Search results

Putting aside how theefaith made the point, his reference to the thief on the cross is proof baptism is not required for salvation. Just because X is not required, does not mean it is not a powerful expression of faith. X = Communion and baptism

Except nowhere in the Bible does it say this. You already present a vague verse, which does not say what you claim it does. A golden nugget from today's reading; Jesus admitting he is not God. 40 But it isn’t for me to say who will sit at my right side and at my left. That is for God to...

Did you change your icon again?

Sad Appeal to Strawman, trying to equate figurative speech with literal speech. It is more precise to say that I am your brother in Christ.

You are willfully ignorant. Let's use a better translation for today's language rather than your misuse of middle English. Galatians 1:19 New Living Translation 19 The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord’s brother.

That trinitarian trolls ignore these posts speak volumes. Better to keep diverting attention elsewhere. 5,000 times God is referred to in the singular. But one time it appears in the plural. Trinitarian logic 5,000 < 1.

God is not a heavenly being?

Stop trolling this thread. Thanks! I'm not doing laps with you.

This has already been refuted multiple times. Elohim means heavenly beings, not just God. In addition, it is silly trinitarians give equal weight to this one verse when God is referred to in the singular 5000 times

Not only have these verses been refuted, they really run counter to what this thread is about. In another forum, some avoided this question. Who sits at the right hand of God?

Came across this golden nugget in my devotional reading today. Mark 10:40 CEV 40 But it isn’t for me to say who will sit at my right side and at my left. That is for God to decide.”

Yes, Mary’s many other children. Haven’t you been following this thread? To take this thread into a different direction, given the undisputed Scripture that Jesus has siblings, why didn’t one of them take care of Mary? At the cross, why did Jesus feel it necessary for John to care for Mary as...

No. It does not imply one mother because the text clearly explains Jacob is married to 2 sisters and he also married each sister's servant. Yes. Precisely because the text on Mary's other children is silent, we have to rely on implication. With Jacob, the family tree is explicit. See the...

Sorry but you are projecting your 21st century world view onto the text. Legal father is the only context. “Biological” is not a part of ancient religious literature. Said differently, where else in the Bible. is biological relationships differentiated among family of origin terms father...

Maybe in slang use. This link does not show that word meaning. Definition of BROTHERHere is where the requirement is for an adjective, ‘step.’ Or qualifies some other way, such as soul sister, brother in arms, etc. Otherwise, we are allowing word play to let words mean whatever you want. If I...

Exactly! This is called the Shama in Hebrew, the most important commandment. Trinitarianism prefer the more vague rendering in Matthew to the obviously anti-trinitarian Mark 12 rendering.

Is to suppose doubt from the text when there is none. Supposition is not evidence. Brother means biological, by default. You got nothing but supposition. Suppose that by brother they did not mean biological. I already pointed out how your supposition has no Biblical comparison, such as...

Not at all. All who can strengthen the case against the trinity are welcome to post their insights. For instance, the trinity is not in the Bible and is written 100% by unitarian Jews, who to this day reject trinitarianism. This forms the basis for interpreting any individual verse.

Nope? Nope. This thread is about the words of Jesus, obliterating the co-equal claim. Rather than accept this reality, you Appeal to Diversion in introducing any other verse.

How does this strengthen the case AGAINST the trinity?