Search results

Are you saying that God explained but his explanation is insufficient? Not sure where you are getting that from. God didn’t explain to Job. And he said his ways are higher, which is not exactly an explanation. Finally, Jesus asked for the cup to be taken. Request denied with no explanation in...

I disagree. A radical component of God's word is it's covenent nature. This is in contrast to a contractual relationship. In a contractual relationship, one side is freed from the obligation if the other side fails to live up to its side. No commandment from God requires an explanation his...

You know, that's something I never understood. Why are proper nouns, like places and people's name not kept across languages? I understand the capital of Italy is called in the native language, Roma. Why is it "Rome" in English? Why not Roma in all languages? The word that came out of her...

No. The Bible has dozens of lords. All proper noun's would be capitalized, such as Lord Vader and Lord Voldamort. This is distinct from the LORD in many Bible translations, which is NEVER used to refer to Jesus but God, the Father, who alone is God.

The Bible repeatedly states the man Jesus, not merely the form of a man.

Not sure why you think Is 9:6 pertains to Jesus since the Jews reject this claim but it refers to someone born centuries before. Son's are not their Father's.

How he died is not the point. God is unchanging and eternal. That Jesus died is simply proof that he is not God.

We are talking about who God is and who God is not. The name of god is YHWH. His chosen, anointed servant is named Jesus. There are dozens of lords in the Bible, which means there is not one ‘lord.’ Each is master of their domain and it can be confusing who lords in a city with a mayor, state...

Proof that Jesus is not the unchanging God of the Bible is that he died. And later he was raised from death by God.

Flawed implied premise. Words are WHAT's not WHO's. John 1:1 refers to an attribute of God, his words, not a different person. You are just confused by figurative language. Again, v 20:31 clarifies that nothing John wrote can be used to make the argument you are making. This is because...

LOL. No, I reject trinitarianism imposing its doctrine onto unitarian text.

This thread was inspired by @Aunty Jane. So I want to give a shut out to her insightful comments in other threads? The name of man is not Man and the name of god is not God. Both man and god refer to general forms or species of life. Individual men and individual gods have unique personal...

Repeating this distortion of Scripture does not make it true. Deut 18:15-18 does not prophecy God becoming flesh. Jesus died. This is how we know he is 0% God.

Manifest, image, reflection, shown. It is very clear such terminology is short of the claim that the manifestation of something is that thing. There is no such appeal to imagery in ‘For us, there is one God, the Father.’ That’s too clear for trinitarian doctrine.

This verse does not refer to Gods chosen servant, despite trinitarians deeply wishing it were so. See John 20:31. The word became flesh does not mean God became flesh. In your confusing figurative language, how do you rationalize the word being with God if it were literally God?

Profound. Simple. Easy. And true. Jesus never taught the trinity. An inconvenient truth for trinitarians. The trinity is not in the Bible, not the word, not the doctrine. The whole reason they have to post a dozen verses to make their case is because their doctrine is not explicitly stated...

God never became flesh in John’s gospel, only his words. Don’t let the figurative language confuse you. If you read Deut 18:15-18, it will be clear that words of God were said by a servant chosen by God. This chosen servants name is Jesus. The servant of God is not God.

Jesus is not referred to in John’s Gospel until v14. Read Ps 82. Regarding anything being a god, humans who are lawmakers and judges are in the category of biblically recognized gods. Obviously, the Bible is highly figurative. If God’s word does not have the authority of law, not sure whose...

Not sure why you cannot grasp that this verse proofs Jesus is not God since it states that God is invisible and Jesus is not? HINT: Any time form, reflection, image terms are used, you know that the thing and is not the thing. For instance, your image is in the mirror but the image is not you.

So, a heretic is a function of rejecting the OSAS doctrine?