Search results

That only God is an acceptable sacrifice to God.

No where is that in the Bible.

That is the interpretation of trinitarians. I meant to use the phrase first fruits, which implies a series of like to follow. The false deification of the man Jesus has, IMO, undermined what the Good News is; like Jesus who lead the way, we are the children of God, who have divinity within...

Yes. Elohim does not just mean God but heavenly beings, such as angels. And this one plural reference should not be given EQUAL weight to the >5,000 times God (not Elohim) refers to himself in the singular and is referred to in the singular. You have to keep in mind the context of the Bible...

We all need grace. I reject the idea that our salvation depends on our doctrinal purity. Most people I know do not think it through; they just accept what they were taught as children. They may be victims of evil but are not evil. Gullible, perhaps. Because Jesus is our only mediator to God...

Frankly, I don't believe you in this context. No. My translations of the Bible all say brother. The primary and general meaning of brother is biological. It is not my assumption that the relationship is brother; it is your assumption brother does not mean biological. Again for theological...

You mean there are limits to your acceptance of equality???

I've already answered this several times. When Mark 1:1 says this is the story of the Son of God, do you conclude it cannot be biological son but only a step son?

If you ONLY look at the genus level, then all things are equal. Study how species are not equal in the same genus. I'm rooting for you! Let me ask you this; is the Holy = unholy?

Evidence of this is how trinitarians subordinate how one may be saved with their doctrine, AS IF the central point of the Bible is The nature of God is triune and if one does not believe this, one cannot be saved.

Just watching How Then Should We Live. Blaise Pascal considered people special. Special means not equal. We are special because Christ died for us. Christ did not die for tulips or humpback whales.

You are not seeing because you do not want to see. What is this reference to our actions? Different actions is analogous to different species. Not equal.

That is a figurative interpretation, which trinitarians prefer because they cannot refer to a literal text. It's not even referring to the same beginning as Genesis but the beginning of universal restoration. Watch this.

Now I don't know what you are talking about. Are you supposing that altered corruptions are NOT superior to unaltered originals? Not sure why you are side stepping the point of grammar, which makes none superior to modern translations as our language uses grammar.

I was paraphrasing Luke 23:43.

How then, is doctrine formed; by not reading Scripture but forming ones own doctrine?

Sad attempt to use figurative verses to support a literal interpretation. Words are not a being. The Word in question is the word of God. God put these words in Jesus's mouth as Saint Luke explains, quoting Deuteronomy 18:15-18 again. 20 Then God may send Jesus the Anointed, whom God has chosen...

They assert equality when there is none. Many NT books begin: Grace and peace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus the Anointed. Philippians 1:2 (Voice) Again and again, the NT unitarian writers did not get the trinitarian memo. 'For us, there is only one God, the Father' 1...

We are predictably doing laps on ground already covered. First borns are always the only child until other children come around. I already quoted verses pointing out how we are children of God. Jesus is said to be the firstborn of all creation. The first of others to follow. Jesus WAS the only...

Not much of a job for a god. But if you read the Bible, you will find that Jesus relied on the Father to bring him glory. So much for your theory of this non-existent '3rd person.' 'Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory...