The elephant named Trinity.~

[grace2]

And I don't disagree with Him. Neither does any trinitarian. So what is your point?

Then why do you claim Jesus is God?

He never claims to be God.

Are you saying Jesus did not know He was God that you have to teach Him?

 

[Arial]

Does the Bible say at Isaiah 45:5 that YHWH is God and there is no other God? Yes or no?

Yes it says that. Did I ever deny that it said that? The trinity doctrine does not teach that Jesus is another god. That is the way YOU see it.

What did I say about that passage? I will say it again. God saying there is no other God besides him is a contrast to pagan nations worshiping many gods. "There is only one true and living God," he says. "and I am that God, there is no other." He is not making a statement as to the manner in which He exists. That was not even an issue at the time, and is certainly not what was being dealt with in that passage.

 

[Arial]

Then why do you claim Jesus is God?

Because He claims He is.

 

[grace2]

Because He claims He is.

You haven't showing it yet for all these years.

You guys are denying Jesus' simple and clear statement that His Father is the only true God.

{edited by admin}

 

[Arial]

He never claims to be God.

John 14:9 Jesus said to him "Have I been with you so long and you still do not know me Phillip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father"?

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

John 5:18 This was shy the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because hot only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

 

[grace2]

John 14:9 Jesus said to him "Have I been with you so long and you still do not know me Phillip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father"?

You are reading the way you want it to say.

Jesus did not He is God.

Emperor's clothes syndrome.

 

[Arial]

You are reading the way you want it to say.

Jesus did not He is God.

Emperor's clothes syndrome.

I am reading it just as it is.

What DOES it say? (I hold out zero hope that you will answer that question.)

 

[Arial]

@Soldier of Christ1516

Have you read my thread Why Must Our Redeemer Must Be Both God and Man? If not, why not. I put it up especially for you to clarify points I made that you asked for.

 

[Arial]

You haven't showing it yet for all these years.

You guys are denying Jesus' simple and clear statement that His Father is the only true God.

I just did show it.

No, we are not denying that Jesus' Father is the only true God. No matter how many times you say that, it will never be true about trinitarians.

 

[grace2]

I just did show it.

No, we are not denying that Jesus' Father is the only true God. No matter how many times you say that, it will never be true about trinitarians.

good day.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

@Soldier of Christ1516

Have you read my thread Why Must Our Redeemer Must Be Both God and Man? If not, why not. I put it up especially for you to clarify points I made that you asked for.

No. Funny how you feel I must justify such things. Not wanting to hijack your thread, I'll start another thread, Theological Importance of Jesus NOT Being God.

There are many threads that do not capture my interest. On another site there are all kinds of threads about end times. I tend to avoid them.

Since we're on the subject, have you read my thread about making peace with Russia? If not, why not?

 

[Arial]

No. Funny how you feel I must justify such things. Not wanting to hijack your thread, I'll start another thread, Theological Importance of Jesus NOT Being God.

There are many threads that do not capture my interest. On another site there are all kinds of threads about end times. I tend to avoid them.

Since we're on the subject, have you read my thread about making peace with Russia? If not, why not?

The difference is that I posted that one specifically because you asked me why Jesus had to be God in response to something I had said. (I don't remember what that was.) And I told you that it was too much for comments in this thread and needed one of its own. Also it is on the Trinity board which is one you get involved in. I posted it so you could actually see the reasoning and biblical support behind is needing to be God.

However you are not interested in investigating anything that might be different from your own view evidently, to your own detriment and to anyone's detriment who wants to grow in their walk in Christ. It also shows a lack of desire to want to know what the truths of God are whether they like it or not. And even if they might have to let go of long held beliefs.

So there is no more point in our discussions. Interesting your reaction above, is (paraphrased) "To heck with your post and what you have to say. I will put up MY post against yours, even though I won't read yours."

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Jesus had to be the exact equivalent of Adam in order to pay the price of redemption regarding Adam’s children. Jesus paid the price demanded to free Adam’s descendants from their inheritance of sin and death. (Rom 5:12) He had to be a 100% mortal human to do so. If he was an immortal, he could not die.

The Bible explicitly says Jesus is a man. That’s good enough for me. Why isn’t it good enough for you?

 

[Arial]

Jesus had to be the exact equivalent of Adam in order to pay the price of redemption regarding Adam’s children. Jesus paid the price demanded to free Adam’s descendants from their inheritance of sin and death. (Rom 5:12) He had to be a 100% mortal human to do so. If he was an immortal, he could not die.

If he was the exact equivalent of Adam he would have to be made out of dust. But He was 100% human of His mother. And 100% deity of His Father. His Father is not human. Adam was not created a sinner but all humans after him are sinners because he sinned. The new creation is IN Christ. Christ isn't a the new creation.

The Bible explicitly says Jesus is a man. That’s good enough for me. Why isn’t it good enough for you?

I don't disagree with that and never have. WHy do you keep saying that I do? The Bible also says He is God. That is good enough for me. Whis isn't good enough for you?

John 1:1 He is identified with God himself.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father has made him known.
Thomas in John 20:28 "My Lord and my God!"
Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Romans 9:5 "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Titus 2:13 "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness---
2 Pet 1:1 To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
Heb 1:8 Your throne O God is forever and ever quoted from Ps 45:7-8
Is 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

In several places in the NT Jesus is said to be active in creation and there is only one Creator.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

I don't disagree with that and never have. WHy do you keep saying that I do?

Because Logic.
P1. God is not man. Numbers 23:19
P2. Jesus is a man.
C. Jesus is NOT God.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

So there is no more point in our discussions. Interesting your reaction above, is (paraphrased) "To heck with your post and what you have to say. I will put up MY post against yours, even though I won't read yours."

Ever see the Marvel movies? I am Groot.

I am a Biblical Unitarian. My point in engaging non-Unitarians is to compare arguments. I’ve heard all the arguments MANY times and the best is extremely lacking as I’m sure @grace2 will attest.

Out of respect for you in not wanting to hijack your thread, I choose to stay out of it. Rather than appreciate my respectfulness, you resort to personal attack and slander.

So many of your posts exude emotionalism. So offended are you that I pick and choose what threads to participate in. Odd.

 

[Arial]

Because Logic.
P1. God is not man. Numbers 23:19
P2. Jesus is a man.
C. Jesus is NOT God.

Since I gave you where it clearly states that Jesus is God, and you ignored them without a comment the first, second, third, and now the fourth time I have presented what are only a few; and your only response to this fourth time is this logic formula; you have simply made a choice to stick with human logic, (which has no capacity to go beyond its finite knowledge, within its finite boundaries and experience,)in spite of what God has said about it in His word.

Why don't you do the same with this?

P1. A virgin cannot conceive a child.
P2. Mary had a son who she named Jesus.
C. Mary was not a virgin when she conceived Jesus.

 

[Rella]

Because Logic.
P2. Jesus is a man.

Why?

 

[Arial]

I am a Biblical Unitarian. My point in engaging non-Unitarians is to compare arguments. I’ve heard all the arguments MANY times and the best is extremely lacking as I’m sure @grace2 will attest.

You do not compare arguments though. You don't actually engage with their arguments. You only give snippets of isolated scripture and when they are shown as being used to support something that it does not support, and usually are not even relevant to the subject they are being used to support, you simply ignore it by repeating your position. That is not comparing an argument. It is not even giving an argument. You also ignore all evidence that is contrary to your belief of the Bible explicitly stating that yes, Jesus is both God and man. So, a negation of the claim to "compare arguments."

If you have already heard the arguments many times and find them extremely lacking, then your "point of engaging" has also already negated itself. I suppose you would consider this an emotional ad hominem attack because it is pointing out the fallacies in your posts. But it is neither. You cannot know my emotional condition when I post plain facts absent emotional rhetoric . And ad hominem is an attack on a person character rather than a position or argument and is a diversionary tactic. I have merely pointed out that your own stated point in engaging does not stand up to your posts and why they don't.

Out of respect for you in not wanting to hijack your thread, I choose to stay out of it. Rather than appreciate my respectfulness, you resort to personal attack and slander.

That would be an example of ad hominem. I made no personal attack or slander. I stated my view of the situation. In addition, I only asked if you had read my thread and made no mention of you needing to interact with it. And my view was that you had asked me a question of why Jesus had to be deity in order to redeem, I sincerely and comprehensively answered from Scripture that question of "why", putting it in its own thread. I did it so you could see the reasoning and logic behind the assertion. Whether you agree with it or not was beside the point. And you dismissed my efforts and concerns, not even bothering to read it. Now tell me, what that appears to be other than that the question was insincere, and whatever I might say of nothing. It was insulting to me and felt disrespectful.

So many of your posts exude emotionalism. So offended are you that I pick and choose what threads to participate in. Odd.

Another example of ad hominem. Also a straw man. I was not offended that you did not participate in it. Never even mentioned you participating in it. I asked if you read it. Period. I became offended when you dismissed it and me as not worth reading or hearing. And what you perceive as emotionalism and also use as a way of negating a person and what they say, when in fact there is nothing wrong with emotionalism--- a flat aspect is much more telling, (and no I am not applying that to you), you actually have no way of knowing.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

You do not compare arguments though.

Friend, you confuse 2 things about me that are not the same.

A. Answering questions.​

B. Answering questions to your satisfaction.​

A trinitarian trick is to substitute quality with quantity. Once I go away from trying to achieve Scenario B above, trinitarians claim some kind of victory. Truth is, I was NEVER in the market for Scenario B.

I just live my Biblical Unitarian life in a complete mystery to 3-is-1 type folks. Make a blessed day!