Search results

This is a false dichotomy. Those who hold that Jehovah is triune are strict monotheists. They cannot be characterized as "tri-theistic" or polytheistic in any way with any degree of credibility. To do so is abject ignorance and demagoguery. Unitarian dogmatists, however, deny Who Jesus...

It might be... quite, um, interesting... :)... to hear some of your citations regarding where in Scripture you think advice is being given to God about how to do things... :) I would just point out the following: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be...

It was wasn't meant to serve as evidence, really, but only to show the non sequitur nature of your question. Ah yes, "scholars"... :) It is funny how many, regardless of their background and accomplishments, still remain blind when it comes to God's Word, but that is the natural human...

If ~ in order ~ Nisroch, Chemosh, Ashtoreth, and Baalzebub were referred to as "they" or "them" in ~ in order ~ verse 37 or 39 of Isaiah 37, verse 23 or 25 of Judges 11, verse 4 or 6 of 1 Kings 11, or verse 1 or 3 of 2 Kings 1, then it would prove that they were all at least two persons. If...

No one except you and your cohorts here. Ignoring is a more apt description, really. Um, you mean who God is talking about? "Let us make man in Our image..." There is nothing to speculate about, Wrangler. It is what it is. Or, maybe you really do mean who God is talking to. In that case...

Well, 2nd Timothy (not first), 2 Timothy 3:5. But surely you would agree that Paul, in 2 Timothy, is not talking about physical traits but rather a quality ~ godliness ~ rather than the physical embodiment of ~ that He literally was/is ~ both God and man, which is what he says in Philippians 2...

Well, there are some here who (regretfully) agree with what you are saying, Wrangler, but that's not what we're talking about... :) Yes, in Genesis 1:26, and that's all it takes, but on top of that ~ and this was my point ~ God refers to Himself in the singular in the very next verse, Genesis...

Is that important to you? Ah, I'm asking that rhetorically, really. But to your question, I think, Rich, that you could be. And you can take that validly in at least two... no, three different ways. Grace and peace to you.

Just saying I am fully aware of where he stands on the topic being discussed here, Rich. And I would say the same concerning you. Grace and peace to you.

LOL! This is a direct quote of Genesis 1:26-27 from the New World Translation (emphasis mine): "Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all...

Well, I do ~ we can agree to disagree on that, too ~ but I just choose not to go there myself. You've made yourself very clear on where you stand, although, to be quite honest, I knew that very well from the start of this exchange, ergo, I get you. :) Grace and peace to you.

Yes. The Greek of 2 Timothy 3:5 is μόρφωσιν (morphōsis), while the Greek of Philippians 2:6 is μορφῇ (morphē). In the 2 Timothy verse, Paul is presenting a false form of the quality of godliness (therefore, not possessing the true quality), while in the Philippians 2 verses he is presenting...

Ah, so in your understanding (which of course I have understood all through this exchange), Jesus, the Son of God ~ though also the Son of Man ~ is not of the supernatural, though He was with the Father at creation. Yes, I get you loud and clear. :) In your opinion. Yes, I get you, loud and...

Of course not. The earthly and the supernatural cannot be equated (you know that), which, I was absolutely clear on (you know that, too), Rich. But yet you do, um, stuff... :)... like this. Why, Rich? Why is that? It's terribly dishonest. And I'll add, too, that the Father and the Son do...

I do credit myself, humbly, with having a pretty good sense of humor, yes. :) Again, far be it from me to deprive you of your opinion, even concerning me. It bothers me not; so many Scriptures I have quoted verbatim, so I can't be accused of making things up with any modicum of validity...

Um, I think you mean John 17. In John 14, Jesus is conversing with His disciples. Anyway... No, Rich, three distinct Persons ~ so Jesus can certainly converse with and pray to the Father ~ but one in substance. So He can (and does in John 17:5) claim for Himself the glory that He possessed...

Rest assured that we return, in full ~ but with all due respect ~ that same statement to you and your like-minded cohorts here, Aunty Jane. Trinitarians would wholeheartedly agree with this particular statement; I know I do... But here, actually, you're even contradicting your own...

Some think they do, sure. They lean on their own understanding, which God (through Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, in his Proverbs) exhorts us not to do and which is one variation among persons. :) Hey! You might notice what I did there in that later sentence, and correlate it to...

In... your opinion. :) I mean that's cool; I truly respect your opinion. Truly, truly, I say to you... :)... as I have you and several others before, the word 'trinity' is not in the Bible, but the triune nature and existence of God in Person(s) and purpose most assuredly is. And I'm...

It varies from person to person... :) Far be it from me to deprive you of your opinion, Wrangler. Well, for either of us to be damned is for neither of us to decide concerning ourselves or one another. But, if you don't believe Jesus is Who He says and shows He is... Well, erroneous...