Search results

It is Biblical. I quoted Scripture. You did not (beyond your ridiculous claim of the one true church). Nothing in Scripture says authorities of the Apostles pass down to their successors. And this is what the RCC does; they just make stuff up as they go to assert power over men.

As long as you define a heretic as anyone who believes different than I do, then I agree.

Right. But on Earth, there are denominations. We separate by referring to denominations as lower case church and the collective body of saints as Capital Church.

If you are putting Jesus aside under any pretext, you are sinning! Here is where traditionalists don't stay in bounds of Scripture. Why are you seeking to give some human on Earth glory rather than give all glory to God? 1 Corinthians 11:3 does not qualify who the head is on Earth.' But it is...

There really is no such thing with all these denominations.

We pray it be so. However, the denomination known as RCC is not one IN Christ as they claim equality WITH Christ. See the difference?

You have to look at the context in which Protestants assert this doctrine, which involves under cutting the claimed authority of Rome. We have the guide of the Holy Spirit but no man is in authority over another as far as Christ is concerned. We are informed by the following verses. Mark 7:13...

No. Just refuted many times before. Doing laps is not always helpful. There you go, pretending being 'on the same page' makes 2 beings, one being. Compare John 10:30-33 to John 17:22. We (along with Jesus) are one with God. This does not make us God. That's fine to assert but do not rely on...

The entire Bible is unitarian text. It is trinitarians who are twisting it. I don't know what your obsession is with JW, but neither the VOICE translation nor I am JW.

No. Trinitarians have it backwards in a desperate attempt to pretend we are not reading unitarian text in its entirety. Given that I am Wrangler, I would not consider equality with Wrangler - because it is a given. Only someone who is not Wrangler would think in terms of considering being my...

Somebody else pointed this out; only someone who is not God would consider not being equal to God. That is, God would not consider being equal to God.

The VOICE translation is written in manuscript format and makes explicit the speaker in Is 48:12-16 is Adonai, the Eternal God Almighty. The ‘me’ in v16 refers to the prophet Isaiah, not the prophet Yeshua.

No. You are reading into the text doctrine you already have. I have an provided a real world example of how your interpretation is not correct.

Clearly, you do not have any Earthly or Heavenly idea what idolatry is. Appeal to Strawman & Ad Hominem. Pointing out the proper basis of analysis encourages studying. If you want to delve into the evolution of concepts - like tradition - over time and across cultures, great. Not sure how it...

I believe you are over thinking it. The point is idolatry; not to make tradition into a manmade god.

No buts. God is a God of order, not chaos. While God knows everything, he does not know nonsense, like square circles or trinitarianism.

No. That’s reading into the text. The idea that Adonai alone is God, using singular pronouns 10,000 times should not be casually laid aside to fit your doctrine. I would get my wife a refill is not the same as Being B actually doing it.

Indeed, a thin line between life and death. Where is the risk between the doctrines? The risk lies in not taking needed action. If you don't need to act to be saved BUT you do act, no harm is done. But if I am required to feed, clothe and give Jesus something to drink and I fail, the consequence...

Acts explicitly states God, in his unitarian nature, raised Jesus from the dead.

1 is 1. 3 is 3.