All Claims of The Son's Deity

He who denies the Son is God denies the Father. Since Jesus is God, you share he is not the Messiah. Basic logic.
I think you read it wrong . . . . Doesn't say we are go believe the Son is God.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the anti christ, he who denies the Fatger and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. [1 John 2:22,23]

but whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven. [Matt. 10:33]
You will hold to bad exegesis no matter what.
Just takes a little reading comprehension.
Son of his Father and having the same qualities of divinity as his Father. Cannot avoid recognizing that. Unitarians always return to confessing the divinity of Christ.
It was the Father working in him. . . .
 
I think you read it wrong . . . . Doesn't say we are go believe the Son is God.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the anti christ, he who denies the Fatger and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. [1 John 2:22,23]

but whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven. [Matt. 10:33]
It would not make sense to call him Son of God and deny he is the God's Son. That is like someone says Mike the son of John does not mean that Mike is John's son. The phrases have no meaning outside of the precise relationship and essence of Jesus.
Just takes a little reading comprehension.
So your idea is that bad exegesis is merely reading comprehension. I did not anticipate you sharing this.
It was the Father working in him. . . .
Maybe you have a verse for that. Elsewhere Jesus says "the Father is working and so am I" (Joh 5:17). Which counters your view. Maybe I'm just missing a verse here though.
 
What infamy you draw upon yourself if you are improperly associating the Triune God with false gods. In reality there is nothing suggesting that Jesus saw himself as Horus or that any Christians sought out Egyptian mythology as their way of understanding Christ. This puts Peterlag in a very precarious situation.
Trinity gods are entirely pagan in origin, not the same God of Scripture, which the Bible teaches is just a single person. This is well documented as well. Now you kinda have an idea of where the trinity came from. It was created to make it easier to bring in pagan converts in Rome.
 
They were not deny the Triune God anywhere that I have seen

Indeed it is hard to get away from the pre-existence of the one who became seen as Jesus. Even the unitarian shows the pre-existence.

Accept binitarianism rather than rejecting the divinity of Christ. That will get you closer to reality.

Just because they had not sorted out the essence of God fully does not have any relevance for the unitarian heresy. Again you recognize and quote the divinity of Jesus with the mention of binitarian belief. You finally are sharing importance doctrine about the Godhead, even if just baby steps.
Why do you seem to accept binitarianism but reject the Father with His exclusive deity?

And I was pointing out that trinitarianism didn't exist. Jesus doesn't have any deity according to the Bible. Jesus is God's begotten son who was made Lord and Christ, entirely created, and entirely human.
 
You will just have to pay more attention to the testimony of scripture. At least it is obvious about the divinity of Jesus.
The Bible explicitly states God is Unitarian.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
 
Trinity gods are entirely pagan in origin, not the same God of Scripture, which the Bible teaches is just a single person. This is well documented as well. Now you kinda have an idea of where the trinity came from. It was created to make it easier to bring in pagan converts in Rome.
So you are calling God a pagan God. That matches the early post of someone associating the NT writers with blasphemy or idolatry for pointing out Jesus' divinity.
 
Why do you seem to accept binitarianism but reject the Father with His exclusive deity?

And I was pointing out that trinitarianism didn't exist. Jesus doesn't have any deity according to the Bible. Jesus is God's begotten son who was made Lord and Christ, entirely created, and entirely human.
I follow scripture. You also promoted binitarianism -- which is a step of insight you have not shown before. Now you have regressed back into total heresy
 
The Bible explicitly states God is Unitarian.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
uh. Jesus cannot be the one through whom all things came unless he existed before creation. duh.
 
I follow scripture. You also promoted binitarianism -- which is a step of insight you have not shown before. Now you have regressed back into total heresy
You don't follow Scripture. There is absolutely nothing to support your views about God being a trinity in the entire Bible.
 
I follow scripture. You also promoted binitarianism -- which is a step of insight you have not shown before. Now you have regressed back into total heresy
No, I completely reject a binity as a false god as well. I am only pointing out the none of the earliest heretics were trinitarian, but binitarian. I don't agree with them. I wouldn't be caught dead with that idol.
 
Makes sense that you twist a simple message into a heretical message.
Scripture rules out a trinity.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom