Search results

Elohim, though a plural word, doesn't necessarily refer to a plurality of beings or a compound god. I went over this several posts back, perhaps a few pages ago by now, giving Biblical examples where elohim is used to refer to singular individuals. Matthew 11:25 identifies the Father as the...

Same thing applies to regular Christians. Ephesians 3 19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

If this is said of Jesus "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily..." (Col. 2:9) and this is said of Christians "that you may be filled with all the fullness of God..." (Eph. 3:19) then what's the difference in your perspective?

I associate with Biblical Unitarians. When I tell people that they sometimes think that Biblical Unitarians are Unitarian Universalists and they aren't the same thing or even remotely close to one other. So I just wanted to say that. The Biblical Unitarians share a lot of similar beliefs with...

Jesus was part of creation. We can take John 5:26 where the Son talks about how the Father granted him to have life. So it follows that at one point or another, whether at some point pre-existing his physical birth as a human, or as a human, eventually a time came where the Father granted the...

Yes you're right, but this is where it gets interesting because in Exodus 22:20 lā·’ĕ·lō·hîm, though plural, is translated to refer to a singular god. Same thing in Judges 6:31 where Baal is ’ĕ·lō·hîm, yet a singular god. We don't make a doctrine about Baal being a plurality of gods though...

"He" is singular there. The idea being conveyed there is only one God because a singular God created them.

I do share a lot in common with them yes though I am not a Christadelphian myself. That should give you an adequate idea of where I am coming from.

I saw it because I wrote it.

To clarify what my point was here, it's that sometimes the last pronoun doesn't refer back to the closest noun in the Bible (after it's translated into English.)

There is an argument to be made that the "By him was everything created which is in Heaven and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen..." doesn't refer to the previously mentioned person, meaning Jesus isn't the actual Creator. For example, some versions of Acts...

God made everything and is not served by human hands. Jesus had human hands. Do the math. Acts 17 24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. 25Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything...

Colossians 1 says Jesus is the image of the invisible God and is himself created. That means he isn't the invisible God and came later after God. Revelation also says Jesus was created. Your premise doesn't follow to a sound Biblical conclusion. Do not begin with a theology about what you...

Unbelievers often come to the Bible with a child's disposition and see that Jesus' Daddy is also his God. God has many sons (and daughters of course) who are not themselves God, are human, didn't literally descend from heaven, etc and Jesus isn't an exception. I believe the Bible describes the...

John wrote about the Word differently in 1 John 1:1-3, calling it an it, a thing, that was revealed to them. I am inclined to believe that John 1 is applying personification to the Word. This may have been intuitive when it was originally written since in Hebrew poetry there are a lot of...

There is no fit because Genesis 1 says God made the heavens and the earth. Colossians 1 says Jesus is the image of the invisible God. The "image of God" creating the heavens and the earth isn't a biblical doctrine. If Jesus was himself God then that would have been the perfect time to just say...

I believe we should also carefully consider who we are following in the Bible. Are we following Thomas' lone opinion? Are we following what the opinion of the Pharisees was who said Jesus was a sinner who broke the Sabbath? A lot of things are said in the Bible, but many things are not all...

I interpret the bits about God having "back parts" or a "right hand" or Moses seeing God "face to face" as not literal. There could also be translation issues there. All I know is a man didn't create the heavens and earth. The Bible says the first humans were Adam and Eve. Too many discrepancies...

Not much different than what catholics/protestants say about Jesus. "God in the flesh" is just as false about the Father as it is about the Son. God never was, is, or will be a man under any circumstances according to Scripture.

Fair enough, but this forum needs to have this discussion and so long as we have kept it civil and cordial I think no one has attempted to intervene. However, yes I do understand your point. Perhaps this is better kept for another time.