Search results

False Alternative. I accept Jesus is what Scripture says, the son of God, sent by God to save the world. Mark 1:1.

Bullseye. Hence, mystic.

Trinitarians want to invent new definitions, rules of logic and language usage if that is what it takes to support their doctrine. Scripture say 'son of God.' They read this as 'God the son' (and jettison the pesky 'of'). Only one very uneducated, only one very idoctrinated could possibly think...

1st, no. God did not say this. A bad translation might render it so generically) 2nd, a description is not unique but a personal name is. God said to Moses his personal name was not Jesus and that name he is to be remembered for all generations? Do you know the personal name of God?

Not really what I asked, is it?

Telling the son of God he is not God is no bigger deal than telling Hunter that he is not the President. If I were to tell that to Hunter - or any son - I can imagine how befuddled he’d be that one would feel it necessary to state the obvious. Speaking of which, you are so adamant that Jesus...

If course you offer a theoretical mountain of evidence but is practice, you are foolishly relying on unitarian text to support trinitarian ideology. The precise reason Jesus is only the expression of God is because he is not God. The exact voice recording of me is not me.

Neat trick since he never had his deity for one moment, GIVEN he is a man (not merely in the form of a man) and there is no trinity in Scripture - not the word, not the concept.

The whole reason the image/shown/manifest/form words are used is precisely because the man who is flesh is NOT God. Sad that you have to suppose a reflection is what it reflects. But I understand the desperation of your idolatry. Do you see proof that Jesus is God in the clouds, cornflakes and...

Neither verse says anything like what you claim. But that's typical for you. Artificial Synthesis. Mean to justify any doctrine you want. HINT: You are invoking aritificial synetheis any time a verse is requested and more than one is provided where they must be "interpretted" a particular way...

Wow! I am so sorry for her situation. It shows how connected we are that upon hearing a loved one is in mortal danger, some react by experiencing a major decline in their own health. My thoughts and prayer go out to you Tammy.

ME: What verse says that? YOU:

Nice catch all assertion, which is an Appeal to Diversion. The point is about you being a mystic, advancing contradictions as true. Nowhere is this stated in the entire word of God. The closest Scripture comes to it is about serving others, to be first one must be last. Again, this is a bit of...

Obviously you are wrong since the religion who compiled the OT never considered it to be applying to God's Anointed. It's just trinitarian revisionist history and worse, poor reading comprehension. The verse in question does not say 'Jesus is God.' You have to insist it applies to God's...

Always rationalizing a way to put being a Bible student on the table. 1st, it's not true as I already proved multiple times. 2nd, it's irrelevant if all are or not as the question is not statistical in nature. The question is about the PURPOSE of Christianity, which is NOT to be a student of...

I don’t think so. That is, every translation is stating something that o e denomination interprets differently. The action done to Jesus is ‘made alive.’ Scripture states repeatedly that Jesus is a man and Thomas physically felt his wounds. This confirms the man was not a ghost or spirit. The...

Not now. I need to meditate on this post. It's kind of longish and it'll take some time for me to digest.

The closest you came to convincing me is about their notion that Jesus was not physically resurrected but as a spirit being.

You advocate the 'hidden things that are revealed' while denying you're a mystic?! You advocate contradictions. A logical person would point out if they are hidden, they cannot be revealed. If they are revealed, they cannot be hidden. You are as big mystic as they come. Why don't you advocate...

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he referenced Rev 1:5, not Rev 5? That's unfortunate. I find their posts very well researched, well thought out and respectfully delivered. This is true even when I do not agree with them. Perhaps his lack of response is my fault. I kind of picked up the...