Search results

God is indeed a math equation, 1. He is not 3-in-1. 1 = 1 <> 3 <> 3-in-1. You are turning inequality into equality, to suit your doctrine. You don't get it! It does matter what it means. It shows inequality as Jesus died and God did not.

I put him on ignore. Talking to him is like having a conversation with teenagers who make things up as they go to get what they want.

Wrong. His Father alone is God. This word game of 'the great I Am' is ridiculous and @Pierac knocked it out of the park yesterday.

Yea, separation from life! If you want to suppose an existence void of life, now you are really changing the baseline of what it means to be alive. Jesus died. God did not die. Jesus was separated (to use your words). God cannot be separated from himself.

You are making up your own tradition. Scripture does not qualify that only part of Jesus died. Death does not mean partially dead. It means completely and fully not alive. By parsing death, you are attempting to parse this basic aspect of reality. Jesus died. God did not. This simple fact...

No, you didn't answer the simple question. That's how you conversate.

So, by your own definition, God cannot die, separated from himself. Scripture tells us Jesus died. You realize you are not resolving this contradiction, right? Again, side stepping the basic fact that Scripture tells us Jesus died.

I'm avoiding your word game like the plague! Jesus died. That is how we know he is NOT God. If you have any questions about what death means, consult your favorite lexicon. Otherwise, you are putting all your eggs in the basket of word game. You said the definition of death meaning the end of...

Friend, I asked about addition and you are replying with multiplication. The proverbial apples and oranges. That is how you conversate. To give you the benefit of any possible doubt, let me transcribe the symbolic logic into terms of your theology. 'Jesus is fully man and fully god' cannot hold...

Friend, the Bible is not a lexicon.

Great post! To avoid the simple brilliance he as to try to force complexity into it. Friend, I do not give definitions. Words are already defined. Your question has an implied premise that I reject; that there is even something as a Biblical meaning of words (as opposed to those same words...

See post #73.

That's wrong. How about you explain how death <> end of life? How about you explain how 100% + 100% = 100%? The reason for your MO is that you cannot explain your basic position.

Wrong. I do answer your question, just not the way you want it answered. I've pointed out your MO many times. You ask me a question I JUST answered. ME: death <> some form of life YOU: Are you able to supply a Biblical meaning of "death" that is true everywhere the word appears? I mean, I...

No. I think you are lying to yourself; your mistake. You don't hear one thing you don't agree with. It's NOT a conversation but a lecture. It's kind of funny sad, actually.

OK, Let's see. So, you just ignore the starting point identified to have a conversation. Not the conversationalist. Do you see the problem Marks? <sigh>

Which is a valid technique to show the flaws of an argument; it is not a fallacy of argumentation. @Ronald David Bruno's point is valid. What is your reason for not opposing the elimination of police and military? Why is it OK for some violence but not other violence?

New starting point? I'm afraid that supporta what @APAK said, you rung and run and ignore what was already said. Matthias point is also a good starting point. The nature of Jesus is NOT God. Jesus has a God, which means Jesus has a Creator, aka the Father of us all.

The Bible is not a lexicon. Neither am I. Consult your favorite lexicon to brush up on word meanings. We all know what death means. Only a trinitarian dualist supposes antonyms are some form of synonym. Again, your double standards emerge. <death = some form of life> is insufficient for you...

You are not able to answer questions. All you do is throw one thing after another that you think supports your position. However, your failure to entertain my one question, entertain evidence contrary to your position, shows the weakness of it. If Jesus were God, why would he say he has a God...