Search results

No. The concept of the trinity is contrary to the message of the entire Bible. Let's examine the beginning of Philippians since you quoted it. 2 Grace to you and shalom from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah. Philippians 1:2 (CJB) Notice the absence of the trinity? Trinitarians...

Great point! Obviously, trinitarians do have a problem with this.

Talk about man-hating. In the Spirit of Equality, do women possess in EQUAL MEASURE acting like scoundrels, dictators, selfish, egoistical, self righteous, pompous authoritarian, despots? Where do you find in Scripture the choice to not submit?

The trinity is not in the Bible. This is because the entire Bible is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day. Trinitarianism imposes its dogma onto unitarian text.

Reading comprehension. John 1 does not say that God became flesh. Obviously, you did not watch the video I posted multiple times. Also obvious is you ignore how John 1 fulfills Dt 18:15-18.

No. Parsing equality and sameness is a rationalization. Men and women were made to complement not compete. It's a fools errand. The greatest inequality is holding unequal things as equal. Aristotle, 380 BC

Equality goes against the word of God. Even in your question, you are presenting inequality as a given. That your post lacks Scriptural support is seen in the fact that no Scripture was provided that is aligned with the maligning the man. I've long pointed out that Scripture is about Covenant...

It's disgusting to me that you are equating unhealthy food with the worthiness of a female to pastor a church. I'm not even going to dignify this line of reasoning with a response.

Yea, except for all the ways they are unequal, they are equal.

Words are not beings.

Just a trinitarian invention.

I'm not sure how this strengthens the case against the trinity. Came across this golden nugget in today's devotional reading. The Bible is filled with such verses, which indicates 2 beings in the normal use of language. The Son of Man is the 3rd person language, not God's plan. 22 The Son of...

Came across this golden nugget in today's devotional reading. The Bible is filled with such verses, which indicates 2 beings in the normal use of language. The Son of Man is the 3rd person language, not God's plan. 22 The Son of Man is going to his death according to God’s plan, but woe to...

Great post! I call this Christianity’s end game.

I think we are done. Your inability to answer question but merely reply with your own ends this. IF Jesus were God in the flesh, he would not have called himself the Son but the Father and he would not have uttered John 8:54.

No. Consult your favorite lexicon. If you are ignoring Jesus words at John 8:54, and has not practical application, you do so at your own risk.

Right. They knew what Son of God meant ≠ God. Son of God meant the Anointed, the long awaited Messiah.

Who is the Chosen Servant chosen by? God. Clearly, your embrace of duality makes dialogue impossible.

I don't play the What If game. God never became flesh. God never prophesied that he would become flesh. The idea that God in flesh prays is absurd on its face. You obviously don't want to answer questions as you just come back with questions of your own.

Really? In the Spirit of humility not glorying himself seems a loose statement to you? Come on man! Don't retreat into generalities. It is not a question of right or wrong but of having truth or weight. The point of John 8:54 is not merely Jesus talking about himself but glorifying himself...