Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #5, Book of Acts

[kcnalp]

He must have a very small bible judging by everything that gets cut out or rewritten if he is using the JW Bible. I think that is the explanation.
.

JW's TWIST nearly every Scripture to mean something different!

 

[Cooper]

JW's TWIST nearly every Scripture to mean something different!

So, they call themselves Christians, while denying the pre-incarnate Jesus who humbled himself and became one of us, is the creator of the world. Instead they chose to worship the god of the Pharisees, the deceiver and destroyer.
.

 

[Wrangler]

It is an absolute Biblical fact. The trinity is not in the Bible - not the word and not the doctrine.

There simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the F, S, & HS who are co-substantial, co-equal and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this you cannot be saved but are damned forever.

@kcnalp , @Cooper , @Ronald Nolette Can you acknowledge above?

He must have a very small bible judging by everything that gets cut out or rewritten if he is using the JW Bible. I think that is the explanation.

I'm not JW.

Then tell us Who God was in the flesh?

God is Spirit not flesh.

this seems to be your fall back defense when you are shown you are wrong! "Just the Book of Acts" "Just the book of Acts" Never mind what teh rest of the bible says!

Untrue. It's just that this thread is about the books of Acts. I'll be happy to tear apart the false doctrine in any thread from verses in other books.

31 He has fixed a day of accountability, when the whole world will be justly evaluated by a new, higher standard: not by a statue, but by a living man. God selected this man and made Him credible to all by raising Him from the dead.
Acts 17:31
The Voice

@kcnalp , @Cooper , @Ronald Nolette From the above verse of Acts 17:31:

1. Q. Who was raised from the dead? (A. A living man.)
2. Q. Who was selected? (A. This man.)
3. Q. Who raised the living man from the dead? (A. God, in his unitarian nature).
4. Q. Who selected this man? (A. God, in his unitarian nature).

Can you acknowledge the answers from the questions about Acts 17:31? Hopefully, your reading comprehension skills can handle this AND more importantly, your intellectual honesty can put aside your doctrine for the sake of this thread's pursuit of truth as God told us in Acts (no diverting attention to other verses in other books).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Irrelevant what he WOULD do. Acts informs us that it was actually God who raised Jesus.

Trinitarians want to ignore 20:31 and pretend it means Jesus is God. An interpretation consistent with LANGUAGE USAGE is that they are 2 beings.

• Even though Wrangler WOULD eat by himself, he actually ate with Ronald.
• Even though Wrangler WOULD shovel his own drive way, Ronald actually shoveled Wrangler’s driveway.
• When God is said to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it was actually angels who did the deed.

The Bible is filled with this sort of thing; Being X does things through Being Y. Yet, when it comes to Jesus, there is no way he would raise himself through God, who is a separate being from himself - even though they are on the same page, ‘at one’ as we are one with God. 17:22

Your whole argument is irrelevant. Jesus did not say would or could:

John 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

This is in the future active indicative.

Future- not now but later
ACTIVE the subject is th eone who performs the action
Indicative- simple statement of fact

Sorry, Jesus said if the Jews destroyed His body- in three days HE WILL (not could) raise it. but would is another simple statement of fact and not possibility.

Your Grammar is wrong in yhour first two examples. The correct verb is COULD not would.

Reread Gen. 19: 24 and learn it was God and not angels who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah!

24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

In the Hebrew it says Yahweh rained fire and brimstone from Yahweh out of heaven!!!! This was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus and God inspired th ewrioter to call Him by HIs pre incarnate name: Yahweh!!!!!!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

@kcnalp , @Cooper , @Ronald Nolette Can you acknowledge above?

We have, you just do not wish to acknowledge it.
Father is called God, Jesus is called God, Holy Spirit is called God. Jesus is declared equal to His Father. You will not acknowlege thse, so why should we explain the words used to describe what Scripture declares.

Untrue. It's just that this thread is about the books of Acts. I'll be happy to tear apart the false doctrine in any thread from verses in other books.

And yet you keep answering all the verses we show the truth to you in. this is response 885 now and most of your replies to us do not deal with the book of acts. You titled this thread verses trinitarians- well we answered.

Tell you what , prove God exists just using the Book of Esther! You won't be able to.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

v30 Stretch out your hand to heal and to do signs and miracles through the name of your holy servant Yeshua!” (God, in his unitarian nature, does signs and miracles in the name of his servant, Yeshua. Logic. Definition. Language Usage. God is not his own servant.)

If the book of acts was the only testimony then yes you have a strong argument in your favor. but once again you cannot isolate Acts from teh rest of Scripture. And you have to know what Jews understood whom the Messiah was and is - One of HIs titles is the son of man which is a title of deity to jews!

See Logic, definition of today for words from 2,000 years ago do not determine bible truths- the Bible does!

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

God cannot be fathomed by human logic- He must be accepted by what Hiw whole word says about HIm.

 

[Cooper]

@kcnalp , @Cooper , @Ronald Nolette Can you acknowledge above?



I'm not JW.



God is Spirit not flesh.



Untrue. It's just that this thread is about the books of Acts. I'll be happy to tear apart the false doctrine in any thread from verses in other books.

@kcnalp , @Cooper , @Ronald Nolette From the above verse of Acts 17:31:

1. Q. Who was raised from the dead? (A. A living man.)
2. Q. Who was selected? (A. This man.)
3. Q. Who raised the living man from the dead? (A. God, in his unitarian nature).
4. Q. Who selected this man? (A. God, in his unitarian nature).

Can you acknowledge the answers from the questions about Acts 17:31? Hopefully, your reading comprehension skills can handle this AND more importantly, your intellectual honesty can put aside your doctrine for the sake of this thread's pursuit of truth as God told us in Acts (no diverting attention to other verses in other books).

I know you do not understand how and why God came to his own as promised in Isaiah, and until you do, there is no point talking to you.
.

 

[Marymog]

Revelations talks about the 7 Spirits of God. 7 entities?

No, the 7 Spirits of God spoken of in Revelations has nothing to do with 7 entities. So what's your point?

 

[Wrangler]

No, the 7 Spirits of God spoken of in Revelations has nothing to do with 7 entities. So what's your point?

My point is likewise; there is only one monotheist God whose Spirit is an attribute, not a separate entity.

Jesus is a man whose resurrection is our proof of God’s promise as Acts 17:31 explains. Like us, Jesus is selected or adopted by God to be his sons and daughters.

Acts 17:31 does not emphasize that Jesus is a man twice to be contradicted in other Scriptural verses. (And of course, I reject out of hand all appeals to dualism and mysticism.) That is the point.

 

[Cooper]

My point is likewise; there is only one monotheist God whose Spirit is an attribute, not a separate entity.

Jesus is a man whose resurrection is our proof of God’s promise as Acts 17:31 explains. Like us, Jesus is selected or adopted by God to be his sons and daughters.

Acts 17:31 does not emphasize that Jesus is a man twice to be contradicted in other Scriptural verses. (And of course, I reject out of hand all appeals to dualism and mysticism.) That is the point.

1) My point is there is only one monotheist God whose Spirit is an attribute, not a separate entity. (Wrangler) Correct. Also, when God became flesh, that was another of God's attributes.

2) Jesus is a man. (Wrangler) Jesus was a man for only thirty-three years. The "Son of Man" pre-existed his incarnation. "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." (John 3:13 ESV)

3) Acts 17:31 Jesus the man will judge the world. (God is our judge, Jesus is God.)

Although Jesus spoke of himself as the "Son of Man" he was no ordinary man. Here, from Matthews Gospel is Jesus talking about himself. All scriptures are from the ESV. There are more.

Mat_12:8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Mat_13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,

Mat_25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

Mat_26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
.

 

[Wrangler]

Your whole argument is irrelevant. Jesus did not say would or could:

LOL. A statement of future action does not mean that action was actually taken. Also, just ignore the point about how the Bible is filled with many things being done through others. Language usage still employed, e.g., Hitler killed 4M Jews. He actually killed no one. For some reason, trinitarians dismiss the possibility that Jesus is speaking this way in this instance. He is claiming he will do it when God actually did it.

Common language usage. Totally relevant - but it does destroy a desperate attempt by trinitarians to impose their doctrine onto unitarian text.

 

[Wrangler]

We have, you just do not wish to acknowledge it.
Father is called God, Jesus is called God, Holy Spirit is called God.

You are in total denial. Again ignoring the Acts verse presented in this thread and appeal to diversion of other verses. Baal is called God. Does that make him God?

Make a blessed day.

 

[Wrangler]

If the book of acts was the only testimony then

The Book of Acts is the only testimony in this thread. If you want to discuss other Books, feel free to start your own thread.

Stop hijacking this thread. Thanks!

 

[Wrangler]

I know you do not understand how and why God came to his own as promised in Isaiah, and until you do, there is no point talking to you.
.

As I understand it, Isaiah is not the Book of Acts.

Make a Blessed Day!

 

[Wrangler]

(John 3:13 ESV)

Mat_12:8

Mat_13:41

Mat_25:31

Mat_26:64

You know this thread is only about the Book of Acts, right?

Although Jesus spoke of himself as the "Son of Man" he was no ordinary man.

Agreed. Still, man is man. Man is no kind of God.

Jesus was/is a man. He was not God in the form of a man. Jesus was a man who died, which is not an attribute of a deity.

 

[Cooper]

You know this thread is only about the Book of Acts, right?



Agreed. Still, man is man. Man is no kind of God.

Jesus was/is a man. He was not God in the form of a man. Jesus was a man who died, which is not an attribute of a deity.

I thought you might be sincere, but no longer, except in the negative.

“Son of man” is spoken of in Daniel and Revelation as the Ancient of Days meaning He has always existed,
.

 

[kcnalp]

God is Spirit not flesh.

You didn't answer my question. Who was God in the flesh?

John 1 The Word was God.
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Col 1 By Jesus all things were created.

 

[kcnalp]

Baal is called God. Does that make him God?

Scripture please.

 

[Cooper]

As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace
through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), (Acts 10:36 ESV)
​

 

[Ronald Nolette]

LOL. A statement of future action does not mean that action was actually taken. Also, just ignore the point about how the Bible is filled with many things being done through others. Language usage still employed, e.g., Hitler killed 4M Jews. He actually killed no one. For some reason, trinitarians dismiss the possibility that Jesus is speaking this way in this instance. He is claiming he will do it when God actually did it.

Common language usage. Totally relevant - but it does destroy a desperate attempt by trinitarians to impose their doctrine onto unitarian text.

Are you this dense on purpose or just to be argumentative?

John 2:19-22
King James Version

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.


Jesus is not careless like you with Grammar! If He says He will, He will. The tense of the verb also shows it to be a fact! He didn't say could, or might or maybe. He said He WILL- and He did!