Search results

In fact, our country has been fairly evenly divided for decades. No matter who ‘wins,’ a very large plurality, ~48%, is strongly opposed to every action. IMO, this makes practical governance nearly impossible. Enter the Deep State. And why I advocate for peaceful secession and have for decades...

What do you make of the fact God’s Word does not actually say this, at 1 John 5:7 or anywhere else?

P1. True Worshippers worship the father. John 4:23 P2. Trinitarians do not worship (ONLY) the father. C. Trinitarians are not true worshippers. Mutual exclusivity.

I know Canadians. They are proud of their country. Those in Quebec are proud of their French culture and language. They should be proud. I can understand the focus on the Panama Canal and to a lesser extent, Greenland. While Canada does extensive trading with the US, culturally, they see...

As a political force, Trump is unprecedented.

Doing so takes humility, the recognition to need to look at God’s word anew, from the eyes of a babe.

I hear that. I did not hear an admission that your previous claim that by definition, the syllogism is NOT wrong, which was your initial claim. There you go again! Interjecting a reference (biological) that is not in the syllogism. Totally wrong. They are mutually exclusive terms, by...

The Lord's nature is revealed many times and ways. He is willfully ignorant of the Lord's nature. Take Acts 3:13, for example. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus P1. God is the subject of the sentence doing the acting...

It is. It does. Changing references is what is illogical. The biggest kid in kindergarten may not be the biggest kid in 12th grade. The syllogism has no reference. Willful ignorance. You claimed there could be a sense of father that means brother - by definition. Major fail.

And that is how you changed the reference! Your brother inChrist is Jesus, himself. God is not your brother because he is our father - yours, mine and Christs.

Amigo, here is an interfaith article for you.

No. You did no such thing! What you did was change the reference. My son has a son. That makes him my Dad?! Trinitarian logic.

No, my friend. You have a psychological wall or as the Bible puts it, not eyes to see or ears to hear. Let’s return to the basics to avoid confusion and unnecessary confusion.

@ProDeo is willfully ignorant in connecting the dots. John's prologue is NOT re-writing Genesis 1 account but merely poetically stating the authority of God's words put in a man among the people of Israel prophecied in Deut 18:15-18 has come true, affirmed in John 1:45. Jesus said repeatedly...

Any source to support this claim?

The context does not support your claim that God became flesh. Again, you just cannot ignore Deut 18:15-18, affirmed in John 1:45 because it goes against your dogma. Why is that you keep ignoring this? And you failed to answer the question of how something can BE a thing and WITH that thing...

LOL No one is saying Scripture is not true. It is your reading trinitarianism into unitarian text that is false. I'll ask you for the 3rd time, IF your eisegesis is true, why is it not included in John's purpose statement of 20:31? Let me be explicit. Given that John said he wrote his entire...

God has no body. At least your litany of what attributes make up God exceed 3. LOL

Exclamatory statements are not narrative. I am not literally claiming the toast I dropped, butter side down is actually feces! If your take on 20:28 were correct, it would be included in v31. How do you explain that?

By adding words in parenthesis you are changing God's word in in attempt to claim it is saying God became incarnate when it said nothing of the kind. The word became flesh, not God. You just cannot ignore Deut 18:15-18, affirmed in John 1:45 because it goes against your dogma.