All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Runningman]

haha. You must mean you have a unitarian edited version of scriptures that omits the testimony of Jesus and the OT. All you need to shift people is start to share sufficient arguments against the Triune God. You have had over 18months to make a decent argument.

Scripture doesn't have any info about God being a trinity. God is a strictly monotheistic one person being as Scripture states from cover to cover. Yes, God is Unitarian as the Scriptures testify repeatedly.

 

[Runningman]

Oh. So you think everyone against the unitarian history has been living for 2000 years. Pretty crazy.

???

 

[mikesw]

???

Duh. I had said "Oh. So you think everyone against the unitarian history has been living for 2000 years. Pretty crazy." That was in recognition that you shared Matt 5:7-9 about the problem of the Jews distorting the meaning of scripture with a quote of Isaiah noting that would happen.
So you misapply a text that applies 2000 years ago to Jews as if they are the ones posting about Jesus nowadays.

You really are trying to find prooftexts in support of heretical unitarian beliefs.

 

[Runningman]

Duh. I had said "Oh. So you think everyone against the unitarian history has been living for 2000 years. Pretty crazy." That was in recognition that you shared Matt 5:7-9 about the problem of the Jews distorting the meaning of scripture with a quote of Isaiah noting that would happen.
So you misapply a text that applies 2000 years ago to Jews as if they are the ones posting about Jesus nowadays.

You really are trying to find prooftexts in support of heretical unitarian beliefs.

You think the Bible doesn't apply to what you're doing in the present day because it's very old?

 

[mikesw]

Scripture doesn't have any info about God being a trinity. God is a strictly monotheistic one person being as Scripture states from cover to cover. Yes, God is Unitarian as the Scriptures testify repeatedly.

Again you show ignorance of scripture and doctrine. No Trinitarian denies that God is One. That is why we realize scripturally that Jesus is of the same God rather than a different god.

 

[mikesw]

You think the Bible doesn't apply to what you're doing in the present day because it's very old?

I'm just noting the common Schoenheit misrepresentation of scripture to argue against the true Triune God.

 

[Runningman]

I'm just noting the common Schoenheit misrepresentation of scripture to argue against the true Triune God.

Why would Jesus condemn their traditions and not yours? You also cited non-Scriptural tradition as your source of authority in comment #2294, just like those who Jesus condemned were doing.

"The early church includes baptisms not recorded in scriptures and those into the second century that recommended Matt 28:19-20"

 

[Runningman]

Again you show ignorance of scripture and doctrine. No Trinitarian denies that God is One. That is why we realize scripturally that Jesus is of the same God rather than a different god.

Wow. Quit your yappin' and show us where the trinity is in the Bible for the 100th time.

 

[mikesw]

Why would Jesus condemn their traditions and not yours? You also cited non-Scriptural tradition as your source of authority in comment #2294, just like those who Jesus condemned were doing.

"The early church includes baptisms not recorded in scriptures and those into the second century that recommended Matt 28:19-20"

You would want Jesus to deny his divinity just because that has become the traditional knowledge? That would be contradicting himself. That is what the Schoenheit system of beliefs leads into.

 

[mikesw]

Wow. Quit your yappin' and show us where the trinity is in the Bible for the 100th time.

haha. If you believed Moses, you would believe Jesus. Scripture abounds with testimony of the divinity of the Son and of God's plan. I have shared it but you reject the passages that show it. Nor have you shown that Jesus was denying his divinity such that we should accept your new minority, alternative view of Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

You would want Jesus to deny his divinity just because that has become the traditional knowledge? That would be contradicting himself. That is what the Schoenheit system of beliefs leads into.

Jesus denied being God plenty of times.

Here's one.

Mark 10
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

 

[Runningman]

haha. If you believed Moses, you would believe Jesus. Scripture abounds with testimony of the divinity of the Son and of God's plan. I have shared it but you reject the passages that show it. Nor have you shown that Jesus was denying his divinity such that we should accept your new minority, alternative view of Jesus.

Jesus explicitly said the the Father is the only true God. I have Unitarianism in the Bible. You don't have trinitarianism in the Bible. Check mate.

John 17
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus denied being God plenty of times.

Here's one.

Mark 10
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

you tried that misinterpretation before. It still shows the error of treating a question as a contrived statement. That is a sign of Schoenheit interpretation error.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus explicitly said the the Father is the only true God. I have Unitarianism in the Bible. You don't have trinitarianism in the Bible. Check mate.

John 17
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Okay. Do you have a verse saying Jesus is a false God who is separate from his Father? I'm not sure how you assume Jesus is a false god or how this makes any unitarian argument. Then unitarians also deny the pre-existing glory as Jesus shares this:
John 17:5 (NASB95)
5“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

That is why Unitarian interpretations cannot be trusted at all.

 

[Runningman]

you tried that misinterpretation before. It still shows the error of treating a question as a contrived statement. That is a sign of Schoenheit interpretation error.

So despite Jesus teaching that belief in God and himself are not the same thing, that the Father is greater than he is, that the Father is the only true, that his and his disciples God is the Father, and that laying claim to absolute goodness is something he deferred to God instead of claiming for himself?

John 14
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 14
28...my Father is greater than I.

John 17
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 20
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Mark 10
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

 

[Runningman]

Okay. Do you have a verse saying Jesus is a false God who is separate from his Father? I'm not sure how you assume Jesus is a false god or how this makes any unitarian argument. Then unitarians also deny the pre-existing glory as Jesus shares this:
John 17:5 (NASB95)
5“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

That is why Unitarian interpretations cannot be trusted at all.

Jesus explicitly stated who the only God is and wasn't alone. Paul was doing the same exact thing.

Don't change the subject. Where is your trinity that challenges Christ's teachings about God?

 

[Peterlag]

We have no evidence in the Bible that “the Holy Spirit”...

was ever used as a name because no one ever used it in adirect address. Many people spoke or prayed directly to God, starting out by saying “O Yahweh” (translated as “O LORD” in almost all English versions). Furthermore, the name “Jesus” is a Greek form of the name “Joshua” (in fact, the King James Version confuses “Joshua” and “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) and many people spoke “to Jesus” in the Bible. But no one in the Bible ever used “the Holy Spirit” in a direct address because there's simply no actual name for any “Person” known as “the Holy Spirit” anywhere in the Bible.

Also Gk Eigo Eimi has never meant "I am God."

If Gk Eigo Eimi means "I am God" then Paul is God, the healed blind man is God, and many others are also almighty God. Reaching for apostate straws is exactly what the tares do. The saints on the other hand are very careful with the Scriptures. We compare Passages to each other and do not jump to conclusions based on misunderstandings, additions, and myths.

 

[mikesw]

So despite Jesus teaching that belief in God and himself are not the same thing, that the Father is greater than he is, that the Father is the only true, that his and his disciples God is the Father, and that laying claim to absolute goodness is something he deferred to God instead of claiming for himself?

You need to study scriptures better.

John 14
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

So you think Jesus would say do not believe in God? Jesus is equating the significance of believing in both of them. But you wish to deny the divinity of Jesus and thus show doubt who he is.

John 14
28...my Father is greater than I.

Uh. Maybe Jesus incarnate has limitations. Also, Jesus is giving glory to the Father as the Father gives glory to the Son

John 17
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Then you would be saying Jesus is a false god unless you recognize Jesus is of the same God and had glory with the Father before becoming incarnate as Jesus. Which one do you choose.

John 20
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

You must speculate that the alternative is Jesus had another god instead of the Jewish God. That is utterly ridiculous

Mark 10
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

You keep repeating that ignorant interpretation of a question. It is someone common though for people to assume a question is a denial. We cannot blame this horrible interpretation as something only unitarians do. But these failures also are directly out of the Schoenheit play book.

 

[Capbook]

Here's more data on the baptize thing that so many Christians thing is necessary...

Water baptism is a carry over from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

Do this reply mean that;
1. When Peter command "repent and be baptized," we are to obey and follow? (Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3)
2. When John do the same, we also have to obey and follow? (Acts 8:16)
3. And when Christ command the Matthew 28:19, we are not to follow because it contradicted to what Peter and John did?

 

[Capbook]

Don't baptize anyone like that since that isn't how they actually practiced baptism. It wouldn't make sense to not follow the example of what the early church actually did in practice.

It's ok, if you are not a Christian, because Christians will listen, obey and follow Christ, specially His command in Matthew 28:19.