All Claims of The Son's Deity

[mikesw]

Burden of proof is squarely on the one who makes the claim - that means you. Get to work then.

The burden of proof is upon the one who denies the Triune God. You are the one trying to push a novel gnostic theory upon the world. I guess you do not even qualify within a gnostic system for anything special.

There are plenty of NT passages that Jesus shows he pre-existed. I added more details of how that appears probable in the OT. We also learn that Jews saw Two Powers in Heaven, which would then support at least a binitarian view as something within Judaism even as Christ Jesus came into focus.

The question in reality is about the reason you even try to post your unitarian beliefs here. You ask nonsensical challenges. You cannot argue sufficiently for your belief system but you still boast in your own undemonstrated prowess in interpreting scripture.

 

[amazing grace]

You are trying to escape from your responsibility to prove that the Jesus did not have pre-existence in the bosom of the Father. Just because you deny all passages like the Angel of the Lord and the Word that came to the prophets, that does not providing anything convincing to your denials of who Jesus is.

Jesus had preexistence 'in the bosom of the Father'? What does that phrase exactly mean to you? You used it previously in a post in relation to Hebrews 7:10 . . . For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

 

[Runningman]

The burden of proof is upon the one who denies the Triune God. You are the one trying to push a novel gnostic theory upon the world. I guess you do not even qualify within a gnostic system for anything special.

There are plenty of NT passages that Jesus shows he pre-existed. I added more details of how that appears probable in the OT. We also learn that Jews saw Two Powers in Heaven, which would then support at least a binitarian view as something within Judaism even as Christ Jesus came into focus.

The question in reality is about the reason you even try to post your unitarian beliefs here. You ask nonsensical challenges. You cannot argue sufficiently for your belief system but you still boast in your own undemonstrated prowess in interpreting scripture.

You are the one accusing our God of being triune, it's up to you to prove your allegations because allegations require evidence, not assumptions. As far as God being one person, one being, I have already did that. The Bible says the one and only true God is the Father. Explicit, clear, defining statements about God trump your triune god theories because direct statements about God take precedence over theories and later-developed philosophical constructs. As I have done for the Father, you need to prove that God is a trinity clearly and succinctly. For example, if Jesus pre-existed as you claim then your job is to show the verses where Jesus is saying or doing anything. This is exactly how debates work.

I opened a different thread about how trinitarianism is circular in reason, as are most arguments trinitarians make. You provide your organizations interpretation of the Bible, but you can't provide where the Bible demonstrates anyone agrees with you. This is how you lose a debate. You actually can't prove your position using Scripture. I might add, evidence and proof aren't the same things. Don't confuse words and definitions. Just throw in the towel and confess you don't really know like most others have.

 

[Runningman]

You are trying to escape from your responsibility to prove that the Jesus did not have pre-existence in the bosom of the Father. Just because you deny all passages like the Angel of the Lord and the Word that came to the prophets, that does not providing anything convincing to your denials of who Jesus is.

I never made the claim the Jesus pre-existed so there is no burden of proof on me to prove any such thing. I can't find where he did pre-exist either in the New Testament or Old Testament. My work is done, but you still have quite a mountain to climb,

 

[Runningman]

Your pretend house of scripture is only your weakly created house of cards. If you cannot make a strong argument to deny the Triune God then you have failed to think your view through sufficiently.

Your argument is akin to asking me to prove tooth fairy doesn't exist, i.e., "the Bible doesn't deny the tooth fairy, therefore you can't prove it doesn't exist." You are using an argument from silence and you have not even established your talking points in the first place. I will give you another chance to prove where you have a trinity God in the Bible. If you can't find any verses then just admit it. Better to work with what's true instead of pressing your theories and expecting people to agree with something you have no proof for.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus had preexistence 'in the bosom of the Father'? What does that phrase exactly mean to you? You used it previously in a post in relation to Hebrews 7:10 . . . For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

In the bosom of the Father obviously conveys the sense of being in the direct presence of the Father in a caring connection. To describe it any further goes into a metaphysical conception that would be too speculative for me.

It of course seems irresponsible and an error to introduce a totally unrelated verse like Hebrews 7:10, but such an errant association of texts is a common among unitarians. Heb 7:10 does not reflect presence of Levi with Melchizedek.

 

[mikesw]

You are the one accusing our God of being triune, it's up to you to prove your allegations because allegations require evidence, not assumptions. As far as God being one person, one being, I have already did that. The Bible says the one and only true God is the Father. Explicit, clear, defining statements about God trump your triune god theories because direct statements about God take precedence over theories and later-developed philosophical constructs. As I have done for the Father, you need to prove that God is a trinity clearly and succinctly. For example, if Jesus pre-existed as you claim then your job is to show the verses where Jesus is saying or doing anything. This is exactly how debates work.

I opened a different thread about how trinitarianism is circular in reason, as are most arguments trinitarians make. You provide your organizations interpretation of the Bible, but you can't provide where the Bible demonstrates anyone agrees with you. This is how you lose a debate. You actually can't prove your position using Scripture. I might add, evidence and proof aren't the same things. Don't confuse words and definitions. Just throw in the towel and confess you don't really know like most others have.

All reasoning is circular. The fact that Christians perceive God in a triune sense derives from the evidence of scripture of that essence of God. That scripture informs Christians and this completes the circular nature.

The unitarian denies the existence of God in triune form. they approach scripture from a hyperliteralist viewpoint and rely on handful of verses that they say determines everything else how they read scripture (or avoid critical passages). The unitarians misunderstand even the triune essence by suggesting it would mean there are multiple gods. If they cannot understand the Trinity itself, they cannot argue reasonably against the testimony of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

I never made the claim the Jesus pre-existed so there is no burden of proof on me to prove any such thing. I can't find where he did pre-exist either in the New Testament or Old Testament. My work is done, but you still have quite a mountain to climb,

Indeed you fail to confess with direct scriptures of his pre-existence and your reject the OT passages that point to it.

 

[mikesw]

Your argument is akin to asking me to prove tooth fairy doesn't exist, i.e., "the Bible doesn't deny the tooth fairy, therefore you can't prove it doesn't exist." You are using an argument from silence and you have not even established your talking points in the first place. I will give you another chance to prove where you have a trinity God in the Bible. If you can't find any verses then just admit it. Better to work with what's true instead of pressing your theories and expecting people to agree with something you have no proof for.

So you equate God with the tooth fairy. Your end is deserved. It truly seems that your gnostic insights are driving you away from Christ. Hopefully that is not the reality. You offer a novel view of God and Christ with the expectation that you have found a fundamental truth and while claiming that this means that all Christians before your claim have misunderstood God. If that unitarian belief is so critical, you should try to form a sufficient argument for your beliefs. You also are trying to revitalize a concept that is well-recognized as heretical. What's worse is that you should know what the details are that show God as triune yet you fail to provide sufficient rebuttals to that evidence. What are you even doing here if you can only provide failed arguments for your belief system? Nor are you seeking to learn from anyone.

 

[Runningman]

In the bosom of the Father obviously conveys the sense of being in the direct presence of the Father in a caring connection. To describe it any further goes into a metaphysical conception that would be too speculative for me.

It of course seems irresponsible and an error to introduce a totally unrelated verse like Hebrews 7:10, but such an errant association of texts is a common among unitarians. Heb 7:10 does not reflect presence of Levi with Melchizedek.

It doesn't say he was in the Father's presence. It literally reads that the Son was in the Father's chest. John is referring to the heart of the Father, not the literal chest or heart of course, but in God's thoughts, feelings, foreknowledge, etc.

 

[Runningman]

All reasoning is circular. The fact that Christians perceive God in a triune sense derives from the evidence of scripture of that essence of God. That scripture informs Christians and this completes the circular nature.

The unitarian denies the existence of God in triune form. they approach scripture from a hyperliteralist viewpoint and rely on handful of verses that they say determines everything else how they read scripture (or avoid critical passages). The unitarians misunderstand even the triune essence by suggesting it would mean there are multiple gods. If they cannot understand the Trinity itself, they cannot argue reasonably against the testimony of scripture.

The result is you have still failed to even broach the subject of the trinity using the Bible. You can't. Instead of blaming everyone around you, look inward, maybe you are the problem since you are the odd one out in this thread. Everyone else can prove their beliefs using the Bible, but you can't.

 

[Runningman]

Indeed you fail to confess with direct scriptures of his pre-existence and your reject the OT passages that point to it.

Then stop making baseless claims about God, Jesus, or otherwise if you don't have the mettle to support your accusations against them. Simple as that. Think about what you write carefully and clearly if you want to actually have a discussion about what you believe.

 

[mikesw]

It doesn't say he was in the Father's presence. It literally reads that the Son was in the Father's chest. John is referring to the heart of the Father, not the literal chest or heart of course, but in God's thoughts, feelings, foreknowledge, etc.

Of course this shows the closeness of their relationship. It is not as if the Father is rejecting Jesus in the incarnation.

 

[Runningman]

So you equate God with the tooth fairy. Your end is deserved. It truly seems that your gnostic insights are driving you away from Christ. Hopefully that is not the reality. You offer a novel view of God and Christ with the expectation that you have found a fundamental truth and while claiming that this means that all Christians before your claim have misunderstood God. If that unitarian belief is so critical, you should try to form a sufficient argument for your beliefs. You also are trying to revitalize a concept that is well-recognized as heretical. What's worse is that you should know what the details are that show God as triune yet you fail to provide sufficient rebuttals to that evidence. What are you even doing here if you can only provide failed arguments for your belief system? Nor are you seeking to learn from anyone.

The Father is not the tooth fairy, but the trinity is like the tooth fairy, yes. God isn't a trinity because God is the Father. Maybe that's what happened with you. Did everyone tell you there's a trinity and a tooth fairy when you were a kid?

 

[mikesw]

The result is you have still failed to even broach the subject of the trinity using the Bible. You can't. Instead of blaming everyone around you, look inward, maybe you are the problem since you are the odd one out in this thread. Everyone else can prove their beliefs using the Bible, but you can't.

I have shared details of the Triune God. Others have too. You skip over those so you can enjoy a heretical belief. And now you have stated that all Trinitarians can prove their beliefs using the Bible.

 

[Peterlag]

Duh. The humanity is not the aspect in dispute. The aspect the Schoenheits reject is the testimony of scripture of Jesus as God of the Trinity coming incarnate. How do we do an argument if unitarians just disregard the scriptures that testify against the unitarian belief system?

John W. Schoenheit did not write this...

The Trinitarians have a "Get Out Of Jail" card that they use whenever they need it. It allows them to get free whenever they are in a jam. It's the card that says "Oh that was Jesus in his human part." So nothing even your chart cannot help them.

I am not with Schoenheit's group nor was I ever with his group. So I have no idea why you write about him. Did you forget who I am and think you are writing to someone else?

 

[amazing grace]

In the bosom of the Father obviously conveys the sense of being in the direct presence of the Father in a caring connection. To describe it any further goes into a metaphysical conception that would be too speculative for me.

It of course seems irresponsible and an error to introduce a totally unrelated verse like Hebrews 7:10, but such an errant association of texts is a common among unitarians. Heb 7:10 does not reflect presence of Levi with Melchizedek.

Thanks for responding and answering my question regarding 'in the bosom of the Father' . . . . in the bosom of the Father is descriptive of a close, caring familial relationship, i.e. between a Father and a son ------ doesn't refer to in the presence of the Father/God.

Sorry -- it was another poster who used the two verses and no the poster wasn't a Unitarian. Thanks anyway.

 

[mikesw]

John W. Schoenheit did not write this...

The Trinitarians have a "Get Out Of Jail" card that they use whenever they need it. It allows them to get free whenever they are in a jam. It's the card that says "Oh that was Jesus in his human part." So nothing even your chart cannot help them.

I am not with Schoenheit's group nor was I ever with his group. So I have no idea why you write about him. Did you forget who I am and think you are writing to someone else?

You are guilty by association of ideas. You went to classes with him so you both learned how to misinterpret the scriptures.

 

[mikesw]

Thanks for responding and answering my question regarding 'in the bosom of the Father' . . . . in the bosom of the Father is descriptive of a close, caring familial relationship, i.e. between a Father and a son ------ doesn't refer to in the presence of the Father/God.

Sorry -- it was another poster who used the two verses and no the poster wasn't a Unitarian. Thanks anyway.

Then nothing in scripture convinces you who Jesus is.

 

[Keiw1]

Great. That reaffirms the points you so desire to disregard. You get deceived by scriptures in the way you study.

It is not the passages that you love that make an argument. It is the passages that you reject that crush your viewpoint.

Like trinitarians rejection of a simple bible truth they live by? = John 3:16--God( the only God) sent his son)))= another being was sent= The one sent is NOT God. God did not come down here, he sent another. The Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD( John 17:3) oh but it takes believing Jesus, no trinitarian on Earth will.