Posted by A2 on 4/25/2001, 3:49 pm

Like a tea-tray in the sky... Posted by Steve B. on 4/3/2001, 8:28 pm , in reply to "A relative truth" A2, You write You have not subsequently told me that you believe differently. Don't look now, but I'm afraid that right in this very thread I've already quoted you a place that shows I did. Here it is again: Your characterization of my own position is, however, not accurate. For one thing of course, I meant it to be simply synonymous with Jesus having two natures... (“Re: A repost of "My answers” 3/29/2001, 3:51 pm) But just for fun, here's another place: By the definitions I have stated, it now seems to me that in describing Jesus, the Bible is describing a person with both the nature of man and the nature of God, not a person (or even a “personage”) with God inside of him. (“Re: I thought you understood this already,” 3/22/2001, 9:24 am) You also write The fact remains that you do make a distinction in the statements above, and that your HAVE NOT always believed these two statements to be synonymous as demonstrated in the "distinctions" that you make between "person" and "nature". Now, let me see if I've got this straight. If two words have different meanings, then any two sentences which contain them must also have different meanings. Do I finally have it? You also write If "there's no use in trying to explain to you (me) what trinitarian doctrine means." Why do you keep answering my posts? I already told you, A2. It's because I like to write. And, in the case with these wonderfully zany dialogues I have with you, I am actually becoming quite curious about what might pop out of the screen at me next in response to entering even the most commonplace of observations into my computer. The disassociated, Alice-in-Wonderland quality of your prose is quite unlike anything else I've ever encountered outside of Lewis Carroll himself. Have you ever thought of publishing some of it? You might go quite far with a catchier pen name. You also ask Finally, if my question was unclear, why didn't you clarify it with me? Trats eht ta naht desufnoc erom yawa semoc syawla eno—ssalg gnikool eht dnoyeb sretcarahc eht fo eno yna htiw sgniht yfiralc ot gniyrt ekil si uoy htiw “sgniht yfiralc” ot gniyrt esuaceb s'ti ,llew. Or to put it another way—if one is too late, then all the rest is foresight except the gullible. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Do Trinitarians believe that the personage of Jesus is just human? Posted by Anon.II on 4/4/2001, 10:28 am , in reply to "Like a tea-tray in the sky..." Personally, your insults don’t bother me, what is weird is that you NEED these ad hominems or else you wouldn’t have as much to write about, since you like to write so much. However, you still won’t write answers to the questions that implicate your coveted Trinitarian position. Like saying the words “person” and “nature” have different meanings when I use them but are synonymous when you use them. That’s called talking out of the side of the mouth, and it robs Peter to pay Paul. You have it straight when you use them, but when I use them I don’t have them straight. Do I finally have it? I know that you claim both phrases as your belief, but your “triple negative” spoof demonstrated that you were trying to avoid my question. For example, look at the question of mine again that you said I left out: Are you now saying that you do not believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person? Now, look how you attempted to say that your answer was indeed YES. In fact your answer to my question is not an answer to my question at all. You left out the most important qualification in my sentence, that of “that the person” of Jesus is a combined human/divine person. You answered: “but the meaning of my answer is ‘I still stay that Jesus is a combined human/divine person, if you are defining that as meaning that his person has both a human and divine nature.” I’m not looking for more of your fuzzy Trinitarian concepts or sneaky ways of skirting the issue, just an answer to my question. Trinitarianism vs. Oneness is the debate not a lot of going on about YOUR POSITION. If you are not answering my ACTUAL QUESTION then I would appreciate you not addressing me as if you were. You have gone to great lengths to demonstrate how the person of Jesus could not be just “human”, trying to justify the Trinitarian position of 3 persons of God. Now you say that you JUST believe that Jesus is “one” person that is both human and divine. The only question that counts is how does the one human person of Jesus and the one divine person of Jesus equal “one person” if the personage is not a split personality? Saying that this is not your position does not negate the fact that the logic remains, and that this is MY POSITION. Just saying that “this is not your position” does not demonstrate how your position is biblically, logically or grammatically plausible, and in fact qualifies as a oxymoron. Oneness also believes that Jesus is one person that is both human and divine, but you and I both know that you do not accept that the human personage of Jesus is JUST human. You’ve made the distinction in His personage by saying: (Steve B on 1/22/2001, 4:30 pm) It’s because we believe the person who is Jesus is not only a human but is also God. We believe that to describe him (in a definitive description of who he is) as a “human person” would be scripturally inadequate and inaccurate, unless one were also to say that the same person is deity as well.” Oneness does not believe that the word "person" is biblical in reference to deity, and your distinction was made in light of your understanding that Oneness does believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man, and how they are one is not by making His personage more than human. This is a Trinitarian assumption, not biblical assertion. And what would be the reason for now skirting around the fact that you believe that Jesus’ personage is not "only" human (i.e.: a split personality), the negative connotation? I agree, there is a negative connotation, that one human person and one divine person are being asserted as now being just one person, AND that person being distinct from the other 2 persons of the Trinitarian Godhead that are not combined personages. This is a big problem for both logic and proper translation of what the bible actually says. Also, per your concern, I do not understand why seeing a split personage suggests to you that it means God is inside of Jesus, suggesting that this is my complaint. I haven’t made that claim against your understanding, so why you justify it, I don’t know. As far as your assumed superior writing abilities, compared to my supposed Alice-in-Wonderland quality, why the use of so many logical fallacies? ---------- Not no way, no how Posted by Dave Kenady on 4/4/2001, 5:50 pm , in reply to "Do Trinitarians believe that the personage of Jesus is just human?" "but your 'triple negative' spoof demonstrated that you were trying to avoid my question." I'll have to defend Steve here. If there is one thing he is not, it is evasive. And the thing about the question that has been bantered about here -- the question was posed in the negative, "Are you saying you do not believe... " Since Steve DOES believe the assertion, the correct would be No, meaning, "No, I'm not saying I do not believe..." That was the correct answer to the question posed. It was not a matter of being evasive. ---------- And the fact that his "no" was to wording that was altered makes no difference then Posted by Anon.II on 4/5/2001, 8:38 am , in reply to "Not no way, no how" Oh, I understand, we are having a Steve party here. ---------- I am not saying that I don't believe Steve was deceptive..... NOT! ;-) Posted by Dave Kenady on 4/5/2001, 7:57 pm , in reply to "And the fact that his "no" was to wording that was altered makes no difference then" His first answer was to language that appears to me to have been an attempt to communicate to you how he was perceiving your question: That is, if by “combined human/divine person” you mean that the one person has both a human and divine nature, then my answer to your above question is "no." Steve later clarified this after further objections: As evidence that I do not regard these statements as having the same meaning, in your above posting you quote this earlier statement of mine: That is, if by “combined human/divine person” you mean that the one person has both a human and divine nature, then my answer to your above question is "no." But you do not quote the question to which I was responding. That question was Are you now saying that you do not believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person? A “no” answer to this question means “No, I am not saying that I do not believe Jesus is a combined human/divine person.” You guys are having a very difficult time communicating. But that shouldn't be cause for accusations of deceptive writing such as: How did my question: ("Are you now saying that you do not believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person?")prompt you to give a "NO" answer and to re-word your distinction? YOU DO believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person, but you wanted to give me a "no" answer? This is very deceptive to me. In fact, "NO" to the question you posed meant that Steve DOES believe the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person. What was he supposed to do? Answer "yes"?