Search results

Each question could be its own thread.

Untwisting, properly using Scripture is what I’ve seen, guided by correctly grasping it for the unitarian Word of God it is. Deuteronomy 6:4 Complete Jewish Bible (A:vi, S: v) 4 “Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad[Hear, Isra’el! Adonai our God, Adonai is one];

LOL. Double negative. Seems you are engaging in Circular Reasoning. Are you saying God lacks the ability to express non-absolute statements?

Indeed. Perception is only important on subjective matters. Sentence structure is an objective matter. Jesus is not the subject of the sentence. God, in his unitarian nature, is the subject of the sentence. In the sentence structure, Jesus is identified as the object being acted upon - the man...

And that belief about the verb word is totally wrong. Stop telling me what I believe. I'm typing this slowly in the hopes you will understand. It is the sentence itself. Jesus is not God in the sentence. What part of this FACT do you not get?

Adoptionism: The heart of the Good News. “The LORD said to me, ‘You are my son. Today I have become your Father.' It means a selection was made by the Father in choosing, appointing, selecting, ordaining, adopting who is children are. Hebrews specifically says this applies to Jesus. Not only is...

Appeal to Ignorance. I am rejecting your false claims. This is different from not following your argument. I totally understand the various fallacies you are employing and I am exposing them for what they are.

LOL. A figurative statement is the very definition of a non-absolute statement. Also, absolute statements are not necessary absolute truths. For instance, when I say it is dark out, it may be true the moment I said it. However, that does not mean it is always true.

It is so. Scripture tells us over and over again Jesus is a man. For doctrinal reasons, you resist this and are in denial of your resistance. A perfectly valid translation into 21st century English language usage selected the synonym 'selected.' You are offended when you add 'from among others'...

I like @Hidden In Him avatar. It's almost as cool as mine. My name was selected for what I do; wrangle. If we all agreed all the time, what fun would that be. Lot's of times I take the opposing view just to see what happens. The benefit of this is well know and why companies push for diversity...

Amen! That's practically a commandment in Scripture. Perhaps its a way for people to sneak in their being learned. The shadow of pride, that is. Putting aside word usage is intent. Do people intent to offend in using words? Let's take the N-word. How come it's not offensive when X says it to...

Doing laps on ground already covered.

As do I. Some here on this forum get all offended when I use the term synonymously with all Israel. The technical argument being that the term Jew is pejorative in referring to but one tribe of Israel, Judah. I'm not sure if Hebrew is the proper term but is longer to spell than Jew. I had an...

You are adding "from among others" to the word of God because it offends your doctrine. Pure Appeal to Strawman.

100%. I know Appeal to Diversion when I see it. Funny how you are imposing your doctrine onto the text while simultaneously claiming it has nothing to do with trinitarian doctrine. Of course not. Here is another translation I like to use. horidzo is apparently translated as chosen. He (God)...

Of course not. That would be on point.

It's not my translation. However, I generally like to use this translation. It's not about word translations but language structure. Biden <horidzo'd> the woman Harris to be VP. Whether you think horidzo'd means limit, select, appointed or ordained, the sentence makes Harris is not Biden but a...

I am Groot. Every time you back pedal to another language, you have lost the argument, abandoning the field of ideas. Who was horidzo'd? Who was limited and bounded? The word of God is emphatic on this point. The man Jesus was acted upon in Acts 17:31. Jesus, being a man, is among men, not the...

Yup. That's because you know the genus, man is among the plural men. It is TOTALLY a trinitarian issue. Hence your Appeal to Diversion objection to the word rather than language usage, subject and objects of sentences. The object of the sentence is the man Jesus.

OMG! The Voice is totally faithful here! I all translations, God is the subject of the sentence, doing the acting. In all translations Jesus is the object of the sentence, being acted upon. In all translations Jesus is properly identified as a man, juxtaposed to God, in his unitarian nature...