Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
I know that a misreading of scripture supports your view. Nice to see you admit that you are not employing logic. Neither are you using knowledge or wisdom. Lets go back to Isaiah 9:6. Ask yourself why, when Jesus is always called the Son in the New Testament would the prophet call him the Father and not the Son some eight centuries before he was born.
|
Isaiah 9.6 calls him both son and father or did you forget that. It says 'a son is given'.
Thats because unlike you I don't need to use logic because the scripture says what it says. I also don't need to quote an early church father as you do. I can use scripture to show both that God is triune and that Jesus is the Father. You must turn to an early church father to show Jesus is not the Father. No verse says 'Jesus said, I am not the father'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Your method is called "proof texting", that is, you take isolated, out-of-context quotations from the Bible and use them to support Witness Lee's system of thought rather than the original intent of the author.
|
And Im sure the original intent of the 800 bc author was to agree with the Athanasius creed of circa 500 a.d. lol.
Why is context even necessary in this case? If the bible uses the title Father for Christ then why can't we also?
Because its not in context you might say. Whose context..the bibles? No..the context of a 6th century creed.
What is funny is you using a 6th century Creed to define a 800 bc prophecy. Im sorry but shouldnt it be the other around?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
From a Trinitarian view John 17 is God the Son praying to God the Father a view that doesn't undermine the integrity of the entire chapter as does your interpretation that has Jesus babbling to himself like a delusional schizophrenic.
|
It has the same logical challenge as my view.
So we have God praying to God. "So God was babbling to himself". One leg of the SAME stool prays to the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Strong support for the Trinitarian view comes from the Gospel of John. What you call a "plain" reading ignores the prologue in the first chapter which begins " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You read it "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." It seems that there is no God for the Word to be with in your mind.
|
With can refer to Christ as the Son with the Father. Was can refer to Christ as the Father.