Search results

No way! Whether an English translation of the Bible renders John 4:24 as "spirit" or "a spirit" is irrelevant to the argument, as in either case, spirit or a spirit, it does not have any blood. The Pulpit Commentary says: God is Spirit (Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός; cf. John 1:1, Θεὸς η΅ν ὁ Λόγος, - the...

But God is spirit (John 4:24) - He doesn't have any blood; blood is part of God's physical creation. As you said in post #389, "There is no blood in a born again Spirit". The blood that Adam had was perfect blood, but it was not God's blood. Although Luke 3:38 says that Adam was the son of...

I did not admit that I do not understand those verses. You're lying! I knew my mother, and I could explain to you what she was like, but that does not mean that I am my mother. Likewise, Jesus said he knew his Father, and he revealed to his disciples what his Father, who was also his God, was...

I quoted (included) 19 verses of the Bible in my last post - that was more lines of Scripture than lines which I wrote. I try to reveal the truth from God's written word to us by quoting that written word, unlike many on this forum who just say what they think with very little, or no, support...

No I personally didn't say that. I was quoting the words of Jesus, so it was Jesus who said that - Matthew 19:26 (WEB): (26) Looking at them, Jesus said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Jesus was answering the disciples' question, "Who then can be saved?"...

Yes, it's certainly possible ("with God all things are possible" - Matthew 19:26). After all, "now are we the sons of God" (1 John 3:2). However, God chose that Jesus should have preeminence in all things (Colossians 1:18), and that initially we should come to know more about God through Jesus.

I'll have to decline discussing it further, as it is a policy of this forum to refrain from discussing the Trinity. All I can do is point you to posts that have not been deleted, such as the thread A Curious Question For Non-Trinitarians (a closed long thread of 1,773 posts!), in which I wrote...

There are many translations which are acceptable - it's just the translation you quoted (whatever that was) that has inserted words that shouldn't be there, which I dislike. Translations that use Son rather than God, such as the KJV: (18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten...

I am not going down that path again (we're not supposed to discuss it in this forum!). Notice the "I am" - it doesn't mean that I am (there it is again!) God! ;) :jest:

No, not "while he was a man". Verse 6 is not talking about Jesus while he was a man, it's talking about Jesus before God changed Jesus' nature to be human (referred to in verse 7). As Jesus said twice in John 5, "the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing".

Why are you asking me? It was you who said that you thought the Trinity doctrine seemed "like an acceptable doctrine to believe or not believe". If you regard a doctrine as acceptable then you will probably believe it. If you think a doctine is unaccepatble then you surely will not believe...

The passage is talking about how while Jesus was in the form of God, he did not consider grasping equality with God. God later changed Jesus' nature to be human, so that he was then no longer "existing in the form of God" (verse 6) but instead he existed "in human form" (verse 8) and "being...

It's more interesting to realise that if Jesus did consider equality with God, then that means that Jesus was not God. Likewise, being equal with somebody else does not mean that you are that somebody else, just that you are very similar. A more precise translation, for example, is the ESV...

The lie I was referring to was that the insertion of "who is himself God" is an incorrect translation, an addition/insertion to the original text, giving a meaning that is not there in the original text. As I said, I suspect it was translated with a Trinity bias. How can you not believe a...

You didn't specify which translation of the Bible you were quoting from, but that is a poor translation, translated with a Trinity bias - it's deceiving people into beleiving a lie. The verse should be translated something like: John 1:18 (WEB): (18) No one has seen God at any time. The one...

I may have done, but nobody has yet been healed due to my prayers (that I know of!). I was healed of a back problem at an evengelist's meeting. He prayed to God for healing in Jesus' name for all those who wanted a healing touch from God. I was healed, but the evangelist didn't know about it...

It's best to not side-track this tread into discussing the Trinity - lots of Trinity believers get upset by it and react in a non-Christian way, to such an extent that the administrators of the forum have banned its discussion. (I disagree with that; they should just discipline those who don't...

Yet another anti-trinitarian verse (there are lots of them!). Jesus claims to be the Son of Man, the Messiah, and that he has been taught by God. Three equal parts/persons who are all God implies that none of them need teaching anything!

I couldn't help noticing the anti-trinitarian part - that Jesus has a God and Father, just like us. Romans 15:5-6 (WEB): (5) Now the God of perseverance and of encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, (6) that with one accord you may with one...

If you believe in the Trinity doctrine then you'll have confusion such as that. Could it be that you've just realised that the Trinity doctrine is not Scriptural? Well what a surprise! It's a very important topic that we're not allowed to discuss on this forum! It does make a difference who...