Search results

Jesus is on our level. Acts 3:13 explicitly says Jesus is a servant of God, like Paul and like us. Beyond that, Jesus did not teach us to pray to his father but our Father.

Many people say I am. It it not a claim of deity. I already admitted that trinitarians desperate for anything reach for this I am business. There really is nothing more to say. See my thread on Gpd's personal name. Not sure what back door hope you are pinnig on the word meaning heavenly beings...

I already gave my honest response in post #105. Funny how you ask me about something I JUST explained.

No. The big reveal in Jesus ministry, his great "I am" is the son of God as Mark 14:61-62 shows. And I already made bold and underlined that NLT portion of John 8:24 that you are leaving out - who he claims to be. The most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, John also explicitly tells us...

Obviously, you are ignoring things, which I succinctly pointed out. In English, if God were not singular/unitarian, singular pronouns would not be used to refer to him 1,000's of times. In response to this observation, rather than address it, you get all offended?

In response to this thread, I came across a whole translation called NOG - Names of God translation. Fascinating.

Not at all. I did say that a paraphrase of the ONE name (Joe v Joseph) is not the same thing as a title. This is why the 1st answer in the poll has 3 options, his name paraphrased or translated. Again this is different than his title, LORD - used in some translations as his personal name. It's...

Now, you are attempting to change the subject. The question is not what word/words people call him in any and every language. The question is what words does God use to name himself (translated into English).

Again, I have no idea what you are referencing here. Are you referring to another thread?

Again, reading into the text what is not there. There are 2 'him's' in the sentence. You are looking to justify violating the 1C over this? Amazing. One other thing; you are ignoring agency. The NLT reads 'That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am who...

IMO, you've lost the argument by retreating to a different language. God is referrred to 1,000's of time using singular pronouns. The fact that you ignore this tells the story - in any language.

You can say that but must know it goes against Scripture; not one time is Jesus identified as YHWH. Not one time does Scripture state believing Jesus is God is a prerequisite to salvation.

LOL v4 of Genesis 1 uses the singular pronoun, ‘he.’ Are you going to tell us, on top of the Hebrews not understanding their own language and religious text meaning, that ‘he’ is not a singular pronoun?

You admitted these titles were descriptions. I realize our society is into self identification but did not realize such thinking was here, such as God given sex and God given name. Do you really hold the explicit personal name God said is his for all time in Ex 3:15 to the same level as the...

We’ll have to agree to disagree. God only has one name per Ex 3:15. Titles are not semantic differences.

What justification WOULD YOU accept? If one has authority, why do they need to justify it to you on this on-line forum? Having said that, as I read your question, my mind went to ‘to whom much is given, much is expected.’ No, I don’t equate that as authority over but responsibility for others...

What about these points? Isaiah said I am the first and the last. This is what prophets do, speak for God. It does not make them God. Not sure why are you connecting the OT verse of God with us to Jesus? Are all Immanuel’s God or just that one and why? HINT: Saying ‘God is with us’ is NOT the...

I think Paul did say what he meant. It's you who are taking it out of context, perhaps overly literally. The Bible is uniquely rich in figurative language usage. In Genesis, God famously said the day you eat the forbidden fruit and sure enough ~900 years later, they surely died. :p

No. "One" is a definition of an amount. This thread is about definition, not descriptions. For instance, the President has one name, defined on his birth certificate. We might paraphrase that defined name but the paraphrase does not extend to descriptions that you seem keen on falsely equating...

That's not true because 'you' are not comprised of an unfertilized ova.