Search results

You do realize this thread is segregating 'Biblically' approved with being explicitly taught, right?

Again, that is not what Scripture says

And that is incorrect as Scripture says the Word of God became flesh. This is not God incarnate but fulfills Deutoronomy 18:15-18, a man will be selected and God will put his words in his mouth. Jesus says this Himself at John 12:49.

Clearly, you have no idea what an explicit teaching means as you use the most figurative language in Scripture as your standard of explicit. Compare to: High Priest: Are You God’s Anointed, the Liberating King,the Son of the Blessed One? Jesus: 62 I am. Mark 14:61-62

This question 100% goes against the words of Christ. My point here is why are you requiring belief that Jesus himself did not articulate? And why are you combining what Jesus Himself separated? Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven Matthew 12:32

Don’t you see how this puts tradition over the very word of God? The burden is on the one making the positive claim. Not sure why Christians hold teachings precious if they are not explicit in Scripture? For instance, it is explicit that man was created on Day 6. When woman was made is not...

This is an epistemological problem. The reverse is much more defendable. The problem today is that too many want to claim Truth despite no EXPLICIT statements in the Bible.

Oh, another example of a doctrine with support (on both sides) is Soul Sleep.

I mean Jesus was a man and is a man and only a man and not anything else masquerading as a man. Acts 17:31 The Voice 31 He has fixed a day of accountability, when the whole world will be justly evaluated by a new, higher standard: not by a statue, but by a living man. God selected this man...

LOL. Nowhere does Scripture say God incarnate. To your way of thinking, it makes sense for God incarnate to go to his God?

Did he now? What verse says this?

Bad advice. Very bad advice. I came to the EXACT opposite conclusion. And realize no one translation always most appeals to me. In fact, I have a booklet on Proverbs that encourages one to refer to different translations precisely because they capture different nuances of language. They used...

Classic appeal to dualism. Nowhere in Scripture does it say Jesus was in the form of a man.

So, you are denying Jesus said he is going to his God huh? John 20:17 The Voice Jesus: 17 Mary, you cannot hold Me. I must rise above this world to be with My Father, who is also your Father; My God, who is also your God. Go tell this to all My brothers.

You are a mocker but I am not a Jehovaite. I am a unitarian Christian.

Not what this thread is about.

Right. Keep in mind what is merely ‘supported’ from an explicit Biblical teaching. As I wrote in the OP, there is little dispute that man was created on Day 6. This is in contrast to the 109 pages of Once Saved Always Saved thread.

Well, you did cut out the rest of my sentence, which was not Jesus. He is not mentioned until v14. That so many desperately reach for the figurative language of John 1:1 shows how weak the argument is. And of course, you have to ignore many verses that proof Jesus is not God, like John 20:17...

No. In this thread, claiming something is ‘Biblical’ is not equal to explicitly taught. You don’t seem to grasp the difference.

The Case Against the Trinity Figurative reference to God not Jesus. You just want to ignore John 20:17, Jesus going to his God? And Jesus saying God is far greater than him, knows more than him, selected him, told him what to say and gave him authority, without God Jesus has no authority and...