Search results

He was not at the brink. He was dead.

LOL. No. But I did answer your question. Did you read the article about the double split experiment defying logic?

And then you do not even copy and paste v15 but paste v14 again? Sad.

My point is the converse. My point is NOT that titles are not capitalized. My point is that just because something is capitalized does not make it a title. MAGA. FIFO. I have a HOT date tonight. I grew up in Boston.

Repeating it does not make it true. Jesus' God is THE savior while Jesus is our savior. Agency. What game is this? I specifically asked for your thoughts on Psalm 110:1 - in any translation you prefer.

No. According to the insight gained from answering my question. It's amazing how trinitarians cannot answer simple questions or explain verses that do not fit their doctrine.

1st, not an answer to my challenge. 2nd, Jesus is not referenced in the verse referring to a child called Father. We went over how wrong you are to use this as "support" given the entire NT does not identify Jesus as Father one time. Now, please construct a stronger anti-trinitarian statement...

I nominate this post for the most illogical post of all time. Appeal To Ignorance. I do not suppose. That you come to a conclusion based on the lack of evidence is profoundly illogical. Why do you not accept Jesus' explicit words that he has a God who is the only true God?

I eagerly await another erudite reply. :D

Yes it does. You are pretending the idea of backsliding does not and cannot exist, which is the fundamental flaw of OSAS.

Untrue. I showed the historical record. Not in Matthew's concluding verses.

No Scripture limits Jesus 'in his humanity' to being the son of God.

Not once does the Bible say Jesus is God or the LORD. Not once. No question, IS 43:1 is referring to YHWH, not Jesus. So, not sure why you keep referencing it.

I don't care about vowels. The point is God, YHWH, is not Yeshua. Translating all this into English; the point is God, Jehovah, is not Jesus.

I do have proof. You just don't want to accept it. The proof is in this form: P1. At the end of a book (Matthew), a profoundly significant statement is made inconsistent with what was said up until that point. (This alone is suspicious.) P2. Other books (Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians)...

So simple. So insightful. Thanks!

That's what it's come down to; placement of vowels? That's the big picture point, not that God's personal name was removed from Scripture 7,000 times?!

What verse is it that God said this? Ex 3:14. Did you ever take a gander at the next verse?

It's just another application of the concept and principle of Agency. All prophets speak God's words. We also have the capacity to speak God's divine words. Just because we repeat these words, it does not make us God. Given that God is the source of all things, it stand to reason that he is THE...

Everything implies he was born again.