Before Abraham I am

So for the record you don’t believe the Father is the ONLY true God? John 17:1-3 says He is. What’s your beef the Father’s exclusive and sole deity?
You are kind of slow here

The Father is the only true god

The Son is the only true god

The Holy Spirit is the only true god

After all this time you still do not understand trinitarianism?
 
You cannot support that claim with evidence. And your scripture denying claims are of no value

You fail to rebut the evidence below
I can't support that the Old Testament Scriptures where Christ didn't exist in the Old Testament? You got to be kidding me. Quit digging your hole.
 
This is rich. In some venues there would be laughter and tomatoes. Keep the laughs coming.
Indeed. Jesus was rejected and was killed on the cross. And some people still want to mock who Christ is and deny his divinity in the Godhead. It is worse when someone calls himself a Christian and does that.
 
Indeed. Jesus was rejected and was killed on the cross. And some people still want to mock who Christ is and deny his divinity in the Godhead. It is worse when someone calls himself a Christian and does that.
I agree. You all should be careful how you all speak about God and His Son. False witness against God is no small matter. Claiming He's a Trinity is for sure a judgeable offense. It's also pardonable and it's not too late.
 
I agree. You all should be careful how you all speak about God and His Son. False witness against God is no small matter. Claiming He's a Trinity is for sure a judgeable offense. It's also pardonable and it's not too late.
oh thank you master. Uh no. I think I shall stick with scripture instead of your doctrine. You have not even offered one viable argument against Christ's divinity in the Godhead. After a month or so doing this, you could have tried to get something that makes sense -- if there was an argument for your view.
 
oh thank you master. Uh no. I think I shall stick with scripture instead of your doctrine. You have not even offered one viable argument against Christ's divinity in the Godhead. After a month or so doing this, you could have tried to get something that makes sense -- if there was an argument for your view.
Which Scripture about the Trinity are you sticking with?
 
All. Until someone shows some reason not to believe scripture. You are the one who wants to deny Christ's divinity. So we will wait for you to start forming decent arguments if you can.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting you stop believing the Scripture, but rather believe them accurately. The earliest view of God that is still in effect to the present day is God is one person. We call Him YHWH, Father, God, and several other names and titles that don’t belong to Jesus.

I have brought forth many great arguments and proof texts in support of Christianity being theologically Unitarian. Among those would be the Bible doesn’t teach to pray to Jesus nor are there any examples of such. Sorry, but it doesn’t actually ever say to pray to Jesus nor did anyone say that what they did to Jesus when they spoke to him was “pray.” Unitarianism takes significant ground on that point and we’ll hold onto it, too. There are also no teachings in the Bible about worshipping Jesus. I don’t know why that doesn’t spur you along to accept the truth.
 
I don’t think anyone is suggesting you stop believing the Scripture, but rather believe them accurately. The earliest view of God that is still in effect to the present day is God is one person. We call Him YHWH, Father, God, and several other names and titles that don’t belong to Jesus.

I have brought forth many great arguments and proof texts in support of Christianity being theologically Unitarian. Among those would be the Bible doesn’t teach to pray to Jesus nor are there any examples of such. Sorry, but it doesn’t actually ever say to pray to Jesus nor did anyone say that what they did to Jesus when they spoke to him was “pray.” Unitarianism takes significant ground on that point and we’ll hold onto it, too. There are also no teachings in the Bible about worshipping Jesus. I don’t know why that doesn’t spur you along to accept the truth.
How come every one of those arguments have failed so badly in your execution of them? Your teaching have spurred me further to accept the truth, but it always goes contrary to what you are proposing. And I'm sure you will hold on to your odd interpretations but it is more out of ignorance than substance.
 
I don’t think anyone is suggesting you stop believing the Scripture, but rather believe them accurately. The earliest view of God that is still in effect to the present day is God is one person. We call Him YHWH, Father, God, and several other names and titles that don’t belong to Jesus.

I have brought forth many great arguments and proof texts in support of Christianity being theologically Unitarian. Among those would be the Bible doesn’t teach to pray to Jesus nor are there any examples of such. Sorry, but it doesn’t actually ever say to pray to Jesus nor did anyone say that what they did to Jesus when they spoke to him was “pray.” Unitarianism takes significant ground on that point and we’ll hold onto it, too. There are also no teachings in the Bible about worshipping Jesus. I don’t know why that doesn’t spur you along to accept the truth.
I really don't get some of your logic here. You are essentially expecting that Jesus would have said "hi. I am the Messiah, Savior, and God. Fall down and worship at my feet or you will die right here and right now."
Seriously, dude. You do not have an argument here. All I can guess is that you became so fixed on Jesus not being another god that the verse about knowing the true God has distracted your from Jesus' point. Jesus has been saying that their upbringing led them to a false conception of God. Often this has been that God has placed nearly impossible requirements upon the people and that a minor flaw would separate them from God. Jesus countered that teaching. He does not have to say he is part of the Godhead when he is pointing out to them the error of their previous misconceptions of God.
 
Last edited:
Yes

Not at all

Not according to scripture.

Trinitarianism is fake news. That's what the point of all this is.
Sorry the bible refutes you

John 1:1 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 20:28 (KJV 1900) — 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Acts 5:3–4 (KJV 1900) — 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

You are the fake news here
 
I can't support that the Old Testament Scriptures where Christ didn't exist in the Old Testament? You got to be kidding me. Quit digging your hole.
You failed to rebut

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

John 17:5 (KJV 1900) — 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 6:38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
John 6:51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 6:58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

John 1:1–3 (NASB 2020) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

and you still cannot rebut these

1 Corinthians 10:4 (KJV 1900) — 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

and

1 Corinthians 10:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.



scripture refutes your false claim
 
You didn't answer my question. So the answer to this question is that Jesus didn't become the Christ until after his birth. Therefore, under the name of "Christ" he didn't pre-exist. Hence, the "spiritual rock" that followed them was a prophetic rock. The "spiritual rock" they drank from is an allusion to the rock Moses struck and water gushed forth. Likewise, Christ was struck as a human and water gushed out on the cross. Seeing the point now? The Christ didn't pre-exist. All of the prophecies concerning the Christ in the Old Testament are prophetic.

John 19 (NIV)
34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Acts 2 (NIV)
36“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
He pre-existed as the word

However In the prophesy of the coming born king of the Jews we read

Micah 5:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
 
He pre-existed as the word

However In the prophesy of the coming born king of the Jews we read

Micah 5:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
It is hard to be aware of all the passages that point to the deity of Christ. I'm sure Jesus revealed to the religious readers his divinity in the Godhead in more ways that we can imagine. In this verse, just the implication of Jesus as Messiah around the religious leaders could bring this verse to mind among those leaders.
 
It is hard to be aware of all the passages that point to the deity of Christ. I'm sure Jesus revealed to the religious readers his divinity in the Godhead in more ways that we can imagine. In this verse, just the implication of Jesus as Messiah around the religious leaders could bring this verse to mind among those leaders.
In any case, this is another refutation of the Unitarians denial of his pre-existence.
 
He pre-existed as the word

However In the prophesy of the coming born king of the Jews we read

Micah 5:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Micah 5:2 doesn't say Jesus pre-existed, but rather has origins that are from everlasting. Having origins doesn't necessitate literally existing. Even if it were to suggest Jesus pre-existed then the context would prove he didn't pre-exist as God. Read Micah 5:4.

Micah 5 (NIV)​
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,​
though you are small among the clans a of Judah,​
out of you will come for me​
one who will be ruler over Israel,​
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
4He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness​
will reach to the ends of the earth.​
 
Micah 5:2 doesn't say Jesus pre-existed, but rather has origins that are from everlasting. Having origins doesn't necessitate literally existing. Even if it were to suggest Jesus pre-existed then the context would prove he didn't pre-exist as God. Read Micah 5:4.

Micah 5 (NIV)​
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,​
though you are small among the clans a of Judah,​
out of you will come for me​
one who will be ruler over Israel,​
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
4He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness​
will reach to the ends of the earth.​
Septuagint

Septuagint
And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.

Peshitta
2But you, Bayth Lekhem Ephratha, you are little of those who are among the thousands of Judea. From you will come forth the Ruler who will be over Israel, and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of the eternities

You do not go forth unless you exist.
 
Micah 5:2 doesn't say Jesus pre-existed, but rather has origins that are from everlasting. Having origins doesn't necessitate literally existing. Even if it were to suggest Jesus pre-existed then the context would prove he didn't pre-exist as God. Read Micah 5:4.

Micah 5 (NIV)​
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,​
though you are small among the clans a of Judah,​
out of you will come for me​
one who will be ruler over Israel,​
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
4He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness​
will reach to the ends of the earth.​
Bald denial

What do you imagine origins means


or·i·gin
[ˈôrəj(ə)n]
noun
origins (plural noun)
  1. the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived:

But check other translations as well


Micah 5:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Micah 5:2 (NASB 2020) — 2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will come forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His times of coming forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”

Hello

How long will you persist in denying scripture?
 
Micah 5:2 doesn't say Jesus pre-existed, but rather has origins that are from everlasting. Having origins doesn't necessitate literally existing. Even if it were to suggest Jesus pre-existed then the context would prove he didn't pre-exist as God. Read Micah 5:4.

Micah 5 (NIV)​
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,​
though you are small among the clans a of Judah,​
out of you will come for me​
one who will be ruler over Israel,​
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
4He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness​
will reach to the ends of the earth.​
what would the verse mention ancient origins unless it were an indication of ancient existence? A different word would be used instead of origin if Micah was just saying the plans were of old. You will have to work on making logical arguments if you want to change people's viewpoint.
 
Back
Top Bottom