Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What influenced me

Expand Messages
  • Iamaccfiile@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/19/2005 3:17:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, eric.pement@moody.edu writes: Other than pure Bible reading, which writers or teachers have
    Message 1 of 34 , Feb 21, 2005
      In a message dated 2/19/2005 3:17:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, eric.pement@... writes:
      Other than pure Bible reading, which writers or teachers have most
      influenced your thinking in this regard?
      The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting (1999, 365 pages, 3 indexes, $25.95). Click here for more information.
      I liked this book. It made much more sense than Robert Bowmen or any other writer on the topic. Unless you have read the book then it would be fruitless to discuss the topic.
      I know you would agree this guy is a heretic but to bad, he makes sense. I have read much on the topic and like I said before, the trinity to me is a heresy and a form of idolatry.
      To say that God himself came down to earth in person is pure ludicrous. God doesn't work that way. He always used angels as an in between. Jacob wrestled with God the Scriptures says. Did he really? ....But Jacob says he saw God FACE to FACE
      Gen 32:30  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
      Penuel : face or vision of God; that sees God
       But was it God HIMSELF he wrestled with?
      .Hos 12:4  Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him [in] Bethel, and there he spake with us;
      Eric states:
      >> I think if the Church fathers had idolatrous tendencies, we should be able to
      discern that in their own writings.<<

      They have. In the parables of the weeds and the wheat. The apostasy came in after Jesus and the Apostles deaths. We have one doctrine, the Trinity that came as a result of that apostasy.
      As to being an ex JW? Where did I ever make a statement like that?
      As to Robert Bowen's books I would even waste my time. I read enough of his wrong doctrine. I have nothing against the man personally. But I think he is in serious error.
      Also remember he only has an OPINION, a HUMAN one at that. Unfortunately for some on this list his views are listened to like a cult leader. I am no scholar but I am not an idiot in reading the Bible in plain English or in Greek. When JUDAS himself says that he is the Ego Eime then we have a problem don't we?
      Mat 26:25  Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
       Not to many people talk about the slip of the tongue do they?  Imagine Jesus himself agreeing that Judas is the I AM, Ego Eimi in Greek.
      Then they DARE use the connection in John 8:58 to Ex 3:14. A good stretch of the immigration wouldn't you say? Even in light of the fact that Judas is the same I am then if you want to use that logic.
      How many times in the NT is Jesus said to be on Gods RIGHT hand? To many to count. The Scriptures say that for a reason. It means what it says. Jesus is NEXT to GOD.
      YOUR trinity does not answer that predicament.
      Mar 16:19  So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
      Luk 22:69  Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
      Act 2:33  Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear
      Heb 12:2  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
    • One Ness
      Message 34 of 34 , Feb 27, 2005
        One Ness,
        You wrote:

        <<< Thanks for providing those references. I see that
        you demonstrate that the singular word "name" can
        refer to one "name" that applies to more than one
        entity collectively or that the singular "name" can be
        applied distributively where there is actually more
        than one name intended. >>>

        Exactly. You understood me perfectly.
        You wrote:

        <<< With all these possibilities and also various
        senses for the word "name" it would then appear that
        one's view of the meaning of this verse is dependent
        upon many factors, none of which can be rigorously
        proved exegetically. Also the elements needed to
        exegete this are really not all found in one verse.
        This means that your claim that unless something
        explicit is found in the same verse the three must all
        be distinct persons is unfounded. >>>

        <<I disagree with you here. Not everything in biblical
        interpretation must always be explicit or is easily
        proved from a single passage, of course, but we have
        enough examples of personal nouns connected by KAI in
        the Greek New Testament, and enough evidence of the
        semantics of such linking of nouns in language
        generally, to be able to draw some useful rules in
        this regard. You wrote:>>

        Your responses to my questions on this point have
        previously been dogmatic that in the case of Matthew
        28:19 with its three articulated nouns separated by
        �and�, and in all other verses like it, there would
        need to be an explicit grammatical reference in that
        same verse which clearly distinguished the three as
        being the same person. You pointed me to the
        examples in Revelation with singular antecedents and
        singular personal pronouns in the same verse. Is this
        a retreat from your previous position? I can�t tell
        based upon the way you state this now if your
        acknowledge this or not.

        <<< Some examples of verses which contain multiple
        articular nouns can also be used to illustrate the
        error of your exegetical principle. >>>

        <<This is a useful way of approaching the question. I
        hope I can show you that your examples further
        substantiate the view I have taken.


        Now, in order to explain my position clearly, let me
        define a few terms. By 'personal noun' I mean a noun
        or noun unit that designates or refers to a person in
        terms of relationship, status, position, role, or
        similar function. Examples of personal nouns would be
        father, scientist, fighter pilot, teacher, radio host,
        priest, and candidate. 'Proper names' identify a
        person without regard to status, relationship, or the
        like; some examples are Beth, Robert, John, and Maria.
        (Those are my four kids, by the way!) >>

        Here you give examples which don�t really address the
        example of �spirit� in the NT because it is not clear,
        as you state later, that the word �spirit� is a
        reference to a person. I will add here that this
        also ignores that �spirit� also refers to a part of
        another person. My finger is a part of me and is
        �personal� (especially if I use it in a personal
        gesture!) but it is by itself not a person. I am sure
        you are aware of the term being used as a part or
        �component� of a person and will not provide them

        << First, it may further confirm what we know or are
        fairly sure is the case based on the semantic relation
        of the nouns. It turns out, for example, that in
        biblical Greek we normally don't find personal nouns
        linked by KAI and referring to one person where both
        nouns have the article in front. We also don't
        normally find personal nouns linked by KAI and
        referring to two persons where the article appears in
        front of the first noun but not the second. So, where
        each noun has the article and the nouns are
        heteronymous, we can be doubly sure, if you will, that
        the nouns refer to different persons; and likewise,
        where the first noun has the article and the
        subsequent noun does not, and the nouns are
        synonymous, we can be doubly sure that they refer to
        the same person.

        Second, in the case of nouns that are neither clearly
        synonymous nor clearly heteronymous in their semantic
        relation, the use of the article may clarify whether
        the nouns refer to one person or more than one. For
        example, the nouns 'God' and 'father' are not
        semantically synonymous, nor of course are they
        clearly heteronymous. Thus, it is helpful to note that
        the New Testament typically links these two nouns when
        referring to one person as "the God and Father" rather
        than "the God and the Father." The use of a single
        article to govern both nouns makes it clear that they
        refer to a single person.

        I'm sorry for the length of the preceding explanation,
        but I hope it is helpful. Now let me turn to your two
        counterexamples. >>

        I comment on this part of your post later. Here and
        leave it intact for reference.


        Your first counterexample was 1 John 5:8 (you said 1
        John 5:7, but in most English versions it is verse 8).
        You are correct that the three nouns are linked by KAI
        and each has the article in front of it - "the Spirit
        and the water and the blood." However, I don't think
        this verse undermines my reasoning about Matthew 28:19
        at all.

        In 1 John 5:8, the nouns 'water' and 'blood' are
        clearly (to everyone, I think!) nonpersonal nouns.
        This is so because of their normal semantic range, not
        because of the article in front of each noun.
        Likewise, whether one views 'the Spirit' as a personal
        designation or as referring to an impersonal force has
        nothing to do with the article and everything to do
        with one's view of the New Testament use of PNEUMA
        ('spirit'). The article is used in front of each noun,
        most likely, to emphasize that these three function as
        three distinct witnesses. That is the context; the
        background to this statement is the Old Testament
        teaching that legal judgment required two or three
        witnesses. However, >>

        Regarding �spirit� and �water� and �blood� you say:

        << we don't need the articles to know that these nouns
        are heteronymous. The nouns 'water' and 'blood'
        normally refer to different substances, as does the
        word 'spirit' (or 'breath' or 'wind,' the physical
        meanings of PNEUMA). That much would be clear however
        the articles were used. >>

        Your examples of coordinated nouns as being heteronyms
        or synonyms for the most part were not ambiguous and
        served a good illustrative purpose. However 1John 5:8
        is not so clear cut even though you make the statement
        above that they are all dissimilar.

        In Scripture both spirit and water are used together
        of the one baptism (John 3:5; Eph 4:4-5)

        It can be a useful tool to compare words that are used
        together especially when they overlap in meaning. But
        it would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that
        because they are not 100% overlapping that they must
        be heteronymous, which is what you appear to do here.

        This further illustrates that your exegetical
        principle is not valid because a particular
        theological presupposition is needed to complete the

        Likewise, in Matthew 28:19 how one evaluates the
        similarities and differences between the terms
        influences the resulting exegesis. You have focused
        upon �personhood� as the key semantic property of the
        three words in that verse but that is your

        In your discussion of 1John 5:8 you divert attention
        from the personhood of the Holy Spirit and attribute
        the distinction between the terms in another way.
        This is contextual and biased proof which is not the
        explicit grammatical proof which you claimed earlier
        was necessary to prove that three articular nouns
        which were coordinated would need to have the same
        property of personhood.

        In Matthew 28:19 Jesus is not teaching the Trinity or
        what constitutes personhood in that verse. The
        previous verse deals with his newly given authority.
        Therefore what could be distinguished here is not
        personhood but the Father�s unique and absolute
        authority, the authority he delegates to the Son and
        the sign of the authority given to his followers that
        they make disciples.

        You also do not address the sense of �name� and more
        importantly the complete idiom of �baptizing in the
        name of.� It is a valid interpretation to interpret
        this idiom as �invoking� a name while doing something
        which would mean to acknowledge the entity. It is
        not just persons who have names.

        There are other examples where two articular nouns are
        coordinated with the word �and� where they do not
        share the same property of �personhood.�

        � Matthew 4:22 And they immediately left the ship and
        their father, and followed him. � I have heard people
        call their ship a she. Now she is coordinated with a
        person. Could the ship be a person? There is no
        explicit grammatical clue to save us from the
        conclusion from your exegetical principle.

        << Most Oneness advocates (unlike Jehovah's Witnesses,
        for example) agree that the Father, Son, and Holy
        Spirit are all personal designations. That is, they
        view the Father as personal, the Son as personal, and
        the Holy Spirit as personal. (Some don't like the word
        'person' in this context, to which I am trying to be
        sensitive. My point is simply that most Oneness
        advocates agree, for example, that the Holy Spirit is
        not an impersonal force, as the JWs teach.) >>

        One problem I find with the rule you are trying to
        make in your Trinity outline is that you must rely
        upon a theological framework to make your proof. A
        valid exegetical proof should not be dependent upon
        who you are debating. It is a common tactic to
        change one�s arguments in this manner and this is
        acceptable if it helps remove barriers to
        communication. But it should not be done as a
        shortcut towards Scriptural truth. I am not saying
        you are doing this now, but I frequently see this
        done. As a result I don�t accept any exegetical
        proof that relies on one�s belief that the Holy Spirit
        is a person as a foundation for the proof.

        << In short: in both 1 John 5:8 and Matthew 28:19, we
        have a sequence of three nouns joined by KAI, with the
        article in front of each noun. In 1 John 5:8 all three
        nouns are clearly heteronymous. In Matthew 28:19 the
        first two are clearly so; while the third is
        semantically uncertain in this regard, its place
        following two clearly heteronymous nouns strongly
        supports the conclusion that it refers to someone
        distinct from the first two nouns. The use of the
        article in front of each noun simply confirms the
        distinctness of each of the three as determined on
        semantic grounds. >>

        The �water� and �spirit� overlap to a great extent in
        the context of baptism. I don�t agree that they are
        clearly heteronymous. I expand on this in another
        part of this post.

        JOHN 20:28

        "You are [EI, singular] worthy, our Lord and God [hO
        KURIOS KAI hO QEOS hHMWN]" (Rev. 4:11). >>

        Now this is a good example of the sort of grammatical
        proof that is lacking in John 20:28, a singular noun
        which directly predicates this dual term.

        One of the reasons I liked your discussion of word
        usage was that it gave weight to the customary usage
        of words in the NT and did not appeal to singular or
        unusual examples. This would be an example of the
        latter. In addition it is tainted by textual
        variants which don�t agree with this reading and is in
        the book of Revelation which is known for its
        solecisms. All in all not good proof that we should
        interpret John 20:28 in a way that as you admit would
        be most unusual in Biblical Greek.

        "Arise, Lord, and attend to my judgment,
        My God and my Lord -- to my cause!" (Psalm 35:23
        [34:23 Greek])

        Here the Greek is hO QEOS MOU KAI hO KURIOS MOU --
        exactly like John 20:28 except that QEOS and KURIOS
        are reversed.

        This example and others are translation Greek.
        Translation Greek is generally not considered
        definitive for grammatical constructions in NT Greek.
        I am fairly sure you would agree when given a similar
        verse as a counter to Sharp�s rule.

        <<You are partly right about the introductory words
        "Thomas answered and said to him" in John 20:28. That
        is, you are correct when you write: >>

        <<< Finally in John 20:28 the argument frequently
        proposed, that the words "said to him" prove both
        titles are applied to Jesus does not have the same
        explicit grammatical force as your examples in
        Revelation. The singular personal pronoun in the
        dative is not the grammatical antecedent of "My Lord
        and my God!"; the antecedent is "Jesus" in verse 26.

        << What you have right here, if I may reword what you
        have said here a bit, is that the pronoun 'him' does
        not have the nouns 'Lord' and 'God' as its antecedents
        (pronouns, not nouns, have antecedents). However, this
        does not mean that the text fails to state explicitly
        that the nouns refer to the one just called "him." To
        see this, drop "and my God" from the verse and read it
        as follows:

        "Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord!'"

        It is really beyond reasonably dispute (I have to add
        the word 'reasonable' because some try to dispute it
        anyway) that in a statement such as the one I show
        above "My Lord" refers back to "him." This also works
        if you drop "My Lord and," resulting in the following

        "Thomas answered and said to him, 'My God!'"

        Either way, the sentence is explicit in having Thomas
        refer to the one to whom he is speaking by the noun in
        question. Put the two back together and the conclusion
        still stands.

        I did not follow your argument regarding the thought
        experiment of prefacing John 20:28 with John 14:1, 10.
        Even with that context, we would have no reason not to
        understand John 20:28 to mean that Thomas was
        referring to
        Jesus as his Lord and his God. Of course, that is not
        the immediate context of John 20:28. In that same
        chapter, Jesus has already been called 'Lord' (KURIOS)
        *six times* (John 20:2, 13, 15, 18, 20, 25), in
        addition to the many times that he was called 'Lord'
        in the rest of the book. In one of those six
        occurrences earlier in chapter 20, the exact
        _expression "my Lord" (hO KURIOS MOU) is used (John
        20:13). In this context, Thomas's use of 'my Lord' in
        verse 28 can hardly be taken any other way than as a
        designation for Jesus.

        In Christ's service,

        Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
        Center for Biblical Apologetics
        Online: http://www.biblicalapologetics.net >>

        You give numerous examples where Jesus is called Lord.
        I am not sure what you accomplish by doing this
        because this is not disputed. What is disputed is
        that both terms Lord and God refer to one person in
        John 20:28, remember?

        When you re-arrange the words of Thomas to be �My God�
        above you illustrate the point I have been making all
        along, that the argument that both terms are being
        applied to Jesus is a contextual one, not a
        grammatical one. You had earlier clarified when I
        asked what you meant by explicit. You agreed that
        this meant explicit grammatical proof as in your
        examples of antecedent or predication or the like.

        Let�s review what you wrote in this post regarding the
        relationship of heteronymous and synonymous nouns and
        how the article can affect their meanings when they
        are joined by the word �and�:

        �in biblical Greek we normally don't find personal
        nouns linked by KAI and referring to one person where
        both nouns have the article in front � Second, in the
        case of nouns that are neither clearly synonymous nor
        clearly heteronymous in their semantic relation, the
        use of the article may clarify whether the nouns refer
        to one person or more than one.�

        Considering also that you also agree that �Lord� is
        generally used of Jesus and �God� is generally used of
        the Father and that these two titles are used to
        distinguish between them I fail to see how you can
        deny that the two terms, according to what you have
        written in your Trinity outline should apply to two
        persons. After all, you write above that the articles
        are yet further evidence that there are two persons in

        In a previous post you agreed that unless there was a
        strict grammatical connection such as found in the
        verses in Revelation where the double articulated
        terms were the antecedent to a singular noun or if
        they were directly predicated to the singular personal
        pronoun that two persons would need to be in view. I
        had asked in <<>>, to which you reply below:

        << Is it the strict grammatical connection between the
        terms what you consider necessary for the "explicit"
        designation of your grammatical principle? >>

        Yes. I would also allow exceptions where the nouns
        connected by 'and' (KAI) normally refer to the same
        person, e.g., "the president and the
        commander-in-chief," even though one would normally
        not repeat the article before the second noun.

        Regarding my example of context, I had given the
        example emendation:

        <<Finally in John 20:28 the argument frequently
        proposed, that the words "said to him" prove both
        titles are applied to Jesus does not have the same
        explicit grammatical force as your examples in
        Revelation. The singular personal pronoun in the
        dative is not the grammatical antecedent of "My Lord
        and my God!"; the antecedent is "Jesus" in verse 26.
        The argument that the singular "him" proves that this
        term is the compound title of one person is based
        entirely on a _logical_ argument and not a grammatical

        This can be demonstrated by re-arranging the context
        while keeping the same grammatical structure in John

        Let's assume that the previous sentence includes prior
        to verse 28 the emendation [[And Jesus said to Thomas,
        now you truly understand the meaning of my words
        earlier "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in
        God, believe also in me (Jn 14:1)" and "Believest thou
        not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The
        words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but
        the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
        (Jn 14:10)"]]

        Now, keeping John 20:28 entirely intact we find:
        ''And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and
        my God!"''

        This illustrates that the grammar alone and the
        singular "him" does not prove that the composite term
        is to be applied to Jesus alone. There is nothing
        explicit in this verse which supports your view.>>

        Commenting on my emendation:
        Jesus had just told his disciples in John 14 that to
        see him was to see the Father because the Father was
        �in him� and he was �in� the Father and that the
        Father �dwelleth� in him.

        Augustine held the following view in Augustine
        Tractate CXXI:

        Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my
        God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the
        God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means
        of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from
        him every doubt, and believed the other."

        Augustine earlier had distinguished between Jesus and
        God, had claimed that they were both �one� and �equal�
        but clarified his view that when Thomas spoke those
        words, the phrase �my God� was �other� than Jesus,
        �God� who in this context Augustine states is the


        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.