Trinity DebateTrinity debateWebmaster was the one who originally "appealed" to the word in question - and posted a misleading, erroneus definition in an attempt to show how the OT contains evidence of the Trinity. All I did was RESPOND to the particular point of that post. You have a distorted view of all that transpires, or else you are intentionally trying to avoid the immediate subject of WM's post or my response. You accuse me of "semantics" because I refuted the Trinitarian echad argument, but why didn't you accuse WM of "semantics" when he originally initiated the subject? It's because you have no problem with what you call "semantics" as long as you believe it supports your doctrine, but now that you have seen it DOESN'T, it's like you're driving around with a dead body in your trunk and you don't know where to bury the evidence. Yes, of course, you need to get as far away from reality as you can on this one - I understand. God created languages with no grammatical rules? What does pronunciation have to do with definition? You must be joking? Okay, I'll play - how do you know the Jews didn't copy down everything God said in the OT WRONG? How do you know the Greek of the NT is correct? How do you know that when both the OT and NT proclaim that there is only one God, that that "one" is not a "multiple/plural/compound one", meaning that "one God" actually intends MORE than one God?
Ah - the REAL reason you believe what you do. (Which one of these thousands of scholars told you that God's name appears 3 times in Deut.6:4?) BTW - if all these Trinitarian scholars can't be wrong, then I guess all those Jewish scholars throughout history that would disagree that echad/elohim imply a multiplicity of persons in God can't be wrong either? (after all, it is THEIR LANGUAGE) |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame