That is what is called one-verse unitarianism. The verse has to be misunderstood by virtue of taking it apart from its context. That is a rookie error in attempts to interpret scripture. It is the way Christadelphians create their doctrine independent of the full counsel of scripture. The problem here is that the deity of Christ is treated as less relevant or something to be totally ignored when interpreting from Joh 17:3 alone.
Jesus denied being God
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
You don't know who God is so people like you and @Ladodgers6 get spoon-fed small, easily digestible, single verses or two at a time to make the context trinitarian proof. There really isn't a better remedy for your several misunderstanding than keeping it simple and irrefutable. The issue is, none of you agree with them. So it's just going to be years of repetition I guess.
Until you have a good argument against the testimony of scripture of the deity of and preexistence of Christ, it will go around in circles. I like to remind others of the errors of unitarian interpretation methods though.
The unitarian loves to accumulate scriptures to cancel out critical ones about the Son of God. That is hardly an argument but is like the joke where an engineer is asked if all odd numbers are prime -- he goes 1, 3, 5, 7 and says yes they are all prime. That is the unitarian approach. The mathematician simply says "no."
Runningman
Active Member
The trinity is a strawman argument. You have not even got your foot in the door showing a single example of God being defined as a trinity in Scripture.
Like I keep on reminding you (as if that even helps), all you have to do is prove the passages about the preexisting One becoming flesh as Jesus are wrong. You have failed that effort.
If you want to identify a better description of Jesus as the one who became flesh but is not a separate god, then go ahead and do that.
Runningman
Active Member
Another strawman argument and we have went over this already. I am referring to the entire old testament where there isn't a single example of a pre-existent Jesus. Remember that? You started ranting about angels, 3 men, a burning bush, scrambling everywhere to establish credibility and could not do it. Then you went to the new testament and the result was the same.
okay. you are pure first-century BC Jewish. You have not yet heard about the NT that clearly reveals the preexisting One that becomes flesh. I get it. You create a false argument and cry at me for not meeting the parameters of that argument.
Runningman
Active Member
You mean first century Jews like the people who wrote the original documents of the New Testament? You really didn't make a good point with that. I am quoting people from the time and era of Jesus, often Jesus himself, and even God at times, plainly stating that God is one person. The mountain you are up against is you cannot make it go away that God is called a He, Him, His, I, You from cover to cover, but never once a Us, We, They, or Them. I think you would make a fine Catholic. At least they fully embrace their traditions and creeds, but you just try to attach them to the Bible in ways they will not attempt to.
It is those Christians who note the deity of Christ. That is such a glaring error on your part
you skip the passages of the preexisting One that becomes flesh. duh. How many times do you have to deny those passages? that is where the debate is. The debate does not surround passages that note God the Father.
You sound like the dedicated JW in speaking of "catholic" view as if it were the Roman Catholic doctrine instead of the common Christian teaching. You make strawman opponents. Worse. Your arguments are from a non-Christian group.
Similar threads
