Search results

Cricket … Cricket … Cricket …

I’ve explained this repeatedly. Because you reject logic, you just cannot grasp its application. When you say he not believes in the son, turns a blind eye to the dualism of the man-is-god thesis as he believes the son is God, contradicting the mutual exclusivity of Scripture identifying Jesus...

There it is. The abdication of logic and the principle of mutual exclusivity.

Hey, I admit the posts of Gen and you are so alike, it’s hard to tell you apart. Having said that, it doesn’t matter since you share a genus of mystical dualism. So, it’s always relevant to bring up the fatal flaw of your argument.

Just another way to say you’re abdicating logic on the topic. It’s awesome how you hold yourself as morally superior in abdicating logic. What a head game!

Logic is always relevant especially to those who abandon it. I researched your posts on this but you seemed to alter your post where you denied being one who abdicated logic. Here they are anyway. What is that supposed to mean?

And I already explained why multiple times. The funny thing about you calling my posts incoherent is you have admitted abdicating logic on the topic. :) That all you can do is label my responses incoherent shows you’ve lost the argument, ran out of facts.

Succinct and undeniable analysis. Then, there is the willfully ignorant who have no problem altering the word of God to falsely support their doctrine. Surely Grace ambassador know Jesus is never referred to using capital-LORD and he full knows the implications. Rather than alter his doctrine...

Huh eh. When it’s convenient, you say one God. At other times you invoke 3is1ism, which is not a mono. Just because mystical dualists pervert word meanings, does not mean the rest of the world is abiding by your game.

You got it! The fact is that trinitarians best argument is extremely weak speculation. To say it COULD mean support for the trinity is to also concede it COULD NOT support for the trinity. Again, going back to explicit text. Your doctrine demands subordinating explicit texts to your doctrine...

All translations go back to the Original language manuscripts. Newer translations actually have access to older manuscripts than the KJV. While the KJV is the most influential book ever written in English, it had its day in the sun. I don’t speak the kings English, middle English. I speak...

Everything philosophically is the exact same reliance on mystical dualism as trinitarianism except instead of a 3in1 god, it is a 2in1 god.

Already answered. See below.

Except that it is totally absent. There is only one God - who we relate to as our Father - that is deeply present in Scripture.

Thank you. They still subscrive to mystical dualism under a different name. Oneness, is it?

The opposite is true. There is no hole in my argument whatsoever. That the Apostles nor Jesus taught the trinity should mean something to you. The trinity is not in the Bible. The obvious reason is the authors did not believe in the trinity. All the authors of the Bible, except possibly Luke...

That 1 <>1 but 2 or 3 or 7 or all.

Still struggling with figurative language usage, I see.

Of course! They reject logic. Only someone who rejects definitions and logic would suppose that a son did not come after his father.

What you claim is illogical isn’t. This is illogical, supposing God sits on his own right hand.