Wrangler
Well-Known Member
To use a faulty manuscript to “correct” what has been handed down through the years is stupidly
I guess we will have to STRONGLY disagree on what the faulty document is.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
To use a faulty manuscript to “correct” what has been handed down through the years is stupidly
I agree, I think I did the same on the water, the Lord is not water, water does not contradict itself, the Lord is self aware, not an "it" as in matter(water). I call it word games.It's so funny how the question of 'A Christian who deny Jesus is God in Flesh' turns into a "can," a potential, the never ending laps of hinging on the question of "do you agree water [singular] can exist in three states [plural]?"
Trinitarians make this Appeal to Ignorance. IF something 'can be' for Topic A, it does not mean it is that way for Topic B. It's such a weak, illogical argument. And this is revealed when my rebuttal is not accepted that there are 5 states that matter "can" exist in ... let the laps continue.
Yes the Lord uses them, sometimes He doesn't, and when He does use them the action is still assigned to the Lord just the same as if the were used like the sodom example.Again, God does use angels, but He does not use angels every time He wants something done. Regarding Gen. 1:26, it says, "And, he [God] said, let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). The word "us" is a plural personal pronoun and the word "our" is a plural possessive pronoun. This means God was including Himself when speaking in the plural about creating man to a particular image and likeness and thus was actively involved. So, why did He speak in the plural in such a way to include Himself among others if He directed angels to create man to a particular image and likeness for Him? It does not make sense for God to have spoken in such a way unless He was only referring to Himself in the plural, or referring to Himself and [insert here].
But your asking rhetorical childish questions that you have been called out on. What do you expect.Part of my point involves your answer, but like @Wrangler, you do not want to answer the following basic science question: "Do you agree water [singular] can exist in three states [plural]?" I will ask other anti-Trinitarians and perhaps they will answer it.
Let's go back to this one, I am assuming, I have to assume because you failed to write anything, that your posting this passage to say I am wrong because you have the spirit and I don't. I made the jim jones response because this is exactly what crazy fanatics do. They can't prove a point with scripture, logic or plain reasoning so they desperately go to the "the spirit told me so" defense. The problem with this is that anyone can make the claim.Of course the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Again, God does use angels, but He does not use angels every time He wants something done. Regarding Gen. 1:26, it says, "And, he [God] said, let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). The word "us" is a plural personal pronoun and the word "our" is a plural possessive pronoun. This means God was including Himself when speaking in the plural about creating man to a particular image and likeness and thus was actively involved. So, why did He speak in the plural in such a way to include Himself among others if He directed angels to create man to a particular image and likeness for Him? It does not make sense for God to have spoken in such a way unless He was only referring to Himself in the plural, or referring to Himself and [insert here].
Agreed, but the example of the water in three states concern me, hence my post. but I'll step back and let you finish your course.I know, but @jaybird does not, and that is who I am attempting to help come to understand.
you got it, my mouth closed.... (smile), take care of our Father's business.I merely asked two anti-Trinitarians if they agree water has three states. That is not enough to know my point behind asking and be concerned.
Agreed, but the example of the water in three states concern me
the reason you gave was refuted with the Sodom and Isiah examples. unless you have evidence where angels act on their own, this point has been refuted.Gen. 1:26 is one of the situations where God did not use angels, for reasons explained.
i asked you to make your point, why can you not do that?I asked you a basic science question: "Do you agree water [singular] exists in three states [plural]?" and you repeatedly refused to answer. When I asked why, initially you blamed me claiming [without evidence] I "talk down to people," which even it that were true, it has nothing to do with you and the question. Now it is because the question is "childish," and thus should not be answered, which is asinine. These are just excuses to "justify" your not wanting to answer and "save face." I will ask other anti-Trinitarians and perhaps they will answer it.
you are correct, it does not prove angels were used, which i have never proclaimed to begin with. what it proves is that angels could have been used and the wording would be the exact same. [/QUOTE]Present as many examples of God using angels as you please. That does not mean God used angels regarding Gen. 1:26
the reason you gave was refuted with the Sodom and Isaiah examples. we both know this, how do we know:I have explained why God did not use angels regarding Gen. 1:26.
i said three back at the very beginning, i also wrote how it doesnt prove a point. i think you jkow it will easily be proven wrong which is why you keep going round and round with this.Part of my point involves your answer, but like @Wrangler, you do not want to answer the following basic science question: "Do you agree water [singular] exists/can exist in three states [plural]?" I will ask other anti-Trinitarians and perhaps they will answer it.
Let's go back to this one, I am assuming, I have to assume because you failed to write anything, that your posting this passage to say I am wrong because you have the spirit and I don't. I made the jim jones response because this is exactly what crazy fanatics do. They can't prove a point with scripture, logic or plain reasoning so they desperately go to the "the spirit told me so" defense. The problem with this is that anyone can make the claim.
If you had the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, then you would be able to confess that "Jesus is the Lord", even in light of Ephesians 4:5 as it is compared to Matthew 11:25 and Luke 1:21.
1Co 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
I don't think that you are going to be able to do that; because the conclusion is that Jesus is the Father.
nope, not what i said.You basically argued "God used angels here and here and thus God used angels regarding Gen. 1:26." However, the fact God has used angels in one instance does not prove He did in another, and I explained why God did not use angels to create man due to the language in Gen. 1:26-27.
Lie. In reply to the question, "Do you understand water [singular] exists in the following states [plural]: liquid, solid, and gas (vapor)?" you said, "heat water up it becomes vapor..." (#1019). You displayed agreement to water existing in two of the states, but not three like I asked. @Wrangler answered incorrectly basically saying water exists in all five states of matter. I will ask other anti-Trinitarians. Perhaps they will understand basic science before tackling the Trinity.
Did you understand what I said?goodgravy, did you even understand what i said?
all you can do is take discussions way out into left field
If you had the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, then you would be able to confess that "Jesus is the Lord", even in light of Ephesians 4:5 as it is compared to Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21.
1Co 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
I don't think that you are going to be able to do that; because the conclusion is that Jesus is the Father.
Like asserting nonsense, like the son is the father.
i wish i would havbe thought about going to scripture, the disciples even asked Jesus if they could sit at His right hand, are they asking to be Jesus, do they think they are Jesus
I thought if we follow the logic it would mean they are Jesus, but if Jesus is the Most High then I guess they would be the Most High as well.And if Jesus sitting at God's right hand means he is God, does that, by extension, mean the Apostles are also God?