I dominate the high ground. You are using an argument from silence fallacy.
Your witness it not with Scripture. you have nothing from the Bible about a trinity. You just have a bunch of verses you have strung together and said "it means the trinity" when no one of standing in Scripture repeated what you said. You're not one of them. You're of a different group than Jesus and his disciples.
You are misconstruing the argument from silence fallacy. You are denying that Jesus is deity because he did not say it in the way you would recognize it. You have ears but cannot hear. I testify that the scriptures are abundant in testimony of the deity of Christ, so I am arguing from abundance, not from silence. You even get the fallacy issue backwards
You're talking about an alleged incarnation based off of a single verse that suddenly, abruptly, and without precedence supposedly happened when nothing else about it is mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. Yeah, that's an argument from silence.
what can I say when you do not even know what an argument from silence is? Here I thought you would have known the arguments for the trinity doctrine. But since you do not know them, it is assumed you are arguing out of ignorance. The verse in discussion (John 17:5) is in our discussion to discredit your isolation of john 17:3. You isolate John 17:3 because of some experience or encounter with what you think was God. You have not substantiated a Unitarian view.
Um, an argument from silence means you are expressing a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements. Let's look at it.
This is an appeal to ignorance, i.e., the Bible doesn't say not to therefore it's ok to do it. This is backwards thinking and considered a logical fallacy.
We have shown plenty of verses pointing to the eventual incarnation of the Son of God. That this does not satisfy the way you would expect it to be revealed is not our problem even though we have shared plenty. All you do is provide weak alternative theories about stuff like John 1, John 17:5, and so many others. These texts are all in place and available for those who will listen. John 1 is basic logic. if A= B and B=C then A=C. Christ Jesus is the Word who God who became flesh. If there is a better word than "incarnation" to explain all that, then we can consider using that word instead.
Hi DavidTree
Good Afternoon,
However, what I asked you, my friend, to acknowledge is that YOU don't want him to burn in hell, and that God does not want him to burn in hell.
Yes you're right I agree.
I believe the Scriptures. Will you publicly acknowledge that there is nothing in Scripture that says the Gospel is about believing Jesus is God?
Perhaps those mean something you haven't yet considered? I would strongly recommend not using the argument from silence fallacy to explain this. You should use something more solid.
Yes. Did you know Jesus got his way, truth, and life from God. It was never inherently his according to Scripture. It seems you don't believe anything the Bible directly says. You have your spin you put on everything then you get on your high horse and pretend its unquestionable and infallible.
