God in the Bible is uniplural in the Hebrew. Every one of them.
3. This uniplural reality is even demonstrated in the Bible when God appeared to Abram in Genesis 18. Abram spoke to them as a singular Lord with multiple personages and they responded as three speaking as one.
4. Logos was used, not word, in John 1 and does not mean spoken word. It means the reason behind. You have taken the Greek word for word and tried to apply the meaning to Logos.



When the foundation is flawed the building upon it falls.

[Calebnostro]

"God"


1. According to The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (SSC), the Hebrew word for "God" is "Elohim" and it means God (plural in majesy; plural in form, but singular in meaning, with a focus on greater power); gods (true grammatical plural); any person characterized by greatness or power; mighty one, great one, judge. - #430, page 1361


2. According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament (GHL), this word means (1) of any god, (2) mostly of the true God, (2-A) in a plural sense - of gods or deities in general, true or false. (3) Once applied to kings, (4) In a singular sense, of one god. (5) Of any divinity, (6) of anyone's GOd that they worship, (7) used for a divine, godlike appearance or form. Page 49


As the reader can plainly see, this word "God", "Elohim", is the plural form of "El", which means "The Gods" or magistrates, rulers. Since the context is speaking about deities, then the context must be "Gods" and nothing else, although the term "Rulers" could apply to God as well, for they are the sovereign rulers of the universe. The focus of the subject is that its "plural", meaning more than one. This is conclusive evidence that there is more than one God within the Law and the Prophets. One might question this concerning the other deifnitions given from these sourced, but the context of Genesis 1:26 defines all of this accordingly. Therefore, it must be "Elohim", as in "plural", for that is the true use of this word in context
Your 17 pages or argument are very convoluted and not based on linquistics but logical arguments stemming from a false foundation. False because:
1. The concept of plural of majesty was a European invention stemming from around 1200 AD. Did not exist in the OT.
2. You totally ignored the grammatical application in the OT. As in a plural used with plurals is plural. A plural used with singulars is a uniplural, meaning one composed of more than one. Every application of the One True God in the Bible is uniplural in the Hebrew. Every one of them.
3. This uniplural reality is even demonstrated in the Bible when God appeared to Abram in Genesis 18. Abram spoke to them as a singular Lord with multiple personages and they responded as three speaking as one.
4. Logos was used, not word, in John 1 and does not mean spoken word. It means the reason behind. You have taken the Greek word for word and tried to apply the meaning to Logos.



When the foundation is flawed the building upon it falls.

First and foremost, I would ask that you read the entire article before making snap descisions on what you wish to pick at. I would think you would wish for me to do the same when concerning your own evidence for your positions.

1. If your going to tell me that the definitions given by the SSC (Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) do not mean what they mean, even though this is a time-honored scholarly source, then you will have to give credible evidence to the contrary.

The word "Elohim" is a plural word. This is evident by the singular word "El". The Strong's gives the phrase "singular in meaning", but that could only be conclusive upon the context of which the word is used. This is why you must go according to Biblical context.

In addition to this, Gesenius specifically states that this word has both a singular and a plural meaning, but the context accordingly is that if you look in the book, it speaks of two Hebrew words in the same context "El" and "Elohim", showing that there is a difference between the two and that "El" is indeed the singular while "Elohim" is the plural form.

You say that there is evidence to the contrary. I would like to see it.

2. According to these scholarly sources, what you are saying is here-say and opinion. You will need to show me, if I am in error, how and where this is so within the scriptures. You would also have to define, by biblical context, that is the Bible interpreting itself, on how there could be no contradictions if this were so.

3. Please quote the specific verse and describe how and why, if you would be so kind.

4. Im sorry, but you referencing that the English word "Word" in John 1 could never mean "the spoken word", but only "the reasoning behind it" is not accurate.

4-1 - "Word" - SSC - #3056, page 1512 = "logos", word, spoken or written, often with a focuse on the content of a communication; matter, thing, "The Word" is a title of Christ, emphasizing his own deity and communication of who God is and what he is like.

4-2. Word" - Thayer's Greek Lexicon - page 380-382 - "logos", a collecting, collection, and that, as well of those things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been throught, gathered together in the mind, are expressed in words; Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguiqshed; one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking. 1. A word, yet not in the grammatical sense, but languaged, a word which, utter byed the living voice, embodies a conception or idea. 2. What someone has said; a saying. Univ, a saying of the people. B. of the sayings of God; a decree, mandate, order, of the moral precepts of God. A divine declaration recorded in the OT. An oracle or utterance by which God discloses, to the prophets or through the prophets, future events. What is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, discouse. The act of speaking, speech. The faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking. A king or style of speaking. Continuous speaking, discourse, such as in the NT is characteristic of teachers. Instruction. In an objective sense, what is communicated by instruction, doctrine, specifically the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ salvation in the kingdom of God. Anything reported in speech. A matter in dispute, case, suit at law. Thing spoken of or talked about, event, deed.

II. Its use as respects the mind alone. 1. Reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating. 2. Account, regard, consideration. Account, reckoning, score. Account, answer or explanation in reference to judgment. Relation, with whom as judge we stand in relation, as is right, justly. Reason, cause, ground.

III. In several passages in the writings of John, denotes the essential Word of God, the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in the creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the worlds' life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah and shone forth conspicuously from his words and deeds.

Where are you sources for your information concerning your statements in this matter? I would like to see where you get your information from. These sources that I have quoted are the top referenced scholarly works according to the Hebrew and the Greek. They are the experts, not I. I merely use them. What do you use?

Even more so, if your so inclined, dont bother trying to make the case that they are out-dated. The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible words references one of the most leading lexiconal works in this modern time, the BDAG. The strong's could not do so if the Strong's were out-dated.

Be that as it may, I would suggest before continuing, that you read my article in its entirety before continuing further. You picked at specific parts, namely the very beginning. You wouldnt want me to do the same to you, would you?

[CoreIssue]

First and foremost, I would ask that you read the entire article before making snap descisions on what you wish to pick at. I would think you would wish for me to do the same when concerning your own evidence for your positions.
I did. I picked two critical foundation points upon which you built your arguments to refute. Loose those and what was built upon them collapses.
1. If your going to tell me that the definitions given by the SSC (Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) do not mean what they mean, even though this is a time-honored scholarly source, then you will have to give credible evidence to the contrary.
Historians. Plural of majesty is not a linquistic but a doctrinal definition. While a great source Strong added a ton of such definitions into his book. Other sources do not contain that definition.

But all include uniplural, including Strong. You are not making a linguistic argument but a doctrinal one.

Plural of Majesty (http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/uniplurality.html)

Such as Genesis 18 is uniplural. As is the example of the scouts bring a stem of grapes out of the Promised Land. It literally say they brought one grape on a pole back. The collective grapes on one stem is a uniplural. As is an army, marriage, council and so forth. Uniplurals all.

So, I gave a Biblical example of uniplural. Please give yours for plural of majesty. There is none.
The word "Elohim" is a plural word.
Yes it is. But the adjectives and such with it are singular when used with God but plural with pagan gods. Uniplural and plural by direct Biblical usage.
This is evident by the singular word "El".
Yep. But not used with God.
The Strong's gives the phrase "singular in meaning", but that could only be conclusive upon the context of which the word is used. This is why you must go according to Biblical context.
Yep. THE Lord visited Abraham as three persons. He addressed them as a singular Lord and they answered as a group, uniplural.
In addition to this, Gesenius specifically states that this word has both a singular and a plural meaning, but the context accordingly is that if you look in the book, it speaks of two Hebrew words in the same context "El" and "Elohim", showing that there is a difference between the two and that "El" is indeed the singular while "Elohim" is the plural form.

Move past El since it is not used with God. Deal with Genesis 18.
You say that there is evidence to the contrary. I would like to see it.
I gave it and you didn't deal with it. Genesis 18.
2. According to these scholarly sources, what you are saying is here-say and opinion. You will need to show me, if I am in error, how and where this is so within the scriptures. You would also have to define, by biblical context, that is the Bible interpreting itself, on how there could be no contradictions if this were so.
I showed you.
3. Please quote the specific verse and describe how and why, if you would be so kind.
Read Genesis 18. One Lord appearing as three, addressed as one and all three answering as one. Uniplural.

4. Im sorry, but you referencing that the English word "Word" in John 1 could never mean "the spoken word", but only "the reasoning behind it" is not accurate.
4-1 - "Word" - SSC - #3056, page 1512 = "logos", word, spoken or written, often with a focuse on the content of a communication; matter, thing, "The Word" is a title of Christ, emphasizing his own deity and communication of who God is and what he is like.
Greek word Logos.
4-2. Word" - Thayer's Greek Lexicon - page 380-382 - "logos", a collecting, collection, and that, as well of those things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been throught, gathered together in the mind, are expressed in words; Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguiqshed; one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking. 1. A word, yet not in the grammatical sense, but languaged, a word which, utter byed the living voice, embodies a conception or idea. 2. What someone has said; a saying. Univ, a saying of the people. B. of the sayings of God; a decree, mandate, order, of the moral precepts of God. A divine declaration recorded in the OT. An oracle or utterance by which God discloses, to the prophets or through the prophets, future events. What is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, discouse. The act of speaking, speech. The faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking. A king or style of speaking. Continuous speaking, discourse, such as in the NT is characteristic of teachers. Instruction. In an objective sense, what is communicated by instruction, doctrine, specifically the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ salvation in the kingdom of God. Anything reported in speech. A matter in dispute, case, suit at law. Thing spoken of or talked about, event, deed.
Incomplete definition.
From Strong's
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates achanging universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose inJohn 1.
It means a lot more than words alone and also needs historical context.
Context (http://everything2.com/title/Early%2520Greek%2520philosophy%2520and%2520Logos)
II. Its use as respects the mind alone. 1. Reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating. 2. Account, regard, consideration. Account, reckoning, score. Account, answer or explanation in reference to judgment. Relation, with whom as judge we stand in relation, as is right, justly. Reason, cause, ground.
Reason. Right there.
III. In several passages in the writings of John, denotes the essential Word of God, the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in the creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the worlds' life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah and shone forth conspicuously from his words and deeds.
God is the cause of all things. That includes the role of the Second Person incarnating as Christ.
Where are you sources for your information concerning your statements in this matter? I would like to see where you get your information from. These sources that I have quoted are the top referenced scholarly works according to the Hebrew and the Greek. They are the experts, not I. I merely use them. What do you use?
You didn't read your own definitions it appears.
Even more so, if your so inclined, dont bother trying to make the case that they are out-dated. The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible words references one of the most leading lexiconal works in this modern time, the BDAG. The strong's could not do so if the Strong's were out-dated.
No need. What I cited is in them.
Be that as it may, I would suggest before continuing, that you read my article in its entirety before continuing further. You picked at specific parts, namely the very beginning. You wouldnt want me to do the same to you, would you?
I did. You didn't read Genesis 18 it is obvious or you would seen Trinity.

[Calebnostro]

I did. I picked two critical foundation points upon which you built your arguments to refute. Loose those and what was built upon them collapses.


Your contention is based upon what you think is the truth while ignoring lexiconal works that completely go against what your saying. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive COncordance of the Bible along with Gesenius Hebrew'Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament do not confirm your words as being such. They are time-honored works that no Hebrew scholar would argue against in these modern times and they do not adhere to your argument.

Your contention is that the word "elohim" is uniplural when these lexicons dont state that it is, only that it can be used as such when the context shows it to be so. You are arguing it as a matter of fact, as if all context and all passages automatically make it so when you have no case to do so.


Historians. Plural of majesty is not a linquistic but a doctrinal definition. While a great source Strong added a ton of such definitions into his book. Other sources do not contain that definition.

But all include uniplural, including Strong. You are not making a linguistic argument but a doctrinal one.

Plural of Majesty (http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/uniplurality.html)

Such as Genesis 18 is uniplural. As is the example of the scouts bring a stem of grapes out of the Promised Land. It literally say they brought one grape on a pole back. The collective grapes on one stem is a uniplural. As is an army, marriage, council and so forth. Uniplurals all.

So, I gave a Biblical example of uniplural. Please give yours for plural of majesty. There is none.


Your contending that the Strong's Concordance and Gesenius Lexicon are addressing doctrinal concerns when they give the definitions to the Hebrew words as they have been defined, which do not state that the word "elohim" is inherently uniplural? They do not state so. They merely give the definitions. You are trying to say its a matter of fact regardless of the definitions of the word itself.

That is a very large assertion.


Yes it is. But the adjectives and such with it are singular when used with God but plural with pagan gods. Uniplural and plural by direct Biblical usage.


Apparently, you did not read the entire document, because Psalms 78:35 completely shows that your statements are not accurate. If the word "elohim" only means singular when speaking about God but plural when speaking about pagan Gods, then there is no way that you could address the two different Hebrew words for "God" and "God" in this passage, the first being "Elohim" and the second being "El".

Even more so, there is a distinction of the two "Gods" according to the words "rock" and "redeemer", making a difference between "Elohim" and "El" by signifying that if the High God was a redeemer, then the rock would have to be plural, making Elohim to be plural, because there would be a contradiction in the distinction.

The usage of the word HIgh defines "El" as being higher, this "God" as being Higher than the "Elohim", the other word "God" mentioned in context of the first half of this verse. This shows that "Elohim" has to be plural for their to be a specification of a God being higher in statute than another God in context.


Yep. THE Lord visited Abraham as three persons. He addressed them as a singular Lord and they answered as a group, uniplural.

The scriptures do not say that the Lord was three persons in this passage. You are putting that in there.


Move past El since it is not used with God. Deal with Genesis 18.


You are either ignorant or deliberately misleading people. The word "El" is used 242 times within the scriptures and most of those deal with God. Apparently you have never read these; Genesis 14:18-20, 22, Genesis 16:13, Genesis 17:1, Genesis 21:33, Genesis 28:3, Genesis 31:13,

Those are just sampling of the word "El" being used to denote God, which shows that your words here not the truth.


Incomplete definition.
From Strong's
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates achanging universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose inJohn 1.
It means a lot more than words alone and also needs historical context.
Context (http://everything2.com/title/Early%2520Greek%2520philosophy%2520and%2520Logos)


It is merely what the word means, as shown by these sources. Accept it or not, but that is irrelevant. You say its incomplete, but thats according to what you wish it to mean to further your side of the argument, which is unfair, untrue and downright insulting.


God is the cause of all things. That includes the role of the Second Person incarnating as Christ.


You say this as if its a matter of fact, but you havent given anything to prove it, which also means that you havent read my article in its entirety, because you dont address a single most conclusive factor that works against you;

If there is a Trinity, this would put the importance of the Holy Spirit as being equal in status with the Father and Son, then why do "none" of the epistles, books and whatnot of the disciples ever give glory, when they do give glory, to the Holy Spirit? THey only give glory to the Father and the Son.

You have a contradiction if the Holy Spirit is a God, in any shape or form, for if that was the case, then the disciples should have glorified the Holy Spirit as much as the Son or the Father.

Ergo, your case is not true. Its fraudulent and is based on pagan doctrines instigated by those who dont take the Bible into context with itself.

I have no wish to continue this discussion if your going to make statements so absurd and outrageous, without even getting specific about what your talking about. You state that I should get past "El" because its not used in conjunction with God, you then state that God(A Trinity) spoke to Abraham, when the word "Trinity" or no such distinction, honestly, could be found and you then begin to mis-quote my words, saying that Im telling you that you havent done anything to disprove my words, but then say you have "AFTER" the fact that Im talking about what you did before you addressed it to begin with.

I have no time for this. This is not a genuine debate. Its nothing but an avenue of biasness, un-truths and treacherous methods.

[CoreIssue]

Well, Strong and the rest were all Trinitarians. A point you seem to miss. As well as their definitions included uniplural.

I gave you a the example of Genesis 18. You didn't address it but launched into rhetoric.
You are either ignorant or deliberately misleading people. The word "El" is used 242 times within the scriptures and most of those deal with God. Apparently you have never read these; Genesis 14:18-20, 22, Genesis 16:13, Genesis 17:1, Genesis 21:33, Genesis 28:3, Genesis 31:13,
Genesis 14:18-20 The most high God. A contextual comparison of God against gods.
Genesis 16:13. Lord, Yahweh, title, not God. Hagar, an Egyptian. Different concept of God.
Genesis 17:1 God speaking as THE God.
And so on.
Now, Genesis 18 All three addressed in as the singular Lord and they responded plural, as in all responded to the title Lord.
Genesis 18

The Three Visitors

1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2018&version=31#fen-NIV-428a)] do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant."
"Very well," they answered, "do as you say."
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. "Quick," he said, "get three seahs of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread."
7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.
9 "Where is your wife Sarah?" they asked him.
"There, in the tent," he said.
10 Then the LORD [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2018&version=31#fen-NIV-435c)] said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son."
Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, "After I am worn out and my master [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2018&version=31#fen-NIV-437d)] is old, will I now have this pleasure?"
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?' 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD ? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son."
15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, "I did not laugh."
But he said, "Yes, you did laugh."
[B] Abraham Pleads for Sodom

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2018&version=31#fen-NIV-447e)] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2018&version=31#fen-NIV-449f)] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2018&version=31#fen-NIV-450g)] of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

The Shamai of Israel is The Lord (singular) my God (plural) is one God (singular)

Study up on Hebrew uniplural usage. It is a long known and used tool. We use it in such as army, marriage and so on. NT says two become one. Very Biblical.

[Calebnostro]

1. You say that its a contextual comparison of the most high God to other Gods, but your words contradict themselves in that your previous post stated that the word "el" is not used with God. You dont specify beyond this, which means as a result, it would be in any way.

2. The word "el" is in direct correlation to YHVH in Genesis 16:13, which shows that the word "IS" used in connection with God. Your words on this matter are contradictory and hypocritical. You are basing your entire point on a one-sided argument with a twisting of the genuine facts at hand.

3. Genesis 17:1 used the word "el" as the term that YHVH is describing himself as, showing that this word is indeed connected with God.

All of these show you to be a liar for what you are. Im still flabergasted that you could so blatantly twist the scriptures to support your view-point. You state completely with the phrases "Yes, but not with God" and "Move past El since it is not used with God. Deal with Genesis 18" that the Hebrew word "el" is not used with God, in any form, whatsoever, but you then ignore the passages that completely show this to be so and state that its not what it is, even when its so obvious that your twisting the meaning of them.

You then try to promote Genesis 18 in a way to prove your trinitarian doctrine, no doubt to the "three men" as being the Lord, but you ignore verses 20-22 of Genesis which work against you in the same passage that you are tyring to quote from!.

If the three men were the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then how in the world could the Lord still have to come down FROM heaven, in opposition to where the men were at that time, still being on the earth, and after Lord already came down to the earth? Your view is riddled with contradictions.

Even more so, Christ stated in John 14:6 in that no man comes to the Father but by him. Christ was on the earth CENTURIES after the events of Genesis 18! No one has even SEEN the Father, except Christ, which is state conclusively in John 1:18, which means that not even Abraham could have known the Father, in any way, for this would mean that Abraham saw the Father!

You sir, are a bonafide, genuine twister of the scriptures. Your position is a lie. You havent even addressed Psalms 78:35. You dont even mention it! Its a valid point that completely contradicts yours. You also ignore the fact that the disciples have never, ever given glory to the Holy Spirit as they do to the Father and the Son in the beginning of EACH of their letters and books, which are after Acts.

You then sit there and tell me that I should study up on the Hebrew when you dont even address the conflicting truth against your falsified statements.

You havent proven anything. You have merely spouted Roman Catholic and Judaic garbage, which is not Biblical whatsoever. I will not continue in this farce of a debate anymore. You have no desire to learn the truth, but merely to discredit what I state any which way that you can and then pass yourself off as someone who is telling the truth.

Believe what you will, but Im telling you now that unless you can actually prove your words, unlike what you have done today, then you will be apart of those mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23.

Your choice.

[CoreIssue]

Liar, huh? I will let the mods deal with that.


You then try to promote Genesis 18 in a way to prove your trinitarian doctrine, no doubt to the "three men" as being the Lord,
Ah, so there it is. Modalism.
but you ignore verses 20-22 of Genesis which work against you in the same passage that you are tyring to quote from!.
I see. Disregard all the rest and hinge it all on one spun statement.

But it does not work. As John says the Logos is God and was with God. Greek means in a face to face relationship. Father is God, Son is God incarnate, Holy Spirit is God and they are God together. Speak of one speaks of all and speak of all and you speak of each.

Look at a Council. One member is Council and together they are Council. So one can say I am Council and all can say they are Council.

You already admitted all three are Lord. And God being Lord means all are God.


Your argument fails logically, semantically and grammatically.
If the three men were the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then how in the world could the Lord still have to come down FROM heaven, in opposition to where the men were at that time, still being on the earth, and after Lord already came down to the earth? Your view is riddled with contradictions.
Not at all. You understanding fail.

The role of Father and Son did not begin until the incarnation. There was no Christ before Mary except in promise. No flesh.

The Father sits Christ on the Throne of God with him when he ascended. The Holy Spirit is in the world.

Baptise in the name of the all three. Each is preceded with the Greek word 'kai.' Kai in the Greek demands personage. So there is a statement of three persons.

Not a single example of plural of majesty in the Bible anywhere. I gave you info on when it originated. That is historical fact.

Think about it.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

1. You say that its a contextual comparison of the most high God to other Gods, but your words contradict themselves in that your previous post stated that the word "el" is not used with God. You dont specify beyond this, which means as a result, it would be in any way.

2. The word "el" is in direct correlation to YHVH in Genesis 16:13, which shows that the word "IS" used in connection with God. Your words on this matter are contradictory and hypocritical. You are basing your entire point on a one-sided argument with a twisting of the genuine facts at hand.

3. Genesis 17:1 used the word "el" as the term that YHVH is describing himself as, showing that this word is indeed connected with God.

All of these show you to be a liar for what you are. Im still flabergasted that you could so blatantly twist the scriptures to support your view-point. You state completely with the phrases "Yes, but not with God" and "Move past El since it is not used with God. Deal with Genesis 18" that the Hebrew word "el" is not used with God, in any form, whatsoever, but you then ignore the passages that completely show this to be so and state that its not what it is, even when its so obvious that your twisting the meaning of them.

You then try to promote Genesis 18 in a way to prove your trinitarian doctrine, no doubt to the "three men" as being the Lord, but you ignore verses 20-22 of Genesis which work against you in the same passage that you are tyring to quote from!.

If the three men were the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then how in the world could the Lord still have to come down FROM heaven, in opposition to where the men were at that time, still being on the earth, and after Lord already came down to the earth? Your view is riddled with contradictions.

Even more so, Christ stated in John 14:6 in that no man comes to the Father but by him. Christ was on the earth CENTURIES after the events of Genesis 18! No one has even SEEN the Father, except Christ, which is state conclusively in John 1:18, which means that not even Abraham could have known the Father, in any way, for this would mean that Abraham saw the Father!

You sir, are a bonafide, genuine twister of the scriptures. Your position is a lie. You havent even addressed Psalms 78:35. You dont even mention it! Its a valid point that completely contradicts yours. You also ignore the fact that the disciples have never, ever given glory to the Holy Spirit as they do to the Father and the Son in the beginning of EACH of their letters and books, which are after Acts.

You then sit there and tell me that I should study up on the Hebrew when you dont even address the conflicting truth against your falsified statements.

You havent proven anything. You have merely spouted Roman Catholic and Judaic garbage, which is not Biblical whatsoever. I will not continue in this farce of a debate anymore. You have no desire to learn the truth, but merely to discredit what I state any which way that you can and then pass yourself off as someone who is telling the truth.

Believe what you will, but Im telling you now that unless you can actually prove your words, unlike what you have done today, then you will be apart of those mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23.

Your choice.

Oh, wow...I'm sorry I missed this. Caleb, in this post, and others, you come across as sounding like you think you're a "one true prophet of God" and no one else has any truth. We will stick to the truth of God's Word as our first and final authority. Through it, the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.

Your debate tactics are also in violation of what we allow on this board. What I hear when I read your posts is arrogance...you're dripping with it.

Consider this a warning... a stern one. Debate with dignity, or you won't be debating at all.

[Calebnostro]

Im sorry, Crystal, but you can think what you want. You can say that I come across as such, but thats your perogative to view me as such. I really do not care.

In addition, you can claim that I am coming of as some arrogant quack out here with a personal belief that I have the only truth. Thats your perogative as well, but the truth of the matter is that I presented a position that is controversial, yes, but not forbidden. In essence, I state my case and I have evidence to back it up. You claim that you will let the truth of God's Word be the final authority, but you dont address anything about what Im writing, only that you wish to concentrate on how I approach the issue because it offends your sensibilities.

You claim its arrogance, thats your perogative, but would it even matter to you that "YOU" come off as judgmental and "holier-than-thou" in your response to my posts? I dont think it would, because "you" wouldnt necessarily believe so.

Its easy to read certain things when discussing in written format and not face to face as it was during the times of Jesus Christ and the disciples.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

I gave you a warning because of your debate tactics. You can think me holier than thou, that is YOUR perogative, however, unless you can debate with dignity, then you won't be debating at all.

[Calebnostro]

Why? Because I said that my opponant was a liar? How was it not the truth? I addressed every single one of his points, but He didnt address several of mine, namely Psalms 78:35 and the fact that none of the disciples addressed the Holy Spirit when they gave glory to the Father and the Son at each of their books after acts, which was a valid point that completely contradicted his.

I had the evidence to back it up and it was completely obvious. Jesus Christ called the Pharisees in Matthew 12:34 "vipers" and said that they were evil. Are you going to tell me that me stating what I said was in violation of some procedure that you have when according to the Bible, if its the truth, its not a sin or a crime to do so?

Right, yeah. Dont expect me to be upset to violating some rule of yours when Im obligated by the scriptures to be truthful according to the situation.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Your post shows me that you have absolutely NO regard for our rules, and feel that you are above every form of rule or authority here. Sorry, but when you joined this board, you agreed to the rules, and you are not only violating them, but express no interest or intention in ever obeying them. Therefore, you are banned.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

One last parting word...

In all of your "biblical research," did you never come across ANY scriptures where it speaks that we, as God's children, are to show meekness and gentleness in our relation to our brothers and sisters?

Study some more.