Search results

@ProDeo is willfully ignorant in connecting the dots. John's prologue is NOT re-writing Genesis 1 account but merely poetically stating the authority of God's words put in a man among the people of Israel prophecied in Deut 18:15-18 has come true, affirmed in John 1:45. Jesus said repeatedly...

Any source to support this claim?

The context does not support your claim that God became flesh. Again, you just cannot ignore Deut 18:15-18, affirmed in John 1:45 because it goes against your dogma. Why is that you keep ignoring this? And you failed to answer the question of how something can BE a thing and WITH that thing...

LOL No one is saying Scripture is not true. It is your reading trinitarianism into unitarian text that is false. I'll ask you for the 3rd time, IF your eisegesis is true, why is it not included in John's purpose statement of 20:31? Let me be explicit. Given that John said he wrote his entire...

God has no body. At least your litany of what attributes make up God exceed 3. LOL

Exclamatory statements are not narrative. I am not literally claiming the toast I dropped, butter side down is actually feces! If your take on 20:28 were correct, it would be included in v31. How do you explain that?

By adding words in parenthesis you are changing God's word in in attempt to claim it is saying God became incarnate when it said nothing of the kind. The word became flesh, not God. You just cannot ignore Deut 18:15-18, affirmed in John 1:45 because it goes against your dogma.

I reluctantly agree. Normally, Scott is on the money in political matters. This is a dramatic departure from reality. From Petroleum refining in the United States - Wikipedia: Petroleum refining in the United States in 2024 had a capacity of 18.4 million barrels per day. Although the US was...

John 1:1 does not say Jesus. John 1:14 does not say God became incarnate. His purpose statement in 20:31 does not state what you claim. See Deut 18:15-18. It’s right there for your nose. Jesus is NOT God.

Doubtful since Biden is doing this through Executive Order.

Here's the chase. Nothing in John's Gospel supports the trinity or the man-is-god thesis, aka God did not become incarnate. Nothing. In fact, John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible. Trinitarians are reading into his prologue what contradicts his purpose statement of 20:31. How can...

Good question. Point is, just because religious proselytizing includes government power does not make it NOT a religious act. Venn diagram.

Not an answer to my question.

What you quote is from the horrible KJV translation. Better translations don't use the word doctrine but law or teaching. Other than accept Jesus as your lord, love is the limit of proper doctrine. (Beyond that humans have to complicate the hell out of divinely simple doctrine.) Best to...

No. I’m saying there are no Scriptures that plainly state Jesus existed eternally or even existed beyond our Creators plan for him before his 1st century birth.

I don’t care who you are. That’s funny, right there! What’s absent from Scripture is this complexity. The complexity is used to divert attention from the basic facts of Scripture: The trinity is not in Scripture. The trinity contradicts Scripture, which explicitly and repeatedly states YHWH...

There are no flaws in the syllogism I presented. Your claim that a syllogism’s validity depends on definition is incorrect. Syntax: P or -P is definition independent. P1. Redfan is P. P2. Wrangler is -P. C. Wrangler is not Redfan. P1. God is P. P2. Jesus is -P. C. Jesus is not God.

LOL. It’s also a religious act.

Attributes of a person, even the Supreme Being, aren’t another person.

You reject the proof at your own peril. The claim that ANY syllogism depends on definitions (beyone mutual exclusivity) is invalid. On top of that, you have utterly failed to demonstrate a definition of "brother" that means "father". Pathetic change in reference to pretend the problem you...