Fallacious Terminology

[mizpeh]

This is a post I lifted from another site. The person who wrote this is a Biblical Unitarian. He is expressing something I have been disturbed about since I first read the definition of the Trinity but he has put it into words much better than I can. The equivocation of the word, God, by Trinitarians.


Changing the definition of the word "God" midstream is the most basic ploy of Trinitarian philosophy. In logic, this is know as the fallacy of equivocation. Look it up.

"The sign said FINE for parking here."

"I thought it was FINE so I parked there."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

1. The term "God" is a term for an identity (refers to a WHO).

In this definition of the term, the word is used like a name or a title like John or The President to refer to a singular identity, a WHO.

Examples:
God created
Son of God
God judges
Pray to God

2. The term "God" is a term for a nature (refers to a WHAT).

"The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God."

In this definition of the term "God", the word is not used to refer to a identity, a WHO, but is used to refer to a substance, a WHAT. And this substance happens to be the nature of three identities (Father, Son, HS).

This is quite different from definition number one. We can see this clearly when we do this:

Examples:
The substance/nature of three persons created
Son of the substance/nature of three persons
The substance/nature of three persons judges
Pray to the substance/nature of three persons

In definitions 1 and 2, the following statement could mean two different things depending upon what the Trinitarians wills it to means:

"We believe in one God."

1. We believe in one identity who created
2. We believe in one nature/substance

The problem gets more serious as you delve into it.

For example, the word "God" sometimes means "God the Father" in Trinitarianism. Other times the word "God" means "The Triune God" which is obviously not equivalent to "God the Father." And at other times again, it refers to the divine substance/nature of the three persons of the Trinity.

In English, you can use the word for both meanings if you do it honestly. The way to do this is to write No. 1 as "God" and No. 2 as "god." In the Bible, and early Christian writings, the way to distinguish between these two ideas is to say "the god" and "god" or similarly "the deity" and "deity" where the former is quantitative and the later is qualitative. This is the equivalent of "God" and "god" (not to be confused with the term "A god").

Trinitarians begin with the statement, "There is one God." But we know from Scripture, this statement is intended to mean "There is one Identity, one WHO," not "there is one divine substance of three persons." They then proceed to say, "the Father is God, the Son is God, the HS is God" and thus create their fallacy. The word "God" looks the same but now has an entirely different meaning. Hence, their "logic" is a complete farce.

And where it gets even worse is verses like John 1:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=John+1%3A1). On one hand, they want to claim it says the Word is being identified as "God" (definition 1). On the other hand, their own scholars admit the word in question here means "divine nature" since it is without the definite article and one must recognize this fact to avoid Sabellianism (definition 2).

Trinitarians must come to grips with this misleading deception and get honest with themselves.

We are not sons of a divine substance shared by three divine persons. We are sons of one identity called God and HE is our father. We are sons of Jesus' father, God. Neither are we sons of a three person substance/being. We are sons of God the Father, that is, God.

[mizpeh]

The poster in the initial post of this thread only touched the surface of what Trinitarians do with the word, God. Here is another what one poster wrote in reponse to define the word, God, in some phrases I put before him:


How do you interpret the word, God, in these 8 examples?

1. Jesus is God. Ontologically.
2. God is a Trinity. Relationally.
3. The God of our Fathers. God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
4. And the Word was God. Ontologically.
5. God the Father One of the persons within God
6. Being in the form of God. Ontologically.
7. In the beginning, God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
8. 2Cor5: 18-19 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation ....I'd say the Father.


In example 6, you can see God is viewed as nature/ qualitatively/ ontologically and in the same sentence if I was to ask him what ...equal with God...He would say either God the Father or God the Trinity. I believe he would go with God the Father (first person of the Trinity) and line it up with vs 11 in that chapter, the only verse in that chapter that calls God, the Father. (which for Oneness, Father is a term of relationship and not a person of God)

Here it is in Greek Stephanas text:
Phi 2:6ος Who 3739 R-NSM εν in 1722 PREP μορφη the form 3444 N-DSF θεου of God 2316 N-GSM υπαρχων being 5225 V-PAP-NSM ουχ it not 3756 PRT-N αρπαγμον robbery 725 N-ASM ηγησατο thought 2233 V-ADI-3S το 3588 T-ASN ειναι to be 1511 V-PXN ισα equal 2470 A-NPN θεω with God. 2316 N-DSM

6 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=php+2:6&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Notice how in the second part of the sentence, God, is anarthrous or without the article, the. In John 1:1c, Trinitarians will use the lack of an article before the word, God, to say the word, God, must be taken in the qualitative sense, speaking of the qualities of God and not God himself. I'm sure they will not employ the same application in this verse and will no doubt say it all has to do with context. When to me, it seems more to do with fitting their theology into the context of the Bible.

[TheLayman]

Mizpeh, you quoted someone who stated in part:

Changing the definition of the word "God" midstream is the most basic ploy of Trinitarian philosophy. In logic, this is know as the fallacy of equivocation. Look it up.

"The sign said FINE for parking here."

"I thought it was FINE so I parked there."

That’s all fine and good, but one must actually demonstrate the fallacy of equivocation if you accuse someone of equivocating. In other words, the simple fact that word “God” has more than one sense to it does not mean that it is equivocation, it simply means the word has more than one meaning. Here are examples you gave of answers you received regarding the word “God”:


1. Jesus is God. Ontologically.
2. God is a Trinity. Relationally.
3. The God of our Fathers. God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
4. And the Word was God. Ontologically.
5. God the Father One of the persons within God
6. Being in the form of God. Ontologically.
7. In the beginning, God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
8. 2Cor5: 18-19 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation ....I'd say the Father.

Mizpeh, that is simply not equivocation, not even close. That is simply different meanings of the same word. I can show the same thing with the word “man”:

1. Adam (the Man) is man. Ontologically

2. Man is familial. Relationally

3. Our father the Man. Proper name, Adam (the Man), first created man

4. And Adam was man. Ontologically

5. The Man Proper name, Adam (the man), first created man

6. a man a single man from among many

7. man male gender of human beings

8. And became man. Ontologically

9. So God created man Mankind, the human race

10. Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (the first “man” refers to Adam, the “all men” (man pl.) refers to mankind (though “man” can also refer to mankind).

So, although your post is titled “fallacious terminology” you have not demonstrated anything that is fallacious.

1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.
2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.

Mizpeh, personal opinion does not make something a fallacy. And ambiguity is not equivocation.

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Mizpeh, you quoted someone who stated in part:



That’s all fine and good, but one must actually demonstrate the fallacy of equivocation if you accuse someone of equivocating. In other words, the simple fact that word “God” has more than one sense to it does not mean that it is equivocation, it simply means the word has more than one meaning. Here are examples you gave of answers you received regarding the word “God”:




Mizpeh, that is simply not equivocation, not even close. That is simply different meanings of the same word. I can show the same thing with the word “man”:

1. Adam (the Man) is man. Ontologically

2. Man is familial. Relationally

3. Our father the Man. Proper name, Adam (the Man), first created man

4. And Adam was man. Ontologically

5. The Man Proper name, Adam (the man), first created man

6. a man a single man from among many

7. man male gender of human beings

8. And became man. Ontologically

9. So God created man Mankind, the human race

10. Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (the first “man” refers to Adam, the “all men” (man pl.) refers to mankind (though “man” can also refer to mankind).

So, although your post is titled “fallacious terminology” you have not demonstrated anything that is fallacious.

1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.
2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.

Mizpeh, personal opinion does not make something a fallacy. And ambiguity is not equivocation.

TheLayman

God is unique in that He is the only one of his kind. Other so-called gods are not in the same genre as God. There is not such a thing as God-kind. Mankind is a species. There is more than one man (in number) and more than one type of man, male and female. The word, God, can only refer to one whose identity is God.

Isa 43:12 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+43:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Isa 44:6 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+44:6&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts;I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

[MawMaw]

Amen.....some folks can declare there is more than one God all they want.....tain't gonna make it so though! :)

[TheLayman]

God is unique in that He is the only one of his kind. Other so-called gods are not in the same genre as God. There is not such a thing as God-kind. Mankind is a species. There is more than one man (in number) and more than one type of man, male and female. The word, God, can only refer to one whose identity is God.
Isa 43:12 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+43:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Isa 44:6 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+44:6&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts;I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Which of course has nothing to do with your topic, "fallacious terminology," which is what I directed my comments to. Nice talking to you.

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Amen.....some folks can declare there is more than one God all they want.....tain't gonna make it so though! :)


Who did that???

TheLayman

[Sister Alvear]

I am not very smart to the world but at least I know there is one God...

[mizpeh]

Which of course has nothing to do with your topic, "fallacious terminology," which is what I directed my comments to. Nice talking to you.

TheLayman
If God is unique, which He is, then we cannot change the meaning of the word, God, to fit our theology. God refers to himself as God, meaning IDENTITY not NATURE. Clearly there is no other God and therefore we cannot fallaciously put God in a God-kind category like we can with the word, man. Ontologically there is none other like God so it seems odd for the Bible to even have to make this distinction, which it doesn't. God is God.

I am very much on topic and directly challenging the Trinitarian's view of the word, God, with God's view of himself from the Bible. So we are all on the same page, the topic is the "Trinitarian equivocation of the word, God." which has been described as a fallacy.

Does the word, God, have one meaning as it is applied to our Creator or multiple meanings? I believe it has one meaning and that meaning refers to IDENTITY.

The reason Trinitarians give multiple meanings to the word, God, is because they have multiple persons who are each called God. This is the only way they can justify three who are each called God (who) and still have only have one God (what).

When you read the word, God, does the thought even spring into your mind, which God is this speaking of? God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, or maybe even divine nature or do you think there is only one God, therefore Father, Son, and Spirit are different titles for the same one God? What do you think the Jews thought of when they thought of God? (Elohim: multiple Gods or multiple natures or multiple attributes?)

[mizpeh]

Mizpeh, you quoted someone who stated in part:



That’s all fine and good, but one must actually demonstrate the fallacy of equivocation if you accuse someone of equivocating. In other words, the simple fact that word “God” has more than one sense to it does not mean that it is equivocation, it simply means the word has more than one meaning. Here are examples you gave of answers you received regarding the word “God”:




Mizpeh, that is simply not equivocation, not even close. That is simply different meanings of the same word. I can show the same thing with the word “man”:

1. Adam (the Man) is man. Ontologically

2. Man is familial. Relationally

3. Our father the Man. Proper name, Adam (the Man), first created man

4. And Adam was man. Ontologically

5. The Man Proper name, Adam (the man), first created man

6. a man a single man from among many

7. man male gender of human beings

8. And became man. Ontologically

9. So God created man Mankind, the human race

10. Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (the first “man” refers to Adam, the “all men” (man pl.) refers to mankind (though “man” can also refer to mankind).

So, although your post is titled “fallacious terminology” you have not demonstrated anything that is fallacious.

1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.
2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.

Mizpeh, personal opinion does not make something a fallacy. And ambiguity is not equivocation.

TheLayman

TheLayman,

Maybe you didn't understand me. A comparison of the word, God, and the word, man, is improper. God is unique, one of a kind, and the word, God, refers to identity. There is no other like Him. He says so Himself.

Whereas the word, man, does not denote a unique entity but a species, there are many men and two types of mankind, male and female. You are comparing apples with oranges, a unique Being with a species in which there is more than one. There is only one God and one meaning for the word, God, that applies to that unique One.

[TheLayman]

TheLayman,

Maybe you didn't understand me.

Oh, I understood just fine. I think my point it is that you don't understand the word "fallacious" or "fallacy." The title of your post was "fallacious terminology." Keep that in mind as you continue to just "argue" rather than present an argument.

A comparison of the word, God, and the word, man, is improper. God is unique, one of a kind, and the word, God, refers to identity. There is no other like Him. He says so Himself.

This of course has nothing to do with "fallacious terminology." You have not demonstrated anything that is a fallacy Mizpeh. And though I have no idea what it is you are driving at with the word "species" I will tell you that species has a wider meaning than simply biology, it can mean "a specific kind of something;" and in that sense God is most definitely a species of one. But again, this has nothing to do with anything I said or "fallacious terminology."

Secondly, I did not compare the word God and man. I compared equivocation and ambiguity, something that based on your responses you still don't understand.

Whereas the word, man, does not denote a unique entity but a species, there are many men and two types of mankind, male and female. You are comparing apples with oranges, a unique Being with a species in which there is more than one. There is only one God and one meaning for the word, God, that applies to that unique One.

Mizpeh, two things:

1. If you think there is something "fallacious" you must demonstrate a fallacy and you have not done so.

2. Even taking the idea the God were a monad, the word God would still have at least these different senses:

A. Ontologically (substance/essence/nature)

B. Relationally (for example, the God of me)

C. A proper name

D. A being

But once again, my conversation with you has ended. You have begun a thread titled "fallacious terminology" and have yet to demonstrate a fallacy.

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

TLM,

You are asserting that the word, God, has more than one meaning or sense and therefore can be ambiguous. I am asserting that the word, God, has only one meaning and it refers to the identity of the unique One who calls Himself God in the Bible. I don't find the word, God, when referring to the Supreme Being in the Bible to be ambiguous. You can replace the word, God, with Supreme Being in the Bible and perhaps that will help you understand where I'm coming from.

From my point of view, Trinitarians are committing a fallacy of equivocation in saying the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, God is triune, and there is only one God not three Gods. All of these premises which Trinitarians believe to be true when put together do not add up. To make sense of these premises, a Trinitarian must equivocate the meaning of the word, God, (which I believe has only one meaning) to multiple meanings.

I don't believe God's nature in the Bible can be referred to as God but as Jesus rightly termed, Spirit.

Isa 43:12 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+43:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

[TheLayman]

Mizpeh:

I told you in the past that you argue to the point that you don't learn anything. You began a thread called "fallacious terminology." It was pointed out to you that there is nothing "fallacious" in anything you posted. It was also pointed out to you that you would have to demonstrate a fallacy which you haven't. Put simply, you're wrong, but you will continue to simply argue as if that will equal identifying a specific fallacy and demonstrating it, which of course it won't.

If God is unique, which He is, then we cannot change the meaning of the word, God, to fit our theology.

I agree God is unique and I don't change anything. But you still haven't demonstrated a fallacy.

God refers to himself as God, meaning IDENTITY not NATURE. Clearly there is no other God and therefore we cannot fallaciously put God in a God-kind category like we can with the word, man. Ontologically there is none other like God so it seems odd for the Bible to even have to make this distinction, which it doesn't. God is God.

A bunch of just so assertions Mizpeh. But more importantly, you did not identify any specific fallacy much less demonstrate it. However, your above statement is a beautiful example of ciruclar reasoning.

I am very much on topic and directly challenging the Trinitarian's view of the word, God, with God's view of himself from the Bible. So we are all on the same page, the topic is the "Trinitarian equivocation of the word, God." which has been described as a fallacy.

There is a "fallacy of equivocation." Slowly now...the problem is that you have not shown the fallacy of equivocation being committed, you have not demonstrated it. Simply showing different definitions of a word is not at all the "fallacy of equivocation."

[qoute=Mizpeh]Does the word, God, have one meaning as it is applied to our Creator or multiple meanings? I believe it has one meaning and that meaning refers to IDENTITY.[/quote]

What you "believe" is irrelevant with regard to identifying and demonstrating the fallacy of equivocation, which you have not done. What you have done is begun what is called "an argumentment from personal incredulity," which is, you guessed it, a fallacy. And I'm not even going off on any of your bunny trail questions. You made an assertion in your intial post, it is your assertion to back up which you have failed to do.

The reason Trinitarians give multiple meanings to the word, God, is because they have multiple persons who are each called God. This is the only way they can justify three who are each called God (who) and still have only have one God (what).

If someone was giving a class in logic your assertions are wonderful examples of the fallacy of Bulverism (the reason Trinitarians...), and the straw man fallacy (this is the only way they can justify...).

When you read the word, God, does the thought even spring into your mind, which God is this speaking of? God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, or maybe even divine nature or do you think there is only one God, therefore Father, Son, and Spirit are different titles for the same one God? What do you think the Jews thought of when they thought of God? (Elohim: multiple Gods or multiple natures or multiple attributes?)

Your continued straw man arguments notwithstanding, what I think about anything is irrelevant to you identifying and demonstrating a fallacy as you stated in your original post. You need to back up your assertions all on your own and you have utterly failed to do so. Just one more example of someone appealing to logic then not being able to back it up.

Mizpeh, there is no long drawn out debate to be drawn into here. Identify and demstrate the specific fallacy (ies?) or you concede the point. And you aren't going to be able to because there isn't any fallacy. So you can learn something or not, makes no difference to me.

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Another example of Trinitarian equivocation, this time with the name, YHWH. I've been told by Trinitarians that the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Spirit is YHWH and of course YHWH is the name of the Trinity (God).



Non-Trinitarian: So you are saying YAHWEH is a Triune God, one God, three persons.

Trinitarian: Yeah that's right bucko.

Non-Trinitarian: And you are saying Jesus is YAHWEH.

Trinitarian: You had better believe it.

Non-Trinitarian: So Jesus is the Triune God then.

Trinitarian: No, no you silly fool. Jesus is one of the persons of the Triune God.

Non-Trinitarian: Ah, now I get it. Jesus is not Yahweh but one of the persons of Yahweh.

Trinitarian: No Jesus is Yahweh you beguiling demon.

Non-Trinitarian: I thought Yahweh was a three person being.

Trinitarian: You betcha heretic.

Non-Trinitarian. And Jesus is Yahweh?

Trinitarian: Are you deaf? Yes, Jesus is Yahweh.

Non-Trinitarian: So Yahweh is not a Three person being.

Trinitarian: What is wrong with you? Are you filled with a legion of demons? I already told you that Yahweh is the Triune God.

Non-Trinitarian: And conversely the Triune God is Yahweh?

Trinitarian: Well duh!!!

Non-Trinitarian: So Yahweh is the Triune God and the Triune God is Yahweh and Jesus is Yahweh but Jesus is not the Triune God? How is that possible?

Trinitarian: A little slow are we?

Non-Trinitarian {What a nut}: Ooooooo......... kaaaaaay. Was Yahweh God dead?

Trinitarian: No you heretic, God cannot die. Jesus his Son died.

Non-Trinitarian: I was talking about Jesus.

Trinitarian: Oh.

Non-Trinitarian: Well?

Trinitarian: No God the Son did not die. God cannot die or be dead. We Trinitarians have taught this since ancient times.

Non-Trinitarian: Well then who was dead on the cross and in the tomb?

Trinitarian: Jesus

Non-Trinitarian: Jesus is God the Son?

Trinitarian: Yes.

Non-Trinitarian: And Jesus was dead.

Trinitarian: That's what I said you reprobate.

Non-Trinitarian: But Yahweh cannot be dead.

Trinitarian: Duh, that's what I said.

Non-Trinitarian: But you said Jesus is Yahweh. If Jesus was dead, was not Yahweh also necessarily dead?

Trinitarian: Oh man you are so lost. Jesus the MAN died not God the Son. The MAN Jesus was dead not Yahweh; it was God the Son who was Yahweh and God the Son was not dead.

Non-Trinitarian: Oh forgive me for being such a moron. I didn't know two persons were in view here.

Trinitarian: Man are you ever a buffoon. There is only ONE PERSON in view. He had two natures.

Non-Trinitarian: So God the Son and Jesus are the same person?

Trinitarian: Heeeeellooo? Light's on but nobody's home!!!

Non-Trinitarian: WHO was dead?

Trinitarian {Roll eyes}: Jesus was dead.

Non-Trinitarian: And God the Son and Jesus are the same person?

Trinitarian: YES. Man you are slow.

Non-Trinitarian: God the Son and Jesus are the same person and Jesus was dead and but God the Son was not dead, right?

Trinitarian: Maybe there is hope for you.

Non-Trinitarian: Isn't that just a bit absurd?

Trinitarian: You certainly don't know much do you? God the Son did not die. This is the divine nature. Jesus of Nazareth did die. This is the human nature.

Non-Trinitarian: Oh forgive me. I thought you were talking about a person not natures. Then what PERSON died?

Trinitarian: Jesus

Non-Trinitarian: And he is God the Son.

Trinitarian: Right.

Non-Trinitarian: And God the Son was not dead?

Trinitarian: Right. You are learning.

Non-Trinitarian: Where was God the Son when Jesus was dead?

Trinitarian: He was in Hades preaching to the spirits in prison.

Non-Trinitarian: And where was Jesus?

Trinitarian: Laying dead in the tomb.

Non-Trinitarian: So God the Son could not die and so was alive and preaching to the Spirits in heaven but Jesus could die and was laying dead in the tomb?

Trinitarian: We just might be able to work with you.

Non-Trinitarian: I thought only one person was in view.

Trinitarian: Yes, how many times do I have to tell you.

Non-Trinitarian: How can you have the same person alive preaching to spirits in prison and laying dead in the tomb?

Trinitarian: I told you: two natures.

Non-Trinitarian: What?

Trinitarian: The divine nature could not die; the human nature died.

Non-Trinitarian: I just want to know WHO was dead if anyone. What PERSON was dead?

Trinitarian: I told you - Jesus.

Non-Trinitarian: Who is God the Son.

Trinitarian: Right.

Non-Trinitarian: But God the Son was not dead.

Trinitarian: Right.

Non-Trinitarian: So that flesh hanging on the cross wasn't God then.

Trinitarian: Well duh.

Non-Trinitarian: Then the Word did not become that flesh and God wasn't manifested in the flesh.

Trinitarian: Of course he was!!

Non-Trinitarian: So that dead flesh hanging on the cross was God the Son?

Trinitarian: Oooooh man, when are you going to get it. Nooo, that was God the Son's nature that died.

Non-Trinitarian: yeah but WHO died.

Trinitarian: Jesus

Non-Trinitarian: Who is God the Son?

Trinitarian: Right.

Non-Trinitarian: Uh I think I will become a Buddhist or something.

[TheLayman]

TLM,

You are asserting that the word, God, has more than one meaning or sense and therefore can be ambiguous.

Mizpeh, I am not asserting. I am quite simply pointing out that you have failed to demonstrate your assertion (fallicious terminoloy).

I am asserting that the word, God, has only one meaning and it refers to the identity of the unique One who calls Himself God in the Bible.

I understand what you are asserting! That's all it is, an assertion. And what you are actually doing is making an argument from personal incredulity, which is a fallacy.

I don't find the word, God, when referring to the Supreme Being in the Bible to be ambiguous. You can replace the word, God, with Supreme Being in the Bible and perhaps that will help you understand where I'm coming from.

Mizpeh, what you find or what you believe is irrelevant. You have appealed to logic, and logic does not care about your personal beliefs, understand? Logic is only concerned with what you can actually demonstrate "logically." So, I'm going to continue to tell you that your premise (which you actually offered as a conclusion) is wrong.

From my point of view, Trinitarians are committing a fallacy of equivocation in saying the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, God is triune, and there is only one God not three Gods.

Mizpeh, I bolded your last statement because this is pretty much the crux of what's going on. Logic is an objective way of reasoning, so logic does not care about your point of view. If you try to be egocentric when appealing to logic, logic will bite. The Doctrine of the Trinity either equivocates or it does not. BTW, I said the Doctrine of the Trinity instead of Trinitarians (as you said) because this idea of Trinitarians "equivocate" is a universal premise, and it would be impossible to prove such a universal premise (unless you talked to every single Trinitarian and they all equivocated), and even then it doesn't say anything about Doctrine (in other words your premise would be untendable). More importantly, your thread asserted "fallacious terminology." If it were true, your posts would be much shorter and our conversation would be over. You can not demonstrate any fallacy, so you argue. That's all you're doing, no fallacies, just tar baby arguments.

So once again, your view is irrelevant. The fallacy of equivocation can be shown and demonstrated. If the fallacy has been committed, identify it and demonstrate it.

All of these premises which Trinitarians believe to be true when put together do not add up. To make sense of these premises, a Trinitarian must equivocate the meaning of the word, God, (which I believe has only one meaning) to multiple meanings.

The above quote does in fact demonstrate fallacies, but once again it is you who commit them. We have the following fallacies:

Argument by assertion
Argument from personal incredulity (one that seems to be a person favorite of yours).

I don't believe God's nature in the Bible can be referred to as God but as Jesus rightly termed, Spirit.

Once again, you have not identified or demonstrated "fallacious terminology," you have not identified or demonstrated the fallacy of equivocation. What you did just do was, you guessed it, once again commit the fallacy of:

Argument from personal incredulity.

Isa 43:12 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+43:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

That's a wonderful passage.

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Another example of Trinitarian equivocation, this time with the name, YHWH. I've been told by Trinitarians that the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Spirit is YHWH and of course YHWH is the name of the Trinity (God).

Mizpeh, now you offer a spoof? As proof of something? And you did not even identify it as a spoof so someone might think such a conversation actually took place. And offering a spoof in this manner is called the fallacy of style over substance. Your spoof is also a red herring in that it diverts from you demonstrating your false assertion, i.e. "fallacious terminology."

I can't help but point out that you say the Son is God (you just don't know how but somehow it is so). So, taking a question from your "spoof," did God die on the cross?

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Mizpeh, now you offer a spoof? As proof of something? And you did not even identify it as a spoof so someone might think such a conversation actually took place. And offering a spoof in this manner is called the fallacy of style over substance. Your spoof is also a red herring in that it diverts from you demonstrating your false assertion, i.e. "fallacious terminology."

I can't help but point out that you say the Son is God (you just don't know how but somehow it is so). So, taking a question from your "spoof," did God die on the cross?

TheLayman
This isn't my spoof. I didn't write it. It's from the same person who wrote the first post. In my opinion the spoof is way too long, but it shows the many ways (IMO) Trinitarians twist words. It's not offered as a proof but as an example.

Did God die on the cross? Yes, and He shed his blood for the church on the cross. The Lord of Glory died. Physical death doesn't mean someone no longer exists. It's a separation of the inner man from the outer man.


Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

[mizpeh]

Mizpeh, I am not asserting. I am quite simply pointing out that you have failed to demonstrate your assertion (fallicious terminoloy).



I understand what you are asserting! That's all it is, an assertion. And what you are actually doing is making an argument from personal incredulity, which is a fallacy.



Mizpeh, what you find or what you believe is irrelevant. You have appealed to logic, and logic does not care about your personal beliefs, understand? Logic is only concerned with what you can actually demonstrate "logically." So, I'm going to continue to tell you that your premise (which you actually offered as a conclusion) is wrong.



Mizpeh, I bolded your last statement because this is pretty much the crux of what's going on. Logic is an objective way of reasoning, so logic does not care about your point of view. If you try to be egocentric when appealing to logic, logic will bite. The Doctrine of the Trinity either equivocates or it does not. BTW, I said the Doctrine of the Trinity instead of Trinitarians (as you said) because this idea of Trinitarians "equivocate" is a universal premise, and it would be impossible to prove such a universal premise (unless you talked to every single Trinitarian and they all equivocated), and even then it doesn't say anything about Doctrine (in other words your premise would be untendable). More importantly, your thread asserted "fallacious terminology." If it were true, your posts would be much shorter and our conversation would be over. You can not demonstrate any fallacy, so you argue. That's all you're doing, no fallacies, just tar baby arguments.

So once again, your view is irrelevant. The fallacy of equivocation can be shown and demonstrated. If the fallacy has been committed, identify it and demonstrate it.



The above quote does in fact demonstrate fallacies, but once again it is you who commit them. We have the following fallacies:

Argument by assertion
Argument from personal incredulity (one that seems to be a person favorite of yours).



Once again, you have not identified or demonstrated "fallacious terminology," you have not identified or demonstrated the fallacy of equivocation. What you did just do was, you guessed it, once again commit the fallacy of:

Argument from personal incredulity.



That's a wonderful passage.

TheLayman

Thankyou TLM for your analysis of my inadequate logic skills.

I don't have access to other dictionaries or lexicons but from the two below I don't see the Trinitarian definition of 'nature' for the word, God. I'm specifically speaking of the one true God and not all the false gods of the pagan nations. He is unique unto Himself. (Obviously these are written by Trinitarians and I would object to their wording ie:Trinity) I see only one meaning for God, identity.

Is this enough to prove the doctrine of the Trinity equivocates the word, God? or that Trinitarians equivocate the word, God, by using multiple meanings when in fact there is only one meaning since there is only one God, and He is the only one who can be identified as God by the word, God.

I understand 'the things of God' would have to be worded as such in the scripture and not called 'God'. Like ...the love of God, the mercy of God, or the nature of God. None of these can be implied if we just say, God, to mean either love or mercy or nature.

From Studylight.com

Original WordWord Originqeov߼/FONT>of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with (3588 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3588&version=kjv))) the supreme DivinityTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=kjv#Legend) EntryTheos3:65,322Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechtheh'-os http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=2316g) Noun Masculine Definition

a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
the Godhead, trinity
God the Father, the first person in the trinity
Christ, the second person of the trinity
Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
spoken of the only and true God

refers to the things of God
his counsels, interests, things due to him
whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

God's representative or viceregent
of magistrates and judges
From Crosswalk.com:


a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
the Godhead, trinity
God the Father, the first person in the trinity
Christ, the second person of the trinity
Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
spoken of the only and true God
refers to the things of God
his counsels, interests, things due to him
whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
God's representative or viceregent
of magistrates and judges

[TheLayman]

This isn't my spoof. I didn't write it. It's from the same person who wrote the first post. In my opinion the spoof is way too long, but it shows the many ways (IMO) Trinitarians twist words. It's not offered as a proof but as an example.

I really have no idea why I bother sometimes Mizpeh. You make a direct appeal to logic, i.e. fallacious terminology, and then you offer a spoof (a somewhat inflamatory one) as an example of what in your appeal to logic? Forget it, the question is rhetorical in that a spoof has nothing to offer in your appeal. And I never said you wrote the spoof Mizpeh, I said you offered it (you want to argue that too?)

Did God die on the cross? Yes, and He shed his blood for the church on the cross. The Lord of Glory died. Physical death doesn't mean someone no longer exists. It's a separation of the inner man from the outer man.


Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

That's great Mizpeh, all those passages are in my Bible too. A simple yes or no would have done nicely and since Trinitarians believe the Son is God (something you seem to be taking issue with).

So, according to you, the Son is God.

Now, did the Father die on the cross?

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Thankyou TLM for your analysis of my inadequate logic skills.

No problem, I assure you. However, I am apparently once again inadequate to the task of explaining what should be something rather simple as I see you still don’t get it. For that I apologize. You can put your dictionaries and Lexicons away until you understand the “fallacy” you have appealed to.

Is this enough to prove the doctrine of the Trinity equivocates the word, God?

No

or that Trinitarians equivocate the word, God, by using multiple meanings

No (incidentally, not that it changes my answer but you haven't really showed different meanings either. But it doesn't matter, the answer is still NO).

when in fact there is only one meaning since there is only one God, and He is the only one who can be identified as God by the word, God.

Mizpeh, Trinitarians only believe in one God. Now, once again Mizpeh, if you want to prove equivocation, you need to show the equivocation. Perhaps this little checklist will help:

Fallacy (Logic): any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Ambiguity) which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Ambiguous), and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.
Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Fallacious), though it is a linguistic boobytrap (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Boobytrap) which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Argument) appear sound (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Sound). Consider the following example:
All banks are beside rivers.
Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.
In this argument, there are two unrelated meanings of the word "bank":

A riverside: In this sense, the premiss (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Premiss) is true but the argument is invalid (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Valid), so it's unsound.
A type of financial institution: On this meaning, the argument is valid, but the premiss is false, thus the argument is again unsound.In either case, the argument is unsound. Therefore, no argument which commits the fallacy of Equivocation is sound. (The Fallacy Files)

1. So, once again, you have not shown any terminology to be fallacious (you should give this one up).
2. You have not shown the fallacy of equivocation in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
3. You have not even shown anyone committing the fallacy of equivocation (which wouldn’t prove anything other than maybe you can identify the fallacy of equivocation which at this point you apparently don’t even understand).
Here’s an example you can work on Mizpeh:

An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion. But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument. Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof. (James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe)Each of the three statements taken by itself is true. In spite of the third statement being true, as a conclusion in the above argument it is non-sequitur. And the argument itself contains a specific form of equivocation called the fallacy of 4 terms. Try to work on something you don’t have an emotional stake in and you may find it easier to understand.

Mizpeh, simply put, you’re wrong. And you have made assertions based on appeals to logic that you have not been able to demonstrate (and trust me, will not be able to demonstrate). So I ask you again, are you going to continue to argue something you don’t understand (in this case several things, but specifically the logic you appealed to) as if some how you will be vindicated for doing so, or are you going to learn something. And by your answer, people will learn something about you.

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Non-Trinitarian: So you are saying YAHWEH is a Triune God, one God, three persons.

Trinitarian: Yeah that's right bucko.

Non-Trinitarian: And you are saying Jesus is YAHWEH.

Trinitarian: You had better believe it.

Non-Trinitarian: So Jesus is the Triune God then.

Trinitarian: No, no you silly fool. Jesus is one of the persons of the Triune God

I'm not sure if all Trinitarians believe the above but I know many that do.

This is the last thing I want to address when it comes to Trinitarian equivocation of names. A Trinitarian says:

1) God, (the Trinity) is YHWH
2) The Father is YHWH
3) The Son is YHWH
4) The Holy Spirit is YHWH

We know YHWH represents the name of God, 'He is' or 'I am'. YHWH is a proper name and therefore is speaking of IDENTITY. Yet most, if not all, Trinitarians I've met also say that:

1) Father, who is God, is the proper name of the first person of the Trinity. Not just a name/title denoting relationship but an actual proper name.
2) Son, who is God, is the proper name of the second person in the Trinity. Not just a name/title denoting relationship but an actual proper name.
3) Holy Spirit, who is God, is the proper name of the second person in the Trinity. Not just a name/title denoting the nature of God. (for instance: we are human, He is Spirit)

Does this mean God was hiding from Moses and the prophets and all of the OT saints his real names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost which if He had only told them these things they would have understood that God was triune? Is God's name in the OT YHWH or is it Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Can anyone see how deceptive this Trinitarian's use of the name YHWH is especially since it literally means: I AM when spoken by God and He is when spoken of God and not WE ARE. Trinitarians go to great pains to point out personal distinctions and pluralities with personal pronouns when it suits their agenda but when God speaks of himself in the first person singular then they have to turn away from their prior arguments of a compound unity or the multiple persons of God and limit themselves to God as a whole, as the Trinity and speak of them as if they were one person.

Am I the only one who is annoyed with this creatively deceitful play with words?

[mizpeh]

Perhaps this will help explain what it means to be unique and singularly the only one of a kind as well as the Trinitarian equivocation (multiple meanings) of the word, God.


Furthermore, the other verses you cite prove that Jesus is God and that the Father is God - this is Trinitarianism. Where are the verses that say Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Allow me to answer for you - they don't exist. You are playing the same trick David Bernard plays. You think that if you can prove that the Father is God and the Son is God, then they must be one another. The only way you can do this is by just plain assuming that God is only one Person. This is such ridiculous logic, it is the equivilent of saying: "Since Jim is a doctor, and Frank is a doctor, Jim must be Frank." Do you see how riddled with error this is?

What is the error in this argument?

There are many, many doctors. Being a doctor is not unique. I work with many doctors. Comparing doctors to God is like comparing apples to .......I can't think of a fruit that is uniquely one.

There is only one God. He is unique. There is no other and none that He can be compared to. He cannot be catorgorized as a species. He is one of a kind. Therefore when the Bible speaks of this one God, it is logical to assume that everytime we read, God, that it is speaking of that one unique Being who created and saved us. David Bernard is not playing tricks.

[mizpeh]

I really have no idea why I bother sometimes Mizpeh. You make a direct appeal to logic, i.e. fallacious terminology, and then you offer a spoof (a somewhat inflamatory one) as an example of what in your appeal to logic? Forget it, the question is rhetorical in that a spoof has nothing to offer in your appeal. And I never said you wrote the spoof Mizpeh, I said you offered it (you want to argue that too?) I didn't offer the 'spoof' as a proof but as an example of equivocation.

I don't want to argue with you at all. :cool:




That's great Mizpeh, all those passages are in my Bible too. A simple yes or no would have done nicely and since Trinitarians believe the Son is God (something you seem to be taking issue with).

So, according to you, the Son is God.

Now, did the Father die on the cross?

I didn't post those scriptures for your benefit.

I have no problem or issue with the Son being called God.

I'm not going to hedge or try to explain the manifestations of God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). God died on the cross. There is only one God, the Father. So, there you have it. The Father died.

I've answered your question. Will you answer a question for me? What does this passage say to you? Who is in us and who raised Jesus from the dead?

9 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:9&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:10&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:11&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Who is the Spirit of him ....that raised up Jesus from the dead? Are there two who are called Christ in verse 11?

[TheLayman]

Really Mizpeh, I'm trying to argue with your ignorance, i.e. your lack of understanding the topic your talking about (logic).

Perhaps this will help explain what it means to be unique and singularly the only one of a kind as well as the Trinitarian equivocation (multiple meanings) of the word, God.

Mizpeh, a word having more than one meaning or being used in more than one sense is not, I repeat, this is not what equivocation is, which is one of your fundamental misunderstandings. I obviously can not correct your misunderstanding, but I can point it out. Further you have yet to show "Trinitarian equivocation," whatever that means. I'll repeat that, you have failed to demonstrate your claim of "Trinitarian equivocation."


What is the error in this argument?

There are many, many doctors. Being a doctor is not unique. I work with many doctors. Comparing doctors to God is like comparing apples to .......I can't think of a fruit that is uniquely one.

And now your fundamental misunderstanding of the very logic you appeal to. There was no error in the argument you showed regarding Bernard. You do err in claiming there is an error. The is no comparison of doctor's to God in the example you have, the example you gave demonstrated an invalid form of argumentation on the part of Bernard. And having tried in the past to explain valid and invalid forms of arguments as well as what makes an argument sound or unsound, and you learning nothing from it, I will not do so again here. I will just tell you that you still do not understand logic and therefore should not appeal to it formally. In short, you're wrong.

There is only one God. He is unique. There is no other and none that He can be compared to. He cannot be catorgorized as a species. He is one of a kind. Therefore when the Bible speaks of this one God, it is logical to assume that everytime we read, God, that it is speaking of that one unique Being who created and saved us. David Bernard is not playing tricks.

As I have told you before, anything that exists can be catorgorized a species (not a biological species). But this is moot as I have no idea how this has anything to do with the topic and it certainly is not demonstrating any equivocation. As best I can tell, you are trying to tell me your belief, which is certainly not demonstrating equivocation by Trinitarians. And David Bernard's argument is most definitely fallacious, but that is also not the topic of your thread.

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

I didn't offer the 'spoof' as a proof but as an example of equivocation.

Well, in that you began a thread about "fallacious terminology," I hope you can understand I thought you were actually trying to back up your own claim. My mistake, it was just prattle in the middle of your topic. I understand.

I don't want to argue with you at all. :cool:

Whatever you say, however, the reason I don't say hello anymore is I just figured it would give you one less thing to argue about when talking to me. :yeah:


I didn't post those scriptures for your benefit.

I have no problem or issue with the Son being called God.

That's fine, I was actually just going to demonstrate YOU actually equivocating but then realized you probably wouldn't understand it so I just decided to let you try to back up your claims (which you haven't done). For example, you just again said the Son is God. But you also said in another thread, and I quote:

The Son did not exist until his birth…
The Son was born in Bethlehemon a certain day in history. That is when the Son came into existence and that is when He was called the Son of God. Luke 1:35 (Mizpeh)

So God did not exist until His birth? You will say "no" and then I would show you equivocation. But it gets better. You also said, and I quote:

The Son of God according to Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) did not exist until his birth except in the plan of God….
The Son of God from before the world existed, existed in the plan of God… (Mizpeh)

So now God only existed in the mind of God until He was born of a woman. That's a neat trick. And you will have to equivocate to explain, I assure you. But as I said, I won't press it, I'll just keep trying to get you to back up your original claims (and all additional subsequent claims).

I'm not going to hedge or try to explain the manifestations of God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). God died on the cross. There is only one God, the Father. So, there you have it. The Father died.

Really? Well in another thread you said, and I quote:

I agree there are two here but I loathe to call both of them persons…
Jesus in this verse is PRAYING. The reason I think something is unlikely is because it would be absurd to think God would be praying to God. Jesus as a man was praying to his Father and God. (Mizpeh)

So now according to you there is two, not one. But now it appears that the Son is no longer God, but a man who is praying to God, or is that God praying to the Son (hard to tell since you just said the Father died on the cross).

I've answered your question. Will you answer a question for me? What does this passage say to you? Who is in us and who raised Jesus from the dead?

9 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:9&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:10&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:11&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Who is the Spirit of him ....that raised up Jesus from the dead? Are there two who are called Christ in verse 11?

I absolutely will not answer your question. Your original post and claims do not need an answer to any question, they need you to back them up or admit you were wrong. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the "fallacious terminology," "equivocation," and "deceit." These words all have definitions (your claims) so why don't you post the definitions and then next to them back up your claims to whatever end it is you are arguing which is also unclear.

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Well, in that you began a thread about "fallacious terminology," I hope you can understand I thought you were actually trying to back up your own claim. My mistake, it was just prattle in the middle of your topic. I understand. Unfortunately the author of the two posts I cut and copied named his thread 'Fallacious Terminology' which I should have changed so you wouldn't have felt the need to demonstrate your impressive logic skills. :)

I posted this not expecting nor caring if anyone responded. Sometimes I just like to vent. Honestly, yours is the last name I like to see connected to something I have written. :) Anyways, I disagree with your assessment of the spoof as 'prattle'. I thought it demonstrated perfectly what I meant by equivocation of the word, God.

In my understanding of the word, God, there is absolutely only one meaning....Supreme Being and has to with identity. God doesn't mean a 'what' one minute and a 'who' the next. So if you want God = Trinity, fine, but then don't turn around in the same breath and say God is nature of which the Father = God, the Son = God, and the Spirit = God...that is equivocating. A simple reading of the Bible doesn't give a reader that interpretation...that the word, God, can be read different ways or have different meanings. That is something someone has to be taught or shown and gullible enough to believe. IMHO




Whatever you say, however, the reason I don't say hello anymore is I just figured it would give you one less thing to argue about when talking to me. :yeah:
:lame:





That's fine, I was actually just going to demonstrate YOU actually equivocating but then realized you probably wouldn't understand it so I just decided to let you try to back up your claims (which you haven't done). For example, you just again said the Son is God. But you also said in another thread, and I quote:
The Son is God. Do I have to say 'manifested in the flesh' every time I say the Son is God? The Son is God as man. A Man which didn't exist until his birth but is every bit God since the 'self' of the Son is God.


The Son did not exist until his birth…
The Son was born in Bethlehemon a certain day in history. That is when the Son came into existence and that is when He was called the Son of God. Luke 1:35 (Mizpeh)

So God did not exist until His birth? You will say "no" and then I would show you equivocation. But it gets better. You also said, and I quote:

God has always existed as Spirit but not in His form as a man. The man, Jesus Christ, is the Son of God by virtue of his conception and birth. Because he was concieved of the Holy Ghost 'therefore' he was called at birth, the Son of God.

You are implying Son and God are interchangable terms. I disagree.
See above.




The Son of God according to Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) did not exist until his birth except in the plan of God….
The Son of God from before the world existed, existed in the plan of God… (Mizpeh)
So now God only existed in the mind of God until He was born of a woman. That's a neat trick. And you will have to equivocate to explain, I assure you. But as I said, I won't press it, I'll just keep trying to get you to back up your original claims (and all additional subsequent claims).
Can you post the link, please.

The Son of God, 'that holy child', wasn't born until the last days so before his birth, the Son existed in the mind of God which is the reality of the One who calls those things which be not as though they were (existed). God himself was to come into the world as the Son from his own plan from before the foundation of the world.

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.


A human male, God incarnate or the Son of God, hasn't existed in heaven from eternity. But God, the one who would come to be ruler in Israel, is from everlasting. Micah 5:2

I've given you ammunition to prove I'm equivocating.

[mizpeh]

As for claims and subsequent claims, I won't drag this out for long. As far as I'm concerned I've proved Trinitarians equivocate the word, God. A word that has ONE meaning but Trinitarians use it in MULTIPLE ways for the one true God. My premises are 1) there is only one meaning for the word, God, in the Bible because 2) God is unique, one of a kind with one identity and can't be compared to the word, man (in the qualitative sense), of which there are many and not just one unique man, and is used by Trinitarians as an example to prove in John 1:1c that the word, God, means nature or can be understood in a qualitative sense 3) the word, God, identifies a Being not describes a nature (as the word, divine, would)

4) see the definitions from Strongs and Vines.


a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
the Godhead, trinity
God the Father, the first person in the trinity
Christ, the second person of the trinity
Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
spoken of the only and true God
refers to the things of God
his counsels, interests, things due to him
whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
God's representative or viceregent
of magistrates and judges
Definitions 1-5 obviously don't count. Definitions 6-8, the only true God and things that can be identified with the only true God such as: God's love, will suffice.


5) and an example of equivocation :In definitions 1 and 2, the following statement could mean two different things depending upon what the Trinitarians wills it to means:

"We believe in one God."

1. We believe in one identity who created
2. We believe in one nature/substance

The problem gets more serious as you delve into it.

For example, the word "God" sometimes means "God the Father" in Trinitarianism. Other times the word "God" means "The Triune God" which is obviously not equivalent to "God the Father." And at other times again, it refers to the divine substance/nature of the three persons of the Trinity.

In English, you can use the word for both meanings if you do it honestly. The way to do this is to write No. 1 as "God" and No. 2 as "god." In the Bible, and early Christian writings, the way to distinguish between these two ideas is to say "the god" and "god" or similarly "the deity" and "deity" where the former is quantitative and the later is qualitative. This is the equivalent of "God" and "god" (not to be confused with the term "A god").

6) another example of equivocation: Here it is in Greek Stephanas text:
Phi 2:6ος Who 3739 R-NSM εν in 1722 PREP μορφη the form 3444 N-DSF θεου of God 2316 N-GSM υπαρχων being 5225 V-PAP-NSM ουχ it not 3756 PRT-N αρπαγμον robbery 725 N-ASM ηγησατο thought 2233 V-ADI-3S το 3588 T-ASN ειναι to be 1511 V-PXN ισα equal 2470 A-NPN θεω with God. 2316 N-DSM

6 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=php+2:6&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Notice how in the second part of the sentence, God, is anarthrous or without the article, the. In John 1:1c, Trinitarians will use the lack of an article before the word, God, to say the word, God, must be taken in the qualitative sense, speaking of the qualities of God and not God himself. I'm sure they will not employ the same application in this verse and will no doubt say it all has to do with context. When to me, it seems more to do with fitting their theology into the context of the Bible.


As for the rest of your post...:nt: (I'm just kidding! Don't have a cow, TLM.)

[mizpeh]

Here's another observation from the person who wrote the first post in this thread.

Premise 1: The Bible teaches that there is only one God.

Premise 2: The Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons called God, known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: The three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God. God is a Triune being.

Yep, that is what Trinitarians claim is the basis for their belief in a three person God.

But it is a clever ruse. And you need to know why.


The Hebrew word for human/humanity is "Adam." Indeed, both Adam and Eve were called "Adam" (Gen 1:27 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Gen+1%3A27); 5:2) because both of them were humans. Adam is the Hebrew word for human/humanity.

In the beginning, God created one humanity, one human nature, "Adam".

Premise 1: There was one Adam.

Premise 2: Adam was Adam, Eve was Adam, Cain was Adam.

Conclusion: The three persons, Adam, Eve, and Cain, are the one Adam. Adam is a Triune being.

Think about this carefully.

[mizpeh]

Trinitarians only believe in one God. Now, once again Mizpeh, if you want to prove equivocation, you need to show the equivocation. Perhaps this little checklist will help:

Fallacy (Logic): any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Ambiguity) which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Ambiguous), and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

Two distinct meanings---this is what I have been trying to get across when I say Trinitarians equivocate the usage of the word, God, as it applies to the one true God. This equivocation is done specifically in the same sentence in John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6 where the word, God, is interpreted two different ways. I know you think I'm dense, but when I read the word, God, as it applies to the one true God, for the life of me, I cannot and do not understand it as meaning...divine nature.

Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Fallacious), though it is a linguistic boobytrap (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Boobytrap) which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Argument) appear sound (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Sound).

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
There is only one God.
Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God.

In the first three statements God is used to mean nature. In the fourth and fifth statements God means the Supreme Being. Two different meanings for the word, God. The first meaning, nature, is very deceiving and hard to get from a plain reading of the Bible. This meaning can only come from someone who, in my opinion, wants to prove their own theology.

The statements below from CARM's The doctrine of the Trinity are much more clear, less ambiguous because it can be clearly understood that the word, God, is applied to one Being who is three persons. So whenever you would read the word, God, in the Bible you would infer than to mean, the Trinity.

God is three persons
Each person is divine
There is only one God.

In either case, the argument is unsound. Therefore, no argument which commits the fallacy of Equivocation is sound. (The Fallacy Files)What is The Fallacy Files?


1. So, once again, you have not shown any terminology to be fallacious (you should give this one up).
2. You have not shown the fallacy of equivocation in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
I've tried.


Here’s an example you can work on Mizpeh:

An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion. But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument. Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof. (James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe)Each of the three statements taken by itself is true. In spite of the third statement being true, as a conclusion in the above argument it is non-sequitur. And the argument itself contains a specific form of equivocation called the fallacy of 4 terms. Try to work on something you don’t have an emotional stake in and you may find it easier to understand.
The words 'valid proof' is that the fourth term? Why is the last premise true? or why isn't proof by equivocation a valid proof?

And by your answer, people will learn something about you.

I'll admit to being stubborn if I think I'm right. I don't see where you have proved the word, God, isn't being equivocated. I've tried to show an equivocation and you think I've been unsuccessful. Obviously others see it the word, God, being equivocated by Trinitarians as well as evidenced by the person who wrote the first post.

TLM you're smart enough to show me that there is no equivocation without comparing it to the word, man, which speaks to an individual and a species of individuals.

[jdcord]

One of the things I've noticed over the years is that both sides tend to "think" that they know what the other side believes, which only causes them both to constantly misunderstand and misrepresent the other viewpoint.

For instance - I never cease to be amazed by Apostolics who really and truly believe that Trinitarians themselves actually think of the Trinity as being "three gods", just as I never cease to be amazed by Trinitarians who really and truly believe that Apostolics themselves actually think of the Oneness as being completely devoid of both the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Over the years, from both pulpit and pew - in sermons, classroom settings, home Bible studies, and in casual conversation - I've heard comments from both preachers and laity alike concerning the beliefs of Trinitarians that were absolutely staggering in their ignorance of how Trinitarians actually think and believe.

Yes, it is an insult to our intelligence when they use fallacious terminology and misrepresentations of our beliefs. But how can we expect to show them the beauty of God's Oneness when we ourselves insult their intelligence and beliefs with our own fallacious terminology and misrepresentations?


*steps off the soap box*

[Donny Cage]

One of the things I've noticed over the years is that both sides tend to "think" that they know what the other side believes, which only causes them both to constantly misunderstand and misrepresent the other viewpoint.

For instance - I never cease to be amazed by Apostolics who really and truly believe that Trinitarians themselves actually think of the Trinity as being "three gods", just as I never cease to be amazed by Trinitarians who really and truly believe that Apostolics themselves actually think of the Oneness as being completely devoid of both the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Over the years, from both pulpit and pew - in sermons, classroom settings, home Bible studies, and in casual conversation - I've heard comments from both preachers and laity alike concerning the beliefs of Trinitarians that were absolutely staggering in their ignorance of how Trinitarians actually think and believe.

Yes, it is an insult to our intelligence when they use fallacious terminology and misrepresentations of our beliefs. But how can we expect to show them the beauty of God's Oneness when we ourselves insult their intelligence and beliefs with our own fallacious terminology and misrepresentations?


*steps off the soap box*

Well, here's the problem... When someone says they believe something, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually believe what they claim they believe. They may THINK they believe what they said, but where the conversation goes, will determine if what they said they believed and what they believe match up...

Let me give you an example...

I know two people (married couple) they both go to the exact same Baptist church, and both claim to believe in the trinity. After talking to both of them, I came to realize that NEITHER one of them believe in the trinity! One believes in the oneness of God, and described God almost perfectly according to scripture. The OTHER believes in more of a thritheistic view of God!

Neither are trinitarian by today's standard of "orthodoxy"... but both said they believe in a trinity.

Likewise, when someone SAYS they believe in ONE God, doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the conversation will support that claim. Some people just seem to think that you are allowed to contradict yourself, as long as you first tell them, what you don't want them to call you out on.

You can't just SAY you believe in ONE God, then completely contradict yourself in the next breath, and just expect me to think you actually believe in only one God. It doesn't work like that.

If I told you, "There is only one piece of fruit on the table." Then I said, "there is a banana, an apple, and a pear on the table, all three are fruit and are on the table" someone might mess around and say, "umm, you have three pieces of fruit on the table. I count them, 1, 2, 3", then I say "no idiot! I just told you there is only one piece of fruit on the table, so you have to believe that's what I believe!"

Do you see what I'm talking about? I can't just contradict myself, and expect you to believe both statements to be true, without a serious explanation.

So while, it's completely unwise to tell a trinitarian "you believe in three gods", that is a misrepresentation of their beliefs TO THEM, because TO THEM they truly think they believe in one God (they just can't explain it, without appearing to contradict themselves) Instead you should let the conversation take you there, and demonstrate to them, that what they actually believe and what they say they believe are two different things.

In many cases, like the couple I know... The conversation led me to realize that these supposed trinitarians are not actually trinitarian at all. One believes in the oneness of God, and doesn't realize it. So it's NEVER wise to tell a "trinitarian" that they believe in multiple gods. That would give the appearance that you don't know what you are talking about, and they might shut you off, and not listen to a thing you say afterwards.

How many muslims were told they don't believe in Jesus? (they do believe in "a" Jesus, just not the Jesus of the Bible - they do not believe He is the Son of God, nor do they believe He died on the cross) Nevertheless, they THINK they believe in the Jesus of the Bible. SO it would be a misrepresentation TO THEM that they don't believe in Jesus.

How many wiccans are told they worship the devil? (In actuality, it might be the devil, but they don't think this. They are very peaceful people, just worshipping pagan gods [false gods]) Nevertheless, they don't THINK they are worshipping the devil. So it would be a misrepresentation TO THEM that they are worshipping the devil.

Likewise, oneness accuse trinitarians of worshipping three gods. Even though their doctrine doesn't allow for polytheism, yet often times in their explaining of the godhead they do indeed promote polytheism. The point is whether they actually do or not, is left up to discussion. They do not THINK they believe in multiple gods.