Search results

Do you think He was not a man when He was a "microscopic embryo," Truther? He certainly was. Yeah, " A person is a person no matter how small." (Horton Hears a Who; Dr. Suess). Hey, you know, they can even identify male and female sperm, now, and parents doing in vitro fertilization can...

Well, I understand that you won't, but John does (and of course it's Gods Word), so yes, we can, and I do. Right, because that's exactly what it says... or at least that God is a duality, because Jesus is God The logos is not Jesus unless you want to make him the Father as per John 17:3 and 1...

Hm. Hey, @stunnedbygrace , I think this needs some work. :) You concur, I feel certain... Goodness gracious. :) Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Jesus was never not God, just not the Father. Grace and peace to you.

Well, you're right, sbg... that's the Biblical answer regarding the things of God and the Gospel. Yes, the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). Yes, it's God, by the work of His Spirit, Who has to make...

Agreed, stunnedbygrace, in His state of having taken on the form of man, as Paul says in Philippians 2. But I would also assert that the Father is and always will be "greater" than Christ in the sense that the Father is the One Who sends and commands; the Father is "greater" in...

LOL! You're being obtuse, Rich. Purposely so, it seems. It's put very well by stunnedbygrace above; Jesus made Himself nothing (though still certainly... Something). Jesus was, is, and always will be the Son of God. But, likewise, since His birth, the Son of Man. Neither one can be...

So you seem to be saying what Rich is accusing trinitarians of, that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son, that they are not two Persons, but one. Is that what you're saying? Okay, building from the question immediately above, is it your assertion that the three are not distinct...

In His fleshly state, yes, absolutely. He emptied Himself of His deity... not that He no longer had it, but humbled Himself to the level of humanity for a time, even unto death on a cross... for our sake. That's the problem. Your "logic." :) It's quite easy to prove purposeful ignorance...

It is pretty much the entire chapter, GEN2REV. I was not being purposely (or unpurposefully) vague in any shape, form, or fashion. That it's vague in some way to you... that I get, but can't do anything about, really. No, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have different roles/functions...

Yes, you have said that, but Paul's purpose was to refute the widely held understanding of the day that there was more than one (many) gods and more than one (many) lords (polytheism). I would characterize it not merely as your personal view but in a much harsher way. :) This is mere foisting...

This ignoring is terribly misdirected: 1. "Non-trinitarians" read John 1:1 ~ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ~ and then ignore, as non-trinitarians do, John 1:14-18 ~ "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory...

No, the Bible tells us ~ Jesus, specifically, in John 14 ~ that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are the three Persons of the one true (triune) Jehovah. And these three Persons have different roles: 1. The Father orders all things and working all things together for the good of those who...

What should be said and understood is that all things of God are spirit-discerned; they cannot be discerned in and of oneself without the Spirit of God, His Holy Spirit. To put it simply, if one does not have the Spirit, the third Person of the triune Jehovah God, he/she will not understand...

No trinitarian is actually doing that, Rich. But John himself does go on, just a few verses later, to say, in verse 14, "...the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." Yes, I agree. Logos is...

Clearly, the New Covenant is not merely future, but past, present, and future ~ since Jesus's coming and coming to completeness at His return. This is God's infallible and inerrant Word (emphases added): Just for completeness's sake, here is the New Covenant that God promises through Jeremiah...

Right, because it is. The Bible itself affirms this, as Peter quotes Isaiah: "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the Word of the Lord remains forever." (Peter 1:24-25) LOL! Wow. No, the problem would be human...

Right, because at least many, if not all, your previous "points" are not really points at all, Biblically speaking. Most of what I said was in fact redirections of your "points" to what the Biblical points really are. Then why did he subsequently die? No need to answer this rhetorical...

Jesus's is, yes, absolutely. And His makes ours a certainty. But now you're taking my previous post wholly out of context (with regard to what I said regarding both Paul's and Peter's past tense verbiage). Which is... not surprising... that being a well-established pattern of yours... :)...

Not sure if anything like this has been said: A distinguishing must be made between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ~ and it has been, initially by the scientific community rather than the Christian community or that of any other faith. Micro-evolution ~ selection among intraspecific...

Well, at least there is no refutation that God is at least a duality... :) Two points in answer to this, both in the form of questions ~ the second closely related to and following from the first, and rhetorical in nature, really, not requiring an answer: 1.) Can 'us' encompass any number...