Another tally of anti-trinitarian threads

Pierac

New member
I understand that you believe a lie and will do anything and everything to support it.

Jesus is God.... AND man.


The Savior is God... the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also see this blog post: https://theologyonline.com/blogs/right-divider/2441821-



Is God the only Savior?

I imagine by now you may be arguing with me and saying something like this: Well, if Jesus is not God in human flesh what you say to the Scriptures that say only God can save? After all, God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides me" (Isaiah 40 3:11). If Jesus is not God and there are two saviors! And this is something the Bible here clearly excludes.

We have already seen a strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not one single Old Testament prophecy that supports it. Not one verse foretells that God himself was going to become a man in order to save us. The opposite is the case. The prophets predicted a human being who would under God's anointing Spirit rescue us.

Wherein lies the solution? Ah, let's now read this through our Hebrew eyes and see what a difference it makes. Remember that dictum the Jews had about the law of agency where "the agent is as the principal himself"? It applies right here.

Let's go back to Exodus 23. You remember that we used this chapter earlier to illustrate the Hebrew law of agency. We saw that the angel of the Lord acted in God's stead. What the angel did in said was really what God himself did and said, for "My name is in him" (v. 21). In verse 23 Jehovah explained, "For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivities and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them." The angel was the instrument through whom God destroyed the enemies.

Now let's proceed on in the chapter. God says to the Israelites, "I will send my terror ahead of you… I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivities, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you" (v. 27-28).

To our understanding this sounds as if the LORD himself is going to do the work. But when we come to verse 31: "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you." So God expects the Israelites to drive their enemies out. Is there a contradiction here? Will God Himself drive out their enemies or will the Israelites do it? We note the principle again and again. Got says He will act when in fact He is going to empower his angels and his people to do the work.

This kind of talk has a thorough Hebrew feel about it. Actions that are directly ascribed to God are in fact carried out by his commissioned agents. Take another instance: "in the LORD… he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" (2 Kings 14:27).
Once again we observe the clear distinction between God who is the ultimate Author of deliverance and his appointed agent who in this case was King Jeroboam. Or take this verse: "therefore you did deliver them into the hands of the oppressors who oppressed them. But when they cry to You in the time of their distress, You did hear from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You did give them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their it oppressors" (Nehemiah 9:27).

Graeser, the author of One God and One Lord, p.363. Writes:

God, Christ and others are referred to as "saviors," but that clearly does not make them identical. The term "Savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the terms seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scriptures can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.

Is often been argued that the very name Jesus, which means "Yahweh saves," prove Jesus is Jehovah because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). But the logic is not consistently applied because the O.T. name Joshua means "Yahweh saves." I have never yet heard someone who believes in the deity of Christ argue that Joshua was God in the flesh. We know that the O.T. Joshua was God appointed man to deliver Israel. As Joshua and Israel went forth in obedience to his word God save them. Just so, in the matter of our salvation, God sent forth his son into battle. Through Jesus God has saved us. This is why both God and Jesus are called Savior. But the Bible never loses sight of the fact that God the Father is the ultimate Author of our salvation through (dia) his son.

This same line of reasoning applies to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2. This is one of the most commonly appealed to Scriptures that allegedly proves that Jesus must be God, because "only God can forgive sins" (v.7). When Jesus pronounced the man forgiven/healed, the Pharisees say that Jesus is "blaspheming" because he is claiming to be God. But a little careful attention to detail will show that Jesus is not claiming deity. He is rather claiming "authority." He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" (v.10). The parallel account in Matthew's report is that once the people saw Jesus healed a paralytic, "they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men" ( Matt 9:8). We note that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son of Man," that is, the human Messiah, with a God given right to pronounce forgiveness. Not too much later Jesus invested other men-his apostles-with the same authority to forgive sins: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; he to retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). If only God can forgive sins, then God and Jesus and the apostles are all God! Besides, there is no teaching anywhere in the Bible that says only God can forgive. Even Christians are commanded to forgive each other sin (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). The fact that the Pharisees say that only God can forgive sins does not make this an established Biblical doctrine. The Pharisees often had wrong doctrine and were often corrected by our Lord Jesus. This was one such occasion.

Those who believe that Jesus can only be our Savior if he is God sometimes appeal to the prophecy from Jeremiah 23: (In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is his name by which he will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness’" (Jer. 23:6).
Does this not say that the coming Savior will be "The LORD our righteousness," that is, God himself? This is easily answered when we note that a few chapters later we have this prophecy in Jeremiah 33: "in those days Judah shall be saved in Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the LORD is our righteousness’ (v.16).

Here the city of Jerusalem is given the very same title as the coming redeemer earlier. I have never yet heard anyone argue that the city of Jerusalem must also be God himself because it bears the same title as Jehovah. Hebrew understanding is needed to avoid the confusion.
This is why it is fallacious to reason that because Jesus is called the "King of Kings and the Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16) he must necessarily be Almighty God Himself. The fact that Artaxerxes is called "king of kings" and that God himself calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" does not put these men in the same league as Messiah Jesus, nor mean they have the same nature as him. The designation "king of kings" is obviously a very Hebrew way of speaking that has nothing to do with the equivalency of nature. The Hebrews could also speak of a "servant of servants," which simply means to the lowest of the low (Gen 9:25). In the book of Daniel God addresses Nebuchadnezzar: "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory" (Dan. 2:37).

In the same Hebrew fashion, when Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as "the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords" the message conveyed is that God has also given him the Kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory of the Age to Come. Equality of being with the God who gives the Kingdom does not come into the equation, for either Nebuchadnezzar or Jesus. If, as already noted, to share the same nomenclature as God does not prove literal identity with God himself, the same holds true for the sharing of the same titles. Whilst Jesus may share the title "king of kings and Lord of Lords" with God his Father, there is one title reserved uniquely for the Father God. No other individual, including the Lord Jesus, is ever called by the title "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17). This title, as well as "the Lord God" (Rev. 1:8), is always reserved for the one true God, who is the Father.

You can pull up your theological pants now.... You spanking is complete! You talk about lies... Little Divider! It is well known it is easier to believe a lie your heard 1000 times, vs the TRUTH you hear only once! Here's you once truth little divider!

Again, taken from a deleted Trinity Talk thread, which converted sooo many minds like yours! You open to the truth, or just defending what your told to believe?

Silly Child,

🧐📖
Paul
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: NWL

Pierac

New member
Pierac

I will not read your canned text. If you like to have a discussion, let us know.

Define canned text? I wrote this text myself silly child years ago and it's part of our discussion! You won't read it because you are committed to what your told to believe! Fear rules your heart, not truth!

My post don't tell you what to believe, they only show you the truth. The fact you will not read it shows your just a follower... You have no one to go to and ask for help on how to defend what your told to believe. Little Divider,
I wish you were here 12 years ago.... when Real Men and Women actually defended their views... in heated passion... instead of saying.... I'm not reading your post!

So disappointed with the lack of biblical knowledge here today.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Define canned text? I wrote this text myself silly child years ago and it's part of our discussion! You won't read it because you are committed to what your told to believe! Fear rules your heart, not truth!
Cut and paste is the definition of canned text.

I have no fear... I know that the scripture teaches the deity of Christ.
 

NWL

Active member
Now he has me to bend him over my knee and give him a Theological Spanking... Like I did others in the past!

Yep, in the past I recieved so many personal messages about how Trinity Talk opened their eyes... Then was deleted after several years of post. My Agency post from above is from that thread!


However, TOL seems very weak and pathetic today compared to the challenges from the past! What happened to this site? I'm almost embarrassed to be here. No substance, just emotion.... what happened to Knight who ran this place? Think I will spank these kids and leave... as they have no belief from beyond what they are told to believe. They seek nothing, but to be told what to follow! Just look at any response...In the past I would not be able to respond to all the comments... Now nothing! As the few who are here just don't give a crap one way or the other. Weak children from strong Fathers of the past! Yet you stayed! That speaks volumes...

I have been thinking the same thing as of late, TOL is not what it use to be. I think Trinitarians deep down know they're losing the fight and many have stopped even trying to defend their false doctrine, hopefully, many have abandoned the doctrine altogether. Even here on TOL the Trinitarians that are left either shy away from intelligent discussion and simply make emotional assertions about their faith. They hold onto their false doctrine the same way a sports fan has unwavering loyalty to their chosen sports team despite them never winning and always losing.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I have been thinking the same thing as of late, TOL is not what it use to be. I think Trinitarians deep down know they're losing the fight and many have stopped even trying to defend their false doctrine, hopefully, many have abandoned the doctrine altogether. Even here on TOL the Trinitarians that are left either shy away from intelligent discussion and simply make emotional assertions about their faith. They hold onto their false doctrine the same way a sports fan has unwavering loyalty to their chosen sports team despite them never winning and always losing.

At the beginning, I thought at least I'd found 1 (one) unitarian/arian that wanted to think and be challenged with clear thinking and clear scriptures. This? As with Pierac, naught but emoting and penny-ante academics. I'll take ANY honest, clear thinking Arian/Unitarian any day. When they quit, default to ridiculous or in Pierac's case, carnality? :sigh:

Unitarians/Arians generally are their own worst enemies and given to inane posturing without any inclination for reasonable or intelligent facts. I've tried: Posturing and immature 'nuh uh's.'

What this tells me:

There simply is a desire, despite ANY contention, to be contentious and prideful in Arians/Unitarians clearly WITHOUT the where-with-all to simply go the distance in conversation. It ALWAYS ends in posturing and fingers stuck in ears. Well, except in two cases but those two dear fellows are trinitarians today. Why? SIMPLY because they aren't/weren't arrogant and ignorant: They CHOSE to listen to clear scripture teaching.

In a nutshell, both of your problems are specifically "Your" problems with a lot of projecting and lack of ownership. I'd welcome either of you to actually sit, be quiet, and learn something. Problem? Neither of you CAN or will humble yourself under the hand of God and His scriptures. You are both stubborn, arrogant, and willful. End of discussion... until such a time as either of you become humble before the hand of God and are ready to listen to what He actually does say.


(save it, I really don't want to hear it, it IS afterall, simply willful arrogance and ignorance, neither of you, in the knee-jerk desire to respond humbled yourself, I don't want to hear cry baby emoting...think before you respond. Pray before you ever hit that respond button else I don't want to hear it, and I'll be able to tell).
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Really? You are the nice guy that never shakes the tree or rocks the boat arguing with a Trinitarian on his/her board? And trinitarians don't return the favor and spam up the JW board (thus only defending against stone throwing here? You really think that's me casting the first one?

Er, I mean both the first stone and the second stone?

Do you realize whose property your rock throwing is on? Whose windows?


:think: Are you sure?
Yep
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
I have been thinking the same thing as of late, TOL is not what it use to be. I think Trinitarians deep down know they're losing the fight . . . . . .

That is just beyond ridiculous.

Here is the truth that you are blind to and in denial about:

God is Trinity. The three branches of Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, are all in total agreement in doctrine that God is Trinity.

Denial of the Trinity and denial of the Divinity of Christ places one outside the boundaries of Christianity, just like the JW's or the Mormons are.

Losing the fight? LOL. There is no "fight". To be Christian is to believe that God is Trinity. To NOT believe that God is Trinity is to NOT be Christian. There is no fight and there is no argument. THAT is the truth of our existence.

Christianity has the right to define its own believes, and the belief that God is Trinity is at the core of Christendom.

Now, go be a good little JW or Mormon or whatever you are, and leave Christian beliefs to real Christians.
 

NWL

Active member
That is just beyond ridiculous.

Here is the truth that you are blind to and in denial about:

God is Trinity. The three branches of Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, are all in total agreement in doctrine that God is Trinity.

Denial of the Trinity and denial of the Divinity of Christ places one outside the boundaries of Christianity, just like the JW's or the Mormons are.

Losing the fight? LOL. There is no "fight". To be Christian is to believe that God is Trinity. To NOT believe that God is Trinity is to NOT be Christian. There is no fight and there is no argument. THAT is the truth of our existence.

Christianity has the right to define its own believes, and the belief that God is Trinity is at the core of Christendom.

Now, go be a good little JW or Mormon or whatever you are, and leave Christian beliefs to real Christians.

Your post shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. The bible is our authority, therefore if we make a claim about what is taught in it we must be able to back up what we claim it teaches and expresses. You say "To be Christian is to believe that God is Trinity. To NOT believe that God is Trinity is to NOT be Christian", where in the bible do we find such an idea? No such idea is ever found or expressed.

The word christian literally means 'to be a follower of Christ', nowhere do we find the bible expressing that to be a christian means to believe in the trinity doctrine, this is simply what ignorant christians claim and its completely baseless. Whatsmore, it is widely accepted and understood that none of the apostles believed in the trinity or taught it, rather it was partly and then fully established in 325 and 381 respectively, this is well documented and by the scholarly community. If the trinity doctrine was only realized three hundred (300) years after the first century christian, then how on earth can you claim you must accept the trinity doctrine to be christian if no one in the first century and shortly afterward believed or knew about the trinity doctrine! The idea is ludicrous and anyone trying to push such an idea shows their ignorance to both historical and biblical facts.

I've spoken to numerous trinitarians and they always run from unitarian reasoning, this is a fact that you can see for yourself by reading my previous discussions with people on this very forum.

the belief that God is Trinity is at the core of Christendom.
How can one claim the trinity doctrine is the core of christendom and yet it is nowhere explicitly taught in the bible. Again, the trintiy doctrine is a man made doctrine and is nowhere expressed in the bible. If you think I'm wrong show me a single place in the bible that teaches the trinity, you won't be able to because it never does, so good luck.
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
Your post shows that you have no clue what you're talking about

OMG. The stupidity of that statement is so far off the charts that it is frightening.

I repeat: The three branches of Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, are all in total agreement in doctrine that God is Trinity.

Denial of the Trinity and denial of the Divinity of Christ places one outside the boundaries of Christianity, just like the JW's or the Mormons are.

I can safely say that you are not a Christian.
 

NWL

Active member
OMG. The stupidity of that statement is so far off the charts that it is frightening.

I repeat: The three branches of Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, are all in total agreement in doctrine that God is Trinity.

Denial of the Trinity and denial of the Divinity of Christ places one outside the boundaries of Christianity, just like the JW's or the Mormons are.

I can safely say that you are not a Christian.

You clearly did not read and comprehend what I wrote. Again, to be a christian mean to be a follower of christ, you do not need to belong to any church to be a follower of christ. However, you say "The three branches of Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant", this is completely false and shows your ignorance, as there is only once branch of christianity and its the one outlined in the bible, there are however many different sects of christianity that profess to be Jesus Church, this is what you should have said but didn't.

Denial of the Trinity and denial of the Divinity of Christ places one outside the boundaries of Christianity, just like the JW's or the Mormons are.
Once again, where are you getting this idea from, can you show me from the bible that when one denies the trinity they are not christian?

Since the bible doesn't even once mention, describe or teach the trinity it extremely foolish to try and claim that not believing in it means you're not a christian, especially when the first century christian did not believe in the trinity and were still called christian.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The formula [one God in three Persons] itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development … The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. - (vol. XIV, pg.295 & 299) (1967)

Notice the above, a Catholic authority stating the trinity was not fully taught and believed until 300 years after christ. Trump girl, were the christians in the first century who never knew about or were taught about the trinity christians?
 

keypurr

Well-known member
OMG. The stupidity of that statement is so far off the charts that it is frightening.

I repeat: The three branches of Christianity today, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, are all in total agreement in doctrine that God is Trinity.

Denial of the Trinity and denial of the Divinity of Christ places one outside the boundaries of Christianity, just like the JW's or the Mormons are.

I can safely say that you are not a Christian.
You show your ignorance in many ways. Then you wear a hat to advertise it.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Is God the only Savior?

I imagine by now you may be arguing with me and saying something like this: Well, if Jesus is not God in human flesh what you say to the Scriptures that say only God can save? After all, God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides me" (Isaiah 40 3:11). If Jesus is not God and there are two saviors! And this is something the Bible here clearly excludes.

We have already seen a strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not one single Old Testament prophecy that supports it. Not one verse foretells that God himself was going to become a man in order to save us. The opposite is the case. The prophets predicted a human being who would under God's anointing Spirit rescue us.

Wherein lies the solution? Ah, let's now read this through our Hebrew eyes and see what a difference it makes. Remember that dictum the Jews had about the law of agency where "the agent is as the principal himself"? It applies right here.

Let's go back to Exodus 23. You remember that we used this chapter earlier to illustrate the Hebrew law of agency. We saw that the angel of the Lord acted in God's stead. What the angel did in said was really what God himself did and said, for "My name is in him" (v. 21). In verse 23 Jehovah explained, "For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivities and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them." The angel was the instrument through whom God destroyed the enemies.

Now let's proceed on in the chapter. God says to the Israelites, "I will send my terror ahead of you… I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivities, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you" (v. 27-28).

To our understanding this sounds as if the LORD himself is going to do the work. But when we come to verse 31: "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you." So God expects the Israelites to drive their enemies out. Is there a contradiction here? Will God Himself drive out their enemies or will the Israelites do it? We note the principle again and again. Got says He will act when in fact He is going to empower his angels and his people to do the work.

This kind of talk has a thorough Hebrew feel about it. Actions that are directly ascribed to God are in fact carried out by his commissioned agents. Take another instance: "in the LORD… he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" (2 Kings 14:27).
Once again we observe the clear distinction between God who is the ultimate Author of deliverance and his appointed agent who in this case was King Jeroboam. Or take this verse: "therefore you did deliver them into the hands of the oppressors who oppressed them. But when they cry to You in the time of their distress, You did hear from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You did give them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their it oppressors" (Nehemiah 9:27).

Graeser, the author of One God and One Lord, p.363. Writes:

God, Christ and others are referred to as "saviors," but that clearly does not make them identical. The term "Savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the terms seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scriptures can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.

Is often been argued that the very name Jesus, which means "Yahweh saves," prove Jesus is Jehovah because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). But the logic is not consistently applied because the O.T. name Joshua means "Yahweh saves." I have never yet heard someone who believes in the deity of Christ argue that Joshua was God in the flesh. We know that the O.T. Joshua was God appointed man to deliver Israel. As Joshua and Israel went forth in obedience to his word God save them. Just so, in the matter of our salvation, God sent forth his son into battle. Through Jesus God has saved us. This is why both God and Jesus are called Savior. But the Bible never loses sight of the fact that God the Father is the ultimate Author of our salvation through (dia) his son.

This same line of reasoning applies to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2. This is one of the most commonly appealed to Scriptures that allegedly proves that Jesus must be God, because "only God can forgive sins" (v.7). When Jesus pronounced the man forgiven/healed, the Pharisees say that Jesus is "blaspheming" because he is claiming to be God. But a little careful attention to detail will show that Jesus is not claiming deity. He is rather claiming "authority." He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" (v.10). The parallel account in Matthew's report is that once the people saw Jesus healed a paralytic, "they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men" ( Matt 9:8). We note that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son of Man," that is, the human Messiah, with a God given right to pronounce forgiveness. Not too much later Jesus invested other men-his apostles-with the same authority to forgive sins: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; he to retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). If only God can forgive sins, then God and Jesus and the apostles are all God! Besides, there is no teaching anywhere in the Bible that says only God can forgive. Even Christians are commanded to forgive each other sin (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). The fact that the Pharisees say that only God can forgive sins does not make this an established Biblical doctrine. The Pharisees often had wrong doctrine and were often corrected by our Lord Jesus. This was one such occasion.

Those who believe that Jesus can only be our Savior if he is God sometimes appeal to the prophecy from Jeremiah 23: (In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is his name by which he will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness’" (Jer. 23:6).
Does this not say that the coming Savior will be "The LORD our righteousness," that is, God himself? This is easily answered when we note that a few chapters later we have this prophecy in Jeremiah 33: "in those days Judah shall be saved in Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the LORD is our righteousness’ (v.16).


Here the city of Jerusalem is given the very same title as the coming redeemer earlier. I have never yet heard anyone argue that the city of Jerusalem must also be God himself because it bears the same title as Jehovah. Hebrew understanding is needed to avoid the confusion.
This is why it is fallacious to reason that because Jesus is called the "King of Kings and the Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16) he must necessarily be Almighty God Himself. The fact that Artaxerxes is called "king of kings" and that God himself calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" does not put these men in the same league as Messiah Jesus, nor mean they have the same nature as him. The designation "king of kings" is obviously a very Hebrew way of speaking that has nothing to do with the equivalency of nature. The Hebrews could also speak of a "servant of servants," which simply means to the lowest of the low (Gen 9:25). In the book of Daniel God addresses Nebuchadnezzar: "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory" (Dan. 2:37).

In the same Hebrew fashion, when Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as "the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords" the message conveyed is that God has also given him the Kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory of the Age to Come. Equality of being with the God who gives the Kingdom does not come into the equation, for either Nebuchadnezzar or Jesus. If, as already noted, to share the same nomenclature as God does not prove literal identity with God himself, the same holds true for the sharing of the same titles. Whilst Jesus may share the title "king of kings and Lord of Lords" with God his Father, there is one title reserved uniquely for the Father God. No other individual, including the Lord Jesus, is ever called by the title "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17). This title, as well as "the Lord God" (Rev. 1:8), is always reserved for the one true God, who is the Father.


You can pull up your theological pants now.... You spanking is complete! You talk about lies... Little Divider! It is well known it is easier to believe a lie your heard 1000 times, vs the TRUTH you hear only once! Here's you once truth little divider!

Again, taken from a deleted Trinity Talk thread, which converted sooo many minds like yours! You open to the truth, or just defending what your told to believe?

Silly Child,

🧐📖
Paul
Amen Paul
 

NWL

Active member
And you are a liar. I speak the truth handed down for 2,000 years. You blab about your fake false interpretations of scriptures. You don't have a clue.
You said, "I speak the truth handed down for 2,000 years", thats exactly what the Jews in Jesus day would have said to Jesus when they tried to defend their man made traditions; how you can't see the similarities I dont know.

The difference between you and myself and keypurr is we claim you don't have a clue and can show you why according to the scriptures, whereas you claim we don't have a clue but cannot show it; assertions prove nothing. The truth is clear, if you had it you would be able to show it but you can't, the truth always prevails.
 
Last edited:

keypurr

Well-known member
Cut and paste is the definition of canned text.
9
And you are a liar. I speak the truth handed down for 2,000 years. You blab about your fake false interpretations of scriptures. You don't have a clue.
Why
You girl have no idea what truth is. Thats why your a Trump girl.

I have no fear... I know that the scripture teaches the deity

And you are a liar. I speak the truth handed down for 2,000 years. You blab about your fake false interpretations of scriptures. You don't have a clue.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Why not use your vast knowledge and show us in scripture where it says God the son, or Jesus is not a creature. That would get us to restudy your faith. Prove to us your as smart you say. YOU see, I am still learning and my mind is open for any ideas that make sense. So far, yours don't.
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
You said, "I speak the truth handed down for 2,000 years", thats exactly what the Jews in Jesus day . . . . . . .

That sort of comparison is very shallow. It sounds like the sort of nonsense that Liberals would say about Trump. "Those people said so-and-so so you must be just like them because you said what they said." That is childish.

Whatever the Jews said back then is their business. What I am saying is that GOD is Trinity and Christianity has declared it to be unchallenged doctrine. That is the end of the subject. And even though centuries down the road Christianity split into three different camps, all of Christianity is still united that God is Trinity. The arrogance of somebody like you stumbling up and telling over 2 Billion people that they are wrong is beyond insulting.

You do not know God because you do not know who and what God is. That means that you do not know Jesus. You worship a false Christ and a false God, which makes you an idolater.

They same goes for @keypurr and his creepy "I sniff hair like Joe" avatar.
 

NWL

Active member
That sort of comparison is very shallow. It sounds like the sort of nonsense that Liberals would say about Trump. "Those people said so-and-so so you must be just like them because you said what they said." That is childish.

Is not shallow, its fact; the Jews followed tradition that was passed down, the man made doctrine of trinity was no different, Jesus said to the Jews, “You made the word of God invalid by your tradition which you handed down” (Mark 7:13). You believe in the trinity which is a doctrine invented by man which has been handed down to you by tradition. Just because you disagree with what I said does not make it shallow. You need to stop asserting things and start putting some proof behind your claims.

Whatever the Jews said back then is their business. What I am saying is that GOD is Trinity and Christianity has declared it to be unchallenged doctrine. That is the end of the subject. And even though centuries down the road Christianity split into three different camps, all of Christianity is still united that God is Trinity. The arrogance of somebody like you stumbling up and telling over 2 Billion people that they are wrong is beyond insulting.

The arrogance of me? I’m the one saying lets discuss things, you’re the one whose repeatedly stated I’m wrong without showing a shred of evidence other than your own assertions, and you call me arrogant? The irony.

Again, you’re using a logical fallacy that because lots of people believe in something it makes it true. When most of the world believed the world was flat and sat on the back of a turtle it did not make that belief fact. Just because there are billions of people who believe in a false belief does not make it correct any more than one billions plus Muslims believing in Mohammed makes Mohammed and his teachings correct; it is an extremely poor argument.
You do not know God because you do not know who and what God is. That means that you do not know Jesus. You worship a false Christ and a false God, which makes you an idolater.
You’re saying this but as I’ve said twice now you only a few posts ago denied the fact that Jesus has a God and Father despite him saying he did himself. How can you claim I do not know God when you do not know basic biblical truths? Again, stop claiming things you are unwilling to prove. Imagine I came on this forum and claim the trinity was false but was both unwilling and unable to express why, I would look stupid.
 
Top