Search results

In short, the Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The Jews are monotheists who reject the trinity to this day. Gentile followers of Christ became influenced by mysticism and Paganism as they migrated West from Jerusalem. One thing that surprised me about modern day Jews is the enmity they still hold...

What would qualify as proof text? What set of words comprise a rejection criteria against this inherently contradictory doctrine of the trinity?

You got that right!

No sir. The only reason for Jesus to be baptized is for the contents to be poured into him.

They have to think 100% opposite the Hebrew writers who wrote all of the Bible, every book except those perhaps by Luke, in order to justify their dogma.

@GEN2REV and @RLT63. Can you field this question?

Yes, I do take the verse For us, there is one God, the Father. Pure Scripture as in depth doctrine all to itself - consistent with the Shema, 1C, 1 COR 11:3, and Jesus' own statements of his God is the only true God. And your claim is summarily rejected for it implies that God contradicts...

LOL. For us, there is one God, the Father. Pure Scripture.

You are guilty of that and don’t realize it. Honestly, it’s not that hard. The trinity - the word and doctrine - and ‘Jesus is God’ is not it the Bible in any manner, shape or form. By reading your doctrine into unitarian text, you make one desperate and contradictory claim after another...

No but I suggest starting a new thread on using the Bible as a dictionary. IMO, you are very guilty of disregarding explicit Scripture to read you doctrine into text you prefer. You either don’t realize you are doing it or have been so indoctrinated, that you don’t realize it is wrong.

This is Circular Reasoning. Nothing in Scripture comes close to ‘Jesus is God.’ You start with that THEN want to alter every rule of reasoning to support it: 1. Definition 2. Logic 3. Language Usage 4. Explicit Scripture.

No. I’m sorry. I thought that was your doctrine from your posts.

Jesus is the Messiah, which means Christ, which means Gods Anointed, which means Son of God. His God, the Creator of us all, is the only true God, who we relate to as Father. I am a Biblical unitarian. Any questions?

Oh, that not a trinitarian? If that were true, you would have done it already. We are speaking English, GEN. Is it your position that objects of sentences and subjects of sentences in other languages are one and the same thing?

Yes, I should have used the principle that both he and trinitarians rest, mystical dualism. @GEN2REV applies this princinple to 2-in-1 Being, whereas trinitarians apply this principle to a 3-in-1 Being.

No, I'm untwising trinitarian double speak. Calling Jesus ANY of God - son, servant, word, lamb - proves he is not God. Rather than admit this aspect of Language Usage, you Appeal to Diversion - from Jesus and God to water and cups Prepositonal phrases - such as OF, in, on - relate objects to...

Jesus is the container, not the contents. You added the word "in" to confuse the contents with the container. And you deny the significance of "of," Jesus is OF God. This proves he is not God.

It is as rock solid, certain as can be. Subjects of sentences are not objects of sentences. There you go again, pretending the container is the contents.

You are distorting the word of God, which did not say Jesus was a form of but is a servant of God. Language usage proves this means that he is not God.

The Bible explicitly says God is the Father of Jesus @ 2 Corinthians 11:31. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?