A Christian who deny Jesus is God in Flesh

[Wrangler]

To use a faulty manuscript to “correct” what has been handed down through the years is stupidly

I guess we will have to STRONGLY disagree on what the faulty document is.

 

[jaybird]

It's so funny how the question of 'A Christian who deny Jesus is God in Flesh' turns into a "can," a potential, the never ending laps of hinging on the question of "do you agree water [singular] can exist in three states [plural]?"

Trinitarians make this Appeal to Ignorance. IF something 'can be' for Topic A, it does not mean it is that way for Topic B. It's such a weak, illogical argument. And this is revealed when my rebuttal is not accepted that there are 5 states that matter "can" exist in ... let the laps continue.

I agree, I think I did the same on the water, the Lord is not water, water does not contradict itself, the Lord is self aware, not an "it" as in matter(water). I call it word games.

 

[jaybird]

Again, God does use angels, but He does not use angels every time He wants something done. Regarding Gen. 1:26, it says, "And, he [God] said, let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). The word "us" is a plural personal pronoun and the word "our" is a plural possessive pronoun. This means God was including Himself when speaking in the plural about creating man to a particular image and likeness and thus was actively involved. So, why did He speak in the plural in such a way to include Himself among others if He directed angels to create man to a particular image and likeness for Him? It does not make sense for God to have spoken in such a way unless He was only referring to Himself in the plural, or referring to Himself and [insert here].

Yes the Lord uses them, sometimes He doesn't, and when He does use them the action is still assigned to the Lord just the same as if the were used like the sodom example.
It's not the same as you and I creating something and in the end we can argue who did what, when an angel does something, it's not the action of an angel it's the action of the Lord.

Part of my point involves your answer, but like @Wrangler, you do not want to answer the following basic science question: "Do you agree water [singular] can exist in three states [plural]?" I will ask other anti-Trinitarians and perhaps they will answer it.

But your asking rhetorical childish questions that you have been called out on. What do you expect.

 

[jaybird]

Of course the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Let's go back to this one, I am assuming, I have to assume because you failed to write anything, that your posting this passage to say I am wrong because you have the spirit and I don't. I made the jim jones response because this is exactly what crazy fanatics do. They can't prove a point with scripture, logic or plain reasoning so they desperately go to the "the spirit told me so" defense. The problem with this is that anyone can make the claim.

 

[101G]

Again, God does use angels, but He does not use angels every time He wants something done. Regarding Gen. 1:26, it says, "And, he [God] said, let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). The word "us" is a plural personal pronoun and the word "our" is a plural possessive pronoun. This means God was including Himself when speaking in the plural about creating man to a particular image and likeness and thus was actively involved. So, why did He speak in the plural in such a way to include Himself among others if He directed angels to create man to a particular image and likeness for Him? It does not make sense for God to have spoken in such a way unless He was only referring to Himself in the plural, or referring to Himself and [insert here].

"unless He was only referring to Himself in the plural", BINGO, CORRECT. this is definitly correct, may I say this, as a plurality of himself could this be in Ordinal, as in the "ORDER" of First and Last? could you consider this? meaning the, "First", and a"Last", and this possessive pronoun "OUR", comming in Time, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[101G]

I know, but @jaybird does not, and that is who I am attempting to help come to understand.

Agreed, but the example of the water in three states concern me, hence my post. but I'll step back and let you finish your course.

may God guide you,

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Wrangler]

Yet, he is referred to in the singular 5,000 times in the Bible. That could mean he is not any kind of plural.

 

[101G]

I merely asked two anti-Trinitarians if they agree water has three states. That is not enough to know my point behind asking and be concerned.

you got it, my mouth closed.... (smile), take care of our Father's business.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Wrangler]

Agreed, but the example of the water in three states concern me

What concerns me is there are 5 states of matter.

Trinitarians be like, "It's like the 3 foot groups or three vegetables or 3 meats."

I be like: There is more than 3 in each category.

Trinitarians be like ... crickets ... getting back to the 3 kids on the Brady Bunch and didn't you ever watch that show, "Three is Enough?" It's like water.

 

[jaybird]

Gen. 1:26 is one of the situations where God did not use angels, for reasons explained.

the reason you gave was refuted with the Sodom and Isiah examples. unless you have evidence where angels act on their own, this point has been refuted.

I asked you a basic science question: "Do you agree water [singular] exists in three states [plural]?" and you repeatedly refused to answer. When I asked why, initially you blamed me claiming [without evidence] I "talk down to people," which even it that were true, it has nothing to do with you and the question. Now it is because the question is "childish," and thus should not be answered, which is asinine. These are just excuses to "justify" your not wanting to answer and "save face." I will ask other anti-Trinitarians and perhaps they will answer it.

i asked you to make your point, why can you not do that?

 

[jaybird]

Present as many examples of God using angels as you please. That does not mean God used angels regarding Gen. 1:26

you are correct, it does not prove angels were used, which i have never proclaimed to begin with. what it proves is that angels could have been used and the wording would be the exact same. [/QUOTE]

I have explained why God did not use angels regarding Gen. 1:26.

the reason you gave was refuted with the Sodom and Isaiah examples. we both know this, how do we know:
how was sodom destroyed?
do angels act independent?
Is 6 8, is Isaiah part of the trinity?

lots and lots of bible passages proving my point.

how many exapmels have you given that the Most High talks to Himself:

zero

Part of my point involves your answer, but like @Wrangler, you do not want to answer the following basic science question: "Do you agree water [singular] exists/can exist in three states [plural]?" I will ask other anti-Trinitarians and perhaps they will answer it.

i said three back at the very beginning, i also wrote how it doesnt prove a point. i think you jkow it will easily be proven wrong which is why you keep going round and round with this.
you guys cant prove anything, and you cant refute anything, all you can do is take discussions way out into left field, cause distractions and hope no one notices there is no substance.

 

[justbyfaith]

Let's go back to this one, I am assuming, I have to assume because you failed to write anything, that your posting this passage to say I am wrong because you have the spirit and I don't. I made the jim jones response because this is exactly what crazy fanatics do. They can't prove a point with scripture, logic or plain reasoning so they desperately go to the "the spirit told me so" defense. The problem with this is that anyone can make the claim.

If you had the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, then you would be able to confess that "Jesus is the Lord", even in light of Ephesians 4:5 as it is compared to Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21.

1Co 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I don't think that you are going to be able to do that; because the conclusion is that Jesus is the Father.

 

[jaybird]

If you had the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, then you would be able to confess that "Jesus is the Lord", even in light of Ephesians 4:5 as it is compared to Matthew 11:25 and Luke 1:21.

1Co 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I don't think that you are going to be able to do that; because the conclusion is that Jesus is the Father.

goodgravy, did you even understand what i said?

lets try it again.

my cousin, who says he has the spirit, he said we are all to dress up like tinkerbell fairies and dance naked in the town square singing kermit the frog alphabet songs. guess i will see you up there, i mean, cousin bobo says he has the spirit so we cant refuse this command.

 

[jaybird]

You basically argued "God used angels here and here and thus God used angels regarding Gen. 1:26." However, the fact God has used angels in one instance does not prove He did in another, and I explained why God did not use angels to create man due to the language in Gen. 1:26-27.

nope, not what i said.
angels act in the same name as the Father.
Father creates a tree = Father creates a tree
angels creates a tree = Father creates a tree

feel free to continue to ignore this fact and i will continue proving you wrong

Lie. In reply to the question, "Do you understand water [singular] exists in the following states [plural]: liquid, solid, and gas (vapor)?" you said, "heat water up it becomes vapor..." (#1019). You displayed agreement to water existing in two of the states, but not three like I asked. @Wrangler answered incorrectly basically saying water exists in all five states of matter. I will ask other anti-Trinitarians. Perhaps they will understand basic science before tackling the Trinity.

2 states, 3 states, 20 states, what ever you say. for argument sake i agree in whatever and how ever many states you say. please make your point.

 

[justbyfaith]

goodgravy, did you even understand what i said?

Did you understand what I said?

 

[Wrangler]

all you can do is take discussions way out into left field

Like asserting nonsense, like the son is the father.

 

[Wrangler]

If you had the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, then you would be able to confess that "Jesus is the Lord", even in light of Ephesians 4:5 as it is compared to Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21.

1Co 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I don't think that you are going to be able to do that; because the conclusion is that Jesus is the Father.

Sadly, you rely on deception. The verse does NOT say Jesus is the LORD, merely that he is Lord. I agree with 1 Corinthians 12:3, not your trinitarian usurpation of the Most High.

3 Therefore I want you to know that no one speaking by the [power and influence of the] Spirit of God can say, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is [my] Lord,” except by [the power and influence of] the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3 (Amplified Bible)

 

[jaybird]

Like asserting nonsense, like the son is the father.

or sitting at the right hand means your the Father. some of these, like this one, i dont think about going to scripture because the argument is so absurd, we been saying right hand / right hand man for thousands of years, they were using the term when Jesus was teaching. right hand is that one "go to" person you can always count on, thats what it has always meant. it didnt mean something different in the days of Jesus, Jesus goes back to the heavens, and all of a sudden these phrases change meaning. its really weird people would thingk that.
i wish i would havbe thought about going to scripture, the disciples even asked Jesus if they could sit at His right hand, are they asking to be Jesus, do they think they are Jesus, no they are asking about being that go to person like the phrase always meant. we got this same thing going on another thread and the guy is actually telling me the phrase means two different things, one meaning applies to Jesus and only Jesus, and the other meaning applies to everyone else.

 

[Wrangler]

i wish i would havbe thought about going to scripture, the disciples even asked Jesus if they could sit at His right hand, are they asking to be Jesus, do they think they are Jesus

And if Jesus sitting at God's right hand means he is God, does that, by extension, mean the Apostles are also God?

 

[jaybird]

And if Jesus sitting at God's right hand means he is God, does that, by extension, mean the Apostles are also God?

I thought if we follow the logic it would mean they are Jesus, but if Jesus is the Most High then I guess they would be the Most High as well.