Search results

Not in metaphysical identity. The difference MAY BE in context of a reference only of more than one existent. For instance, A lion is a lion but the lion who we killed last night was not the lion that had killed the local resident. Your whole premise is ridiculous on its face. The trinity is...

Until the rest of us came along. All first borns are the only begotten - until the next child comes along. Here is another contradiction. We are all children of God and there is only one child of God.

The definition does not matter. Whatever it is, A is A. In addition, Jesus is not an angel. We know this by 2 means. In Hebrews, it says Jesus is above the angels. Regarding your particular ploy of the Angel of the Lord, observe Luke 2:9 Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and...

Jesus did not say he was a bread of life literally in one place but figuratively in another place. We'll have to leave it discerning the word correctly, confusing literal and figurative language. I rest on the fact that the trinity is not in the Bible as well as the ABC's and 123's of making...

Words have meaning! A is A. Most certainly an angel is an angel. If words don’t have meaning, there is also no basis to support the trinity.

We are all children of God. John 1:12. The only reason Acts 3:13 calls Jesus a servant of God is because he is another being serving the Supreme Being.

Then you have no business advocating it as true. I understand the trinity and it is anti-Scriptural. Get that? Not only is it (the concept) not in Scripture, it goes against Scripture says.

Appeal to Strawman. Reducing the argument to semantics. I said the trinity is not in the Bible. I did not say the word “trinity” is not in the Bible.

Articles don’t modify nouns. A computer v the computer. Not a non-computer.

Reading comprehension. The dog of the highlands is dog. The cat of the plains is still a cat. Only in trinity land does a prepositional phrase alter the noun.

Already forgot about the angel, who you are saying is also God?

LOL. Only if someone has special motivation would they deny A is A; deny an angel is an angel.

Belief not founded on Scripture.

Not at all. God. God almighty. LORD of Heavens Armies are not referring to an exceptional God but the same God. Again, all angels are of God. That particular simply chose to add the phrase for emphasis. What you say could be true IF Scripture actually said that. The author does not refer to...

NOT Jesus! The reason this passage troubles trinitarians is that it implies an angel is also identified as God and that makes more than 3.

You can’t split the coin; all angels are of the LORD.

The same is true when Jesus repeats God’s words. See the difference? When Isaiah says it, you rightly say theses are God’s words. But when another prophet says it, D’at different. That other prophet, you say is not merely saying God’s words but is God.

"Bible" is not anti-Biblical doctrine.

<sigh> @Mink57 says we can only talk about Wynonna's POV. You are saying trolling the thread is acceptable. Viewpoints triumphing over feminism is what this thread is about. Your "other" views are the opposite. You and @Mink57 still hold there is something good to this most evil ideology and...

LOL. Or the trinity is not in the Bible and you cannot accept the reality that one does not sit on their own RHS.