Search results

I am right. The ‘only’ is the dead give away to your contradictory statements. I certainly agree that EXCEPT FOR ALL THE EXCEPTIONS, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. But if you examine it, you will realize it is just a complicated way to say there are exceptions while appearing to say the opposite.

You are confusing HOW David was worshipped with THAT he was worshipped. How did the worshipper demonstrate their worship? Through obeisance. Fact is, David was worshipped as were 3 other men in the Bible. Call it what you want. A rose by any other name .... Many trinitarian translations alter...

I too forget what thread I'm on a lot. Thanks for the reminder.

Understood. St Augustine disagrees. I’ve been told my view is about the application of the verse. St Augustine said the author of all truth can use the words for authors - guided by the HS - the human author never intended for future generations to divine truth. Again, I’ve experienced the...

Agreed. However, over time the meaning can become more generalized but not contradictory. For instance, the expression ‘blowing smoke up your’ butt has literal origins in the 18th century when the public became doubtful of a certain medical procedure’s efficacy to treat stomach ailments. On...

No way! It has to be obvious to the casual observer of our exchanges this is a final, desperate bid to support a false doctrine. Telling the Hebrews what their Millenia old sacred writings mean is in bad form. The text is monotheistic and the language must be interpreted along those lines...

Strawman. The question is there a verse translated into English that calls Jesus LORD?

I’m pointing to both, the Hebrew theology and use of language. Otherwise, one risks projecting false trinitarian doctrine onto unitarian text.

I agree Jesus is a lord, just not the LORD. Again, not one verse explicitly makes the claim. Can you admit that?

No. It does not. Keep in mind Jews are monotheists who reject the trinity to this day. Another thread delved into what God does directly compared to indirectly, yet he is credited with the action. This is how the Jews write about Adonai. Two examples were who spoke to Moses through the...

And Jesus said he’s going to his God. That is the only God. Jesus’ God is the only God.

Context. The Commandment prohibits perjury WHEN swearing to tell the truth in God’s name.

You got to be kidding me! The Bible has to be the most metaphorical book of all time. Now you are holding Apostles to only literal use of words? An anti-Scriptural idea, which presumed God is unable to effectively communicate and communicate the difference between himself and his chosen...

The when today’s Christians reference the HS and the trinity, they are not directed by the HS? Seems you want to have it both way. How about, the Epistles prologues do not mention the HS because they were not trinitarians? Isn’t that plausible?

There is not more. The Commandment was a prohibition against perjury. To this day, we swear on a Bible to tell the truth in a court proceeding. Any more meaning is beyond and outside the word of God.

What is silly about unraveling the contradiction? What is true? A. ALL will be saved — Universalism B. SOME will saved - Only those who put their faith in Jesus.

Right. All people includes those people. Logic works. You really ought to try it sometime.

Neither do I. The logical alternative is there but you don’t want to answer why the excluded the HS in all their epistles. So be it.

Again, it is NOT taking his name in vain but an exclamatory statement.

Well, there it is. BTW, the expression, ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’ applies to court cases, as does the Commandment against perjury, not general lying.