Search results

It'a amazing some of the things one may read on CyB.

Sure. I just deny this means a 2nd, let alone a 3rd Being. Words are a thing, not a person. Words are an attribute of a person or Being.

Again, plural does not convey 3 is one. This is dicta. One must assume who God is talking to in order to read something into it. Language usage: God is NOT talking to himself. What is far more compelling is the single pronoun in the 1st commandment. It's so important, God put it first.

Language Usage. You do know that "Him/His" are singular pronouns, right? They do not refer to 3 is one.

Welcome to CyB Tony! I appreciate your approach. Three basic problems. 1st, you are presenting conclusions as premises. 2nd, the question is binary; it is true or false. There is not probability of it being true. The premises supporting the binary conclusion may have probability but not the...

And what do you want to argue based on? The issue is not my lack of understanding; nonsense is not supposed to be understood. The issue is how to you limit parts to the magic number of 3 while also calling these parts a whole? That is inherently contradictory in any language, in any context...

All agents have authority, not just Paul. Why is your focus on Paul? Why not ask about the authority of Moses and every Bible author? Agency is ubiquitous throughout Scripture. Did the Angel who silenced the father of John the Baptist have authority to do so?

I find the idea absurd on its face that a married would be supposed to remain a virgin OR that there is something virtuous or healthy about a sexless marriage. I also find the obsession with the sex life of a 1st century Jewish girl to be bizarre. It has no doctrinal significance and even...

Broadly Mathematically? Now, you've moved the goal post to assert parts are the whole, which works for any number, not just 3. Point is, 3 is not 1 and 3-in-1 is not 1. A philosopher pointed out that 100 pennies are not $1. To prove this, he presented this context. If 100 pennies is $1, then...

If "one" makes a multi-person Being, then all believers are God by this verse. This is how it is with many of their rationalizations, such as God making us in "our" image implies a "plural" God. Neither are "support" for 3. Again, how peculiar it is a thread dedicated to non-JW anti-Christ...

Indefinite moving the goal posts. Does 3 equal 1; yes or no?

You are guilty of slander as it is you who took what I said out of context. But guess what? This thread is not about me or debating doctrine. Please address the point of the OP.

Talk to an attorney. Maybe all that is necessary for you to be grandfathered in is to apply.

Hence the need for this thread. The arrogant IDOL worshippers can't get past their IDOL of doctrine. Given that image bearers of God have different doctrine, how then shall we interact? The legalists say 'off with your head,' have nothing to do with them. Jesus said the greatest command is...

It should suffice. But as I said, he is theologically driven to deny it.

Not really an answer to my question about being a Hebrew expert being a requirement.

I'm just going to put you on ignore, whether you agree or not.

Your hatred of "the OTHER" is such that you resort to slander. Can you truly believe that JW's don't hold God through Jesus as their savior? JW's consider themselves Christian. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?

Thanks for replying. I did not realize that only the pic attached and not the vid. I fixed it.

Jack. This thread is not to get JW's to defend their doctrine but to get non-JW to defend the practice of theirs.