Posted by A2 on 4/25/2001, 4:10 pm

Trinitarian perception vs. Trinitarian deception Posted by Anon.II on 4/6/2001, 11:40 am , in reply to "I am not saying that I don't believe Steve was deceptive..... NOT! ;-)" Ask yourself, does Anon.II mean “one person has both a human and divine nature” by my question that I asked: “are you now saying that you do not believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person?”? No I did not. According to proper grammatical structure these two phrases are not synonymous, that is WHY I phrased the question in this way. To Oneness one person that is by nature both human and divine, is the one person of human nature, the divine nature is not a “person”. To Trinitarianism (by faith only) one person is a combined personage human/divine. Steve’s qualification is deceptive to me because he wants to appear like he’s answering MY QUESTION, but is in fact evading what I am actually asking. The “combined” person assertion that he had made previously, was being dodged; only offering his belief that Jesus is one person that has both a human and divine nature. Since this is the same “general” meaning that both Oneness and Trinitarians believe, the qualification that Steve had previously asserted, about Jesus’ personage being combined is being evaded by saying it is synonymous. For what other reason does Steve give an equivocal answer(Webster: equiv·o·cal (adj) subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse)? By previously being evasive, of his qualification, the “combined” theory, only suggested to me that the negative connotations it points to were to be avoided at all costs. If not, why not be forthright? Now he says he believes the combo if it is qualified to the general phrase. I expected an unequivocal answer to my question, especially from someone who aggrandizes themselves as writing and understanding grammar, logic and the bible, so much better than I. Let me make it perfectly clear to you Dave. Your conclusion that Steve’s answer to me was in fact “no” perfectly illustrates the effectiveness of such a “deceptive” answer. You say Steve is in fact saying “no” to my question; meaning that Steve does in fact believe the person of Jesus is a “combined human/divine person”. On the surface, the question is begged, then why does he HAVE TO QUALIFY IT by comparing it to the GENERALIZED UNDERSTANDING that both Oneness and Trinitarians believe? This is the ridiculousness of this conversation that those two phrases are not synonymous and Steve seeks to make them synonymous to EVADE MY ACTUAL QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY, TO ME, THESE TWO PHRASES ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS, OR I WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION. Steve would have us now believe that the combined human/divine person of Jesus only means the “general” answer that Jesus is one person that has two natures, and that the two statements are synonymous when in fact they are not. Steve’s claim to synonymous is based on Trinitarian bias, not A LOGICAL, GRAMATICAL AND BIBLICALLY ACCURATE RENDITION. A “person” is a “nature”. Grammatically, two natures necessitate the individual recognition of both natures. This is why it is grammatically correct for Oneness to say the one person has both a HUMAN (person) and DIVINE(not person) nature. This is also why it is not correct that the Trinitarian concept to say the ONE PERSON has both a human (person) and divine (person) nature. It is an oxymoron (a combination of contradictory or incongruous words) for Trinitarians to say the one person has both natures UNLESS IT IS QUALIFIED BY THE COMBINED PERSON THEORY. Therefore, these two phrases become synonymous only in light of Trinitarian bias, not logical, grammatical and biblically correct use of God’s word, in fact, both phrases qualify as oxymorons asserted as synonymous only. Steve’s answer “NO” is not to my question, but to his QUALIFICATION. It is the attempt to make both statements SYNONYMOUS that Steve is affirming. Steve evades Oneness accuracy in translating the bible, and proper grammatical usage. Call it what you like, but this is indeed deceptive to me. ---------- A comment... Posted by Steve B. on 4/6/2001, 6:57 pm , in reply to "Trinitarian perception vs. Trinitarian deception" A2, What you believe is “evasion” is simply an attempt to discover in what sense you are using words. Most of the time, I honestly cannot tell. You put everything into such convoluted language that it is hard to follow you. Therefore when I answer your questions, I tell you what question I hear you asking, then I answer it. This has proved frustrating because it sends you into a new frenzy of accusations—I am being “deceptive,” I am “altering words,” etc., etc.—until I long ago lost track of whatever substantial points you are trying to make. All it really tells me is that you do not have a very clear idea of Trinitarian theology or of the Chapel's Oneness theology. Sincerely, Steve ---------- First you're so smart, then you can't tell up from down Posted by Anon.II on 4/7/2001, 1:09 pm , in reply to "A comment..." I've asked you plainly how come you keep ACCUSSING me by using ad hominems but you ignore my ASTUTE observations, and YOUR FRENZY OF ACCUSATIONS VIA AD HOMINEMS ARE TO NUMEROUS TO COUNT. Some people got the nerve to turn this into an accusation war, and I particularly have to laugh about this because you accuse someone or something in almost every post you make. I've lost all confidence in your veracity, because I don't believe for one momment that you've "lost track" of my points at all. You have kept up with me over and over again UNTIL I make a salient point, then all of a sudden you get confused. How convient. Besides that, you knew enough to use the phrase "one person has both a human and divine nature". This is an EQUIVOCAL statement that is subject to two or more interpretations. You knew that and yet you would ONLY SAY THAT. You knew that I was trying to deal with the distinctions that your Trinitarian mind-set uses to define "person" in that phrase. Otherwise, was I then suppose to take that to mean that you now believe that statement means the same as Oneness? That would have been ridiculous, and we both know as much. Play dumb, but I know differently. ---------- Another comment... Posted by Steve B. on 4/7/2001, 9:54 pm , in reply to "First you're so smart, then you can't tell up from down" A2, You write ...you knew enough to use the phrase "one person has both a human and divine nature". This is an EQUIVOCAL statement that is subject to two or more interpretations. Of course it can be interpreted in several ways. That’s why I have always specified in what sense I mean it. When the Bible speaks of the deity of Christ, I believe it to be referring not to the Father in him, but to a nature Jesus himself has eternally possessed as the Son of God. He then at a point in time also took on human nature. And by 'nature' I do not mean 'person,' though I realize you do. That is another thing about which we disagree. It is all very simple, and I do not mind repeating it as long it takes for it to sink in that I'm not playing word games—I'm simply reporting the things I've seen in the Word that lead me to believe I was on the wrong track when I adopted the Chapel's Oneness theology. Sincerely, Steve