Search results

It would be more persuasive when claiming Scripture says something to actually reference a verse from scripture.

You have greats stamina, doing laps on the same subject covered over and over and over again. Elohim, heavenly beings. That's who. In the alternative, God was speaking in the Royal 'we.' The point is, trinitarians give no rational explanation as to why this verse should count more than the...

Yes. There is a reason one does not sit on their own right side. That Jesus sits on the right side of God tells the story that to accept trinitarianism, one must jettison logic, language, definitions, etc.

What has changed on the topic since the thief on the cross?

Willfully ignorant. Scriptures have been posted here numerous times that say Jesus had brothers and sisters.

LOL. No. You just cannot actually present a verse that actually says what you claim. It's hilarious that you read into what is not there. But below, your ignore what is there. No. The text is God - in his unitarian nature, not 'the Father' will decide who sits next to Jesus, and not Jesus himself.

I am rationally ignorant - of all your attempts to distract. The bottom line is; Jesus had siblings, which implies Mary had other children (after Jesus). You cannot even admit that your theological doctrine drives you to conclude otherwise.

Putting aside how theefaith made the point, his reference to the thief on the cross is proof baptism is not required for salvation. Just because X is not required, does not mean it is not a powerful expression of faith. X = Communion and baptism

Except nowhere in the Bible does it say this. You already present a vague verse, which does not say what you claim it does. A golden nugget from today's reading; Jesus admitting he is not God. 40 But it isn’t for me to say who will sit at my right side and at my left. That is for God to...

Did you change your icon again?

Sad Appeal to Strawman, trying to equate figurative speech with literal speech. It is more precise to say that I am your brother in Christ.

You are willfully ignorant. Let's use a better translation for today's language rather than your misuse of middle English. Galatians 1:19 New Living Translation 19 The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord’s brother.

That trinitarian trolls ignore these posts speak volumes. Better to keep diverting attention elsewhere. 5,000 times God is referred to in the singular. But one time it appears in the plural. Trinitarian logic 5,000 < 1.

God is not a heavenly being?

Stop trolling this thread. Thanks! I'm not doing laps with you.

This has already been refuted multiple times. Elohim means heavenly beings, not just God. In addition, it is silly trinitarians give equal weight to this one verse when God is referred to in the singular 5000 times

Not only have these verses been refuted, they really run counter to what this thread is about. In another forum, some avoided this question. Who sits at the right hand of God?

Came across this golden nugget in my devotional reading today. Mark 10:40 CEV 40 But it isn’t for me to say who will sit at my right side and at my left. That is for God to decide.”

Yes, Mary’s many other children. Haven’t you been following this thread? To take this thread into a different direction, given the undisputed Scripture that Jesus has siblings, why didn’t one of them take care of Mary? At the cross, why did Jesus feel it necessary for John to care for Mary as...

No. It does not imply one mother because the text clearly explains Jacob is married to 2 sisters and he also married each sister's servant. Yes. Precisely because the text on Mary's other children is silent, we have to rely on implication. With Jacob, the family tree is explicit. See the...