Easily Dispelling The Trinity

[Johann]

Not really a yes or no answer, is it?

It would seem all you are doing is asking random questions and not contributing brother-
Shalom Achi
J.

 

[Johann]

The parable of the heir speaks here.

Excellent observation there my brother.
J.

 

[synergy]

Yes or no. Did they understand what Jesus was saying when they condemned him to death for blasphemy?

Unitarianism loses either way.

Let's say the Pharisees did misunderstand Jesus. So why didn't Jesus correct them? Because they did understand that Jesus is claiming that He is the "I Am" of the OT Who existed before Abraham. The Pharisees immediately condemned Him on the spot to be stoned to death.

 

[Wrangler]

The fact you understood the reference yet are still resisting is sad to me.

I just find it sad how trinitarians subordinate the word oh God - that YHWH is only old God - to what the Pharisees said. Then, cannot even answer that you reject what they say when it is convenient.

Impressive mental gymnastics.

 

[synergy]

Impressive mental gymnastics.

I answered your question below in Comment #123. Let's see how you would answer it:

Yes or no. Did they understand what Jesus was saying when they condemned him to death for blasphemy?

 

[Wrangler]

I answered your question below in Comment #123. Let's see how you would answer it:

Still no yes or no answer.

Trinitarianism loses EVERY way.

Typical that you want me to answer questions when you do not. Why can’t you answer simply yes or no?

 

[synergy]

Still no yes or no answer.

Trinitarianism loses EVERY way.

Typical that you want me to answer questions when you do not. Why can’t you answer simply yes or no?

My answer is definitely yes because Christ would have corrected them if the answer was no, and He didn't. I'm surprised you could not figure that out from my statements. Your total inability to offer any counterargument speaks volumes.

What is your answer to your question? I'm waiting....

 

[Wrangler]

My answer is definitely yes because Christ would have corrected them if the answer was no, and He didn't. statements.

I'm surprised at your answer. You are telling yes, the Pharisee were correct in sentencing Jesus to death for the sin of blasphemy. Right?

Most trinitarians use the Pharisees as right about him being God from wrong about him sinning by committing blasphemy deserving death.

Once you confirm, I'll provide my answer.

 

[civic]

I'm surprised at your answer. You are telling yes, the Pharisee were correct in sentencing Jesus to death for the sin of blasphemy. Right?

Most trinitarians use the Pharisees as right about him being God from wrong about him sinning by committing blasphemy deserving death.

Once you confirm, I'll provide my answer.

Its only blasphemy if its untrue and He was not God. But since He was/is God it was a false accusation.

hope this helps !!!

 

[synergy]

I'm surprised at your answer. You are telling yes, the Pharisee were correct in sentencing Jesus to death for the sin of blasphemy. Right?

Someone understanding something does not automatically mean I approve of it. For example, if someone understands that he will die if he drinks poison does not automatically mean that I approve of it. Critical thinking is required here.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm surprised you could not figure that out from my statements.

I've asked you a direct question multiple times. The burden is not on me to "figure out" your position.

So, I asked another question, which you have not answered, Why can’t you answer simply yes or no? (Now that you gave a yes - even though I doubt you meant yes but no - it's an interesting dynamic that it took so much prodding, and each non-responsive reply filled with insults, etc. I think we both know the answer; you are not confident and have insecurity of where these questions may lead, relative to your trinitarian IDOL. This tells me there is a glimmer of hope for you to see through the fog of lies the trinitarian order has confused you with, being ever so slightly grounded in logic).

 

[synergy]

I've asked you a direct question multiple times. The burden is not on me to "figure out" your position.

So, I asked another question, which you have not answered, Why can’t you answer simply yes or no? (Now that you gave a yes - even though I doubt you meant yes but no - it's an interesting dynamic that it took so much prodding, and each non-responsive reply filled with insults, etc. I think we both know the answer; you are not confident and have insecurity of where these questions may lead, relative to your trinitarian IDOL. This tells me there is a glimmer of hope for you to see through the fog of lies the trinitarian order has confused you with, being ever so slightly grounded in logic).

Again, you still fail to offer any valid counterargument.

Nor have you answered your own question even though I clearly answered it.

I even pointed out how your logic fails in that someone understanding something does not automatically mean I approve of it. For example, if someone understands that he will die if he drinks poison does not automatically mean that I approve of it. Critical thinking is required here.

 

[Wrangler]

Someone understanding something does not automatically mean I approve of it. For example, if someone understands that he will die if he drinks poison does not automatically mean that I approve of it. Critical thinking is required here.

You are changing the frame.

In claiming Jesus claimed to be God, the Pharisees are correct AND you approve it.
In claiming Jesus committed the sin of blasphemy, the Pharisees are correct AND you don't approve it.

Why the difference?

 

[synergy]

You are changing the frame.

In claiming Jesus claimed to be God, the Pharisees are correct AND you approve it.

No. The Pharisees understand that Jesus is claiming to be God and they disapprove it. That does not automatically mean that I agree with the Pharisees. Far from it.

In claiming Jesus committed the sin of blasphemy, the Pharisees are correct AND you don't approve it.

How did you come up with that? I walked you through the logic above. Do the same for me.

Why the difference?

I have questions that need answering before I can field that question.

 

[Wrangler]

Not really. As referenced....

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

You say Jesus isn't God. Yet Jesus chided those that treat Him like you're treating Him for saying the same.

What works do you do that match of excede what Christ did? Please read these verses a few times before you answer.

No, that's not true. My Bible heading for that section of John 10 is that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. He brilliantly invoked one of my favorite Psalms, Ps 82. Before I continue, what do you make of verse 6

I say, ‘You are gods;
you are all children of the Most High.

This is one of the most profound verses in a monotheist text. I'll start a new thread and expand on it when I get a chance later today.

See my answer at

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/why-the-trinity-is-wrong-lord-v-lord.252/

I apologize for not getting back to you on this yesterday.

 

[Wrangler]

Its only blasphemy if its untrue and He was not God. But since He was/is God it was a false accusation.

He was certainly the son of God. That they were out to get him is demonstrable in this rationalization. They believed in the Messiah and him admitting it could not be blasphemy to the true Messiah. The confession that got him killed was not that he claimed to be God but he admitted to being the Messiah, the son of God.

High Priest: Are You God’s Anointed, the Liberating King, the Son of the Blessed One?

Jesus: 62 I am.
Mark 14:61-62 (VOICE)

 

[Wrangler]

Again, you still fail to offer any valid counterargument.

Here is the counter argument.

The Pharisees were wrong about Jesus both times. He was not claiming to be God for that would have violated John 8:54 and Deut 6:4. And they were wrong to condemn him for blasphemy in admitting in Mark 14:61-62 that he was the Messiah, the son of God. This is because Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God. Mark 1:1. Simple. Exact.

 

[Wrangler]

I even pointed out how your logic fails in that someone understanding something does not automatically mean I approve of it. For example, if someone understands that he will die if he drinks poison does not automatically mean that I approve of it. Critical thinking is required here.

Subterfuge. I did not ask if you understood it. I asked YOU if the Pharisees were correct.

But anyway, your thinking is so convoluted that you believe the Pharisee were correct about Jesus - but you approve what they said as far as him being God but disapprove of Jesus being guilty of the sin of blasphemy, deserving death. If they were correct about Jesus sinning, why do you not approve of it?

 

[Wrangler]

How did you come up with that? I walked you through the logic above. Do the same for me.

I already explained. Re-read what I wrote.

 

[civic]

He was certainly the son of God. That they were out to get him is demonstrable in this rationalization. They believed in the Messiah and him admitting it could not be blasphemy to the true Messiah. The confession that got him killed was not that he claimed to be God but he admitted to being the Messiah, the son of God.

High Priest: Are You God’s Anointed, the Liberating King, the Son of the Blessed One?

Jesus: 62 I am.
Mark 14:61-62 (VOICE)

They said : you being a man make yourself out to be God.

they did not say messiah.