Search results

Right! You got it. Again definition, logic and language usage. The very reason we use certain words is to differentiate ideas that are not the same - because they are different. For theological reasons, you are treating antonyms as synonyms. For instance, in a math equation X + Y = Z, the very...

No, you don’t. You start with your doctrine and attempt to support it by synthesizing SOME verses. For instance, why is Jesus saying his Father is the only true God not good enough for you?

There is no trinity. God is Spirit and his Spirit is holy. This is the attribute of God, not a 3rd being. Also, being united does not make 2 into 1.

I'm not confusing anything. There is no God the Son. The Son of God said his Father is the only true God. That's good enough for me.

The CEV translation reads, "God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die." In this thread I want to explore 2 questions: If God gave his son, how can Jesus be with God still? Given God...

Mary, if you don’t want to clarify the scope of your question, that is fine. However, that is the silly game you are playing. I trusted that you knew the difference between: A. Answering a question with a question; B. Clarifying what the original question is. I was mistaken; You lack discernment.

Bold claim. If you re-examine your facts, I think you will find that I am correct; that there is no record of the resurrected Jesus, after stating he was GIVEN all authority on Earth and heaven, having then delegated that authority.

The principle of Free Will is at the heart of sin and our criminal justice system. Naturally, the world, particularly the political Left is opposed to this principle and are using a 2-prong strategy. Victimology ‘Science’ Without Free Will, there can be no responsibility for our actions...

That man is NOT totally depraved is seen in the fact that there are now 8 billion people on Earth.

And you think that justifies the entirety of the Marian doctrine?

Non- Sequitor. The original reformers are irrelevant to this thread.

You do know that I am NOT a JW, right?

Words are WHAT’s not WHO’s. Obviously, the word of Wrangler is with Wrangler, the word of Ronald Nolette is with Ronald Nolette and the word of God is with God. Jesus said he does not speak his own words but the words of God, who sent him. God said he would put his words into a prophet he...

You invoke this tactic frequently; ask about something I JUST answered. Matt 16:18 has been exposed as one of many trinitarian deceptions on 2 fronts: Placed just before Jesus’ ascension is out of place and makes implausible the Apostles repeated disobedience of the risen Lord. Trinitarians...

But no sign of Jesus in either verse! Speaking a word is an attribute of a being. It is NOT a being. The words quoted above are not David in NJ; they are an attribute of David in NJ.

No. It is a False Alternative that the original Reformers fully addressed all the man made traditions in violation of Scripture. Predictable that you cannot admit the Marian doctrine is not found in Scripture. And no, Luke 1:28 does NOT explicitly teach what is the Marian doctrine.

This shows how completely void of Scriptural support the doctrine of the trinity is as John 1:1 does not even have Jesus in it. On top of that John 20:31 informs us that Johns entire Gospel was NOT written to claim God incarnated but that Jesus was the Messiah, the SON of God.

Fascinating.

Just admit the sources for Mary being sinless and an ever virgin are extra-Biblical, not the Word of God and irrelevant to salvation, then we can move on.

Great thread. I think there is confusion over 2 sets of ideals: Salvation v Sanctification Eternal v Temporal Consequences of Sin Although I am saved, I still Sin. Today, learned a bill was not paid on time, leading to the temporal consequence of a late fee added to my bill.