Jump to content


Bowman's Content

There have been 20 items by Bowman (Search limited from 29-March 23)


Sort by                Order  

#444067 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 20 November 2012 - 08:43 AM in Theology

Yes...I have read through most of this debate...however, the premise of what he thinks the Trinity is, is not even really defined


I am Dave Burke, and I thank you for taking an interest in the debate.


Hi Dave,

Thanks for taking the time to re-evaluate the unnecessary haste with which this thread was closed, and your subsequent re-opening of it.

Even though several of my posts were deleted by others on this forum, and even edited in my name, the thrust of my position still remains intact.





Firstly, defining the Trinity was not my responsibility, but Bowman's. He presented a basic definition and I made it clear that I agreed to work with this definition throughout our debate.


Unless I missed the obvious, where is Bowman's side of the debate located?

You show only one side(yours).

Usually, when a debate is logged, both positions are shown side-by-side for easy comparison and to keep the other honest.








Secondly, I repeatedly demonstrated what I understand the Trinity to be, using orthodox definitions straight from the mouths of Trinitarians.

In Week 1 I defined the two essential formula of Trinitarianism as 'Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God' and 'God = Father + Son + Holy Spirit.' Bowman did not disagree with these definitions, though he disagreed with me over the methodology required to prove them.

In the same week I cited the Athanasian Creed to show that despite his claim to use concepts derived solely from Scripture, Bowman was relying on 4th Century theology:

You count the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 'three persons', then you tell me that they are all 'Yahweh', but you don't want to accept that three persons each called 'Yahweh' comprise three Yahwehs. This reflects the logically incoherent statements of the Athanasian Creed, which states:

So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.


Here we have a series of unBiblical statements which mirror your own assertions exactly. Our readers should now be asking themselves how you can claim to be only using concepts derived purely from Scripture, whilst simultaneously articulating ideas sourced directly from fourth-century theological traditions, in language inspired directly by the metaphysical language of that period.


Bowman did not disagree with this definition.


Then why are we not allowed to see his comments? :rolleyes:/>

The plus signs in your definition seem to indicate that you think that summation is required.

Regardless...since you feel that you have a mental grasp as to what the Trinity is, well, then show us your very best Trinity-killer verse and detail to us exactly how it supposedly thwarts the Trinity.

This is the same friendly challenge that I extend to all Trinity-deniers just to keep them honest and to see if they know what they are talking about.

As we can see, no one on this 'Unitarian only'forum was willing to take up the challenge...instead, relying on the delete, edit and lock keys...not impressive...

Will you?



#444063 Is The Qur'an The Word Of God?

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 10:51 PM in Theology

...



#444058 Is The Qur'an The Word Of God?

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 10:17 PM in Theology

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein much contradictions"</span>



...



#444056 Islam teaches Christ was never crucified.

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 10:05 PM in Theology

The Qur'an and the Crucifixion
There is only one mention of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur'an, which is in the middle of an anti-Jewish passage in Surat al-Nisaa (the women). The relevant verses read:-

157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah"; —But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: —
158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;
(Q4:157,158)


Several Muslim scholars in history have pointed out that this passage can be taken several different ways. It could be that the emphasis is on the word "they" - ie Jesus was crucified and killed but not by the Jews, who merely believed that they had done this. It could be that the emphasis is on "Christ Jesus the Son of Mary" - ie someone else was crucified and killed. Or it could be that the emphasis is on "killed him not nor crucified him", ie they failed to crucify of kill Jesus, although they thought that they had done so.

Modern Muslims tend to take the verse as proof that Jesus was not killed on the cross, although this is not the meaning held by the earliest Muslim commentators. Al-Tabari, for example, wrote that Jesus was in fact put to death by crucifixion. (Al-Tabari is the father of Muslim commentary: his tafsir and ta'rikh are the basis of most Sunni commentaries on the Qur'an. Much of the Qur'an can't be understood because the context is not available; the Tafsir of al-Tabari fills in much of the detail and hence allows those parts of the Qur'an to be interpreted).

The problem with asking Muslims for evidence is that many Muslims don't see evidence the way that one might expect. For a Muslim, an authoritative commentary on the Qur'an might seem to be very good evidence. The question is what real evidence we can produce for Muslims; the Muslims tend to believe that they need no more evidence than the rather dubious interpretation of the Qur'an.

The evidence for the crucifixion consists of two essential points: the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. These are well attested; the most compelling evidence for the empty tomb is that the Jewish authorities felt that they needed to account for it, while the most compelling evidence for the eyewitnesses to Jesus after the resurrection is in the variety of sources - four Gospels and various epistles (Muslims tend to stop thinking when they come across the Apostle Paul - the list of 1 Cor 15 is very good testimony, but Muslim dislike of Paul tends to cloud their judgement and stop them from considering it).

The point is that the empty tomb shows that the person who was crucified is the one who was raised. If some kind of substitute was crucified, then why did God raise him from the dead?

The witness to the risen Christ is also interesting in that the risen Jesus was careful to identify himself to his disciples. In Jn 20 he shows his hands and his feet, pierced by the crucifixion nails.

The challenge to Muslims is to think about the resurrection and to try to provide an account which is consistent with the real evidence.

Yours

John the Bearded



Contrary to popular belief, the Koran actually confirms Jesus' crucifixion until death upon the cross. It is only islam which differs in viewpoint.



#444052 Reading the Qur'an

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 09:48 PM in Theology

If I were to read the Qur'an in English, which translation should I use and why? Thank you.



Apart from self study, this Literal rendering is perhaps the best alternative out there right now...

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/Q1-22.pdf



#444040 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 09:11 PM in Theology

The Son being God is already comprehended by the Trinity, brother.


This does not address what I wrote. The orthodox position is not 'Jesus is God', but 'Jesus is God the son'.


Jesus as God has always been the Orthodox position, and is part of the Trinity.



This is why I specifically asked in the OP for the respondents to state their definition of the Trinity.

Your reluctance tells me of your confidence level...


I have not been reluctant at all; I stated the orthodox definition immediately. You have yet to indicate whether or not you agree with it. If you don't start answering questions, your posting privileges will be suspended in accordance with forum guidelines.



Don't get upset because you cannot provide a verse which you think thwarts the Trinity....I have yet to find a Unitarian who can...of which, pretty much tells me their confidence level in their world-view...yes?



#444035 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 09:05 PM in Theology


If you were confident in your position, then you should be able to show us one silver bullet Trinity-killer verse which supposedly thwarts the Trinity.

How confident are you...?

Given that the concept of the trinity is inferred and not expressly stated in scripture (no use of the word trinity, no statement of the formula, no clear description of Jesus being 'God the son' etc), the burden is therefore on you to demonstrate the validity of it.


So...

You are against something that you cannot even define, correct?



#444032 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 09:03 PM in Theology

If you were confident in your position, then you should be able to show us one silver bullet Trinity-killer verse which supposedly thwarts the Trinity.


I have just pointed you to over 100 passages. If you were confident in your position, you would be able to articulate it in orthodox terms (not 'Jesus is God', or '12 deity combo'), and you would be able to point to Biblical evidence for it.


I can see your evasion...

Just give us your very best Trinity-killer verse, and detail to us why it supposedly thwarts the Trinity.

Simple.



#444030 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 09:01 PM in Theology

He is God.


Oh, so you're actually a Oneness believer, not a trinitarian?


The Son being God is already comprehended by the Trinity, brother.

This is why I specifically asked in the OP for the respondents to state their definition of the Trinity.

Your reluctance tells me of your confidence level...




#444026 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:58 PM in Theology

It would be much easier for you to present a Biblical verse which you think somehow thwarts the Biblical Trinity.

This way we can see if you really understand what you are against...


Does this mean you're not ready to explain what you understand the trinity to be? All the passages in which God refers to Himself as one person, or in which God is referred to as one person, are evidence against the trinitarian belief that God is three persons. Note that this cannot be avoided by claiming that 'God' really means 'only one of the persons of the Godhead'. I take it you are unable to present any passages of Scripture supporting the scutum fidei.




If you were confident in your position, then you should be able to show us one silver bullet Trinity-killer verse which supposedly thwarts the Trinity.

How confident are you...?



#444023 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:54 PM in Theology

Thanks Fortigurn, I caught that after I posted......

I also edit my last......


I believe that the Scriptures are clear as to the True Identity of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.



He is God.



#444020 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:49 PM in Theology

Actually, the Trinity shield provides a word-picture for the deity of the Biblical God...it clearly shows what is...and what is not...


I think you need to spend some time learning about the scutum fidei, and what it actually expresses. In the meantime, you can present to us all the passages in the Bible which describe God in the way that the scutum fidei does.



It would be much easier for you to present a Biblical verse which you think somehow thwarts the Biblical Trinity.

This way we can see if you really understand what you are against...


So...you are against something that does not exist...right?


No, he says he doesn't believe in the trinity. That's it.



Actually, he already confessed that he does not believe that it even exists.



#444018 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:44 PM in Theology



Aren't you Rob Bowman that had this long and lenghty debate with D. Burke?

Wasn't it established then that there wasn't any Biblical basis for the speculation of a Trinity?


Hi Robert,

The namesake and the belief in the Trinity are perhaps the only two things that we share in common...



But I do not believe in the trinity, so there is no common ground shared.



So...you are against something that does not exist...right?



#444015 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:40 PM in Theology

My position is contained in my avatar...which is the orthodox Christian Biblical stance....of which contains 12 deity combos...


That's just the scutum fidei. All it does is differentiate the persons of the trinity from each other. It does nothing to tell me what you think the trinity is in ontological terms (only in relational terms), and terms such as '12 deity combos' are not orthodox language; it sounds like you believe in twelve gods, or a combination of twelve gods.

Of course we do not find the scutum fidei in the Bible; it isn't Biblical.


Actually, the Trinity shield provides a word-picture for the deity of the Biblical God...it clearly shows what is...and what is not...



#444013 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:34 PM in Theology

Perhaps you could provide a succinct definition of what you think the Trinity is...thanks in advance...


I think you need to tell us what you think the trinity is, then we can tell you if you're holding to an orthodox position or not. Many alleged trinitarians are little more than Modalists. The orthodox position is that there is one God who exists in three persons; the person of the Father, the person of the son, and the person of the Holy Spirit.


My position is contained in my avatar...which is the orthodox Christian Biblical stance....of which contains 12 deity combos...



#444011 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:23 PM in Theology

Yes...I have read through most of this debate...however, the premise of what he thinks the Trinity is, is not even really defined, and he attacks a straw man argument, from what I have read.


Rob Bowman didn't think so. I suggest perhaps you have an unorthodox understanding of the trinity.


Perhaps you could provide a succinct definition of what you think the Trinity is...thanks in advance...



#444009 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 08:13 PM in Theology



Aren't you Rob Bowman that had this long and lenghty debate with D. Burke?

Wasn't it established then that there wasn't any Biblical basis for the speculation of a Trinity?


Hi Robert,

The namesake and the belief in the Trinity are perhaps the only two things that we share in common...


You can read Dave Burke's part of that debate here. If you want to collect arguments against the concept of the Trinity, that's a good place to start :)/>/>



Yes...I have read through most of this debate...however, the premise of what he thinks the Trinity is, is not even really defined, and he attacks a straw man argument, from what I have read. Perhaps you could clarify...thanks...



#444007 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 07:40 PM in Theology

And, since it is speculative, how would I even begin to give you a premise of what I think it is when I do not believe that it exists?



How can you be against something that does not supposedly exist?



Furthermore, that concludes that there could be no argument for it, but definite and un-deniable Biblical evidence against it.



Undeniable evidence against something that does not exist?



You do believe the words that Jesus spoke were those given to him by his Father, correct?


What made Jesus worthy to receive these words?



#444006 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 07:34 PM in Theology

Aren't you Rob Bowman that had this long and lenghty debate with D. Burke?

Wasn't it established then that there wasn't any Biblical basis for the speculation of a Trinity?


Hi Robert,

The namesake and the belief in the Trinity are perhaps the only two things that we share in common...



#444004 The Trinity...

Posted by Bowman on 19 November 2012 - 07:15 PM in Theology

All,

I'm interested in collecting Unitarian's best argument(s) against the concept of the Biblical Trinity for discussion. Please respond with the premise of what you think the Trinity is before launching an argument against it...thanks!