Nope. They're Polytheists which is what your closet self is with statements like "Jesus being God justifies Christians being God" coming from you.
The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
You don't trust what Paul wrote. He has understood scripture better than anyone. He was appointed by God and inspired as any prophet. Pray that Christ will give you grace despite your denial of him. Nor is there any reason to trust your arguments when they lack basic understanding of scripture and even deny that Paul has interpreted and conveyed the situation best to us. He was poised perfectly to understand the OT in light of Christ. But you don't trust him.
Runningman
Well-known member
Goodness. You don't even know what Mormon believe. They believe in in a triune godhead like you do. That is more along the lines of what you believe.
Runningman
Well-known member
Love Paul's writings, but manuscript variations are a real thing. On the matter of 1 Corinthians 10:9, if you will go back to the OT, there is no Christ there.
Look YHWH was there. No Jesus or Christ.
Numbers 21 (KJV)
6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died
Look again, Jesus isn't YHWH.
Psalm 110 (KJV)
1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Many a theologian disagree with what you are proposing. It doesn't match the Bible.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(9) Neither let us tempt Christ.—Better, Neither let us tempt the Lord, as some of them tempted, and perished by serpents. There is much controversy as to whether the word here is “God” or “Christ” or “the Lord,” each having a certain amount of MS. support. On the whole, the reading here adopted (the Lord) seems from internal evidence to have been most likely the true reading.
You forget that after the P46 confirmed that Christ is the oldest word used in 1 Cor 10:9, there is no longer a real debate whether any other word suffices in 1 Cor 10:9. Like mentioned before, you cling to the unlikely options in hope of denying the deity of Christ. You just choose the wording that reduces your thinking and understanding so you do not recognize the continuity of the one we know as Christ. We do not simply reduce scripture to what we expect it to say. We have to accept scripture along with those ideas that challenge one's expectation, such as finding Christ in the OT.
If that's the case then you should follow their example and become Trinitarian.
Stop being a closet Polytheist with comments like "Jesus being God justifies Christians being God".
Runningman
Well-known member
I don’t believe Christians are God therefore Jesus isn’t God. That’s my point. This is a debate to expose the fallacies in your beliefs, not me declaring I believe Jesus or Christians are God. I am a Unitarian not a Trinitarian in my beliefs. So keep that in mind to know what angle I’m coming from.If that's the case then you should follow their example and become Trinitarian.
Runningman
Well-known member
There isn’t just a cache of manuscripts and all you gotta do is find the oldest one and now you have the truth. Not how it works. The manuscripts are regional and there were theological differences in beliefs based on whatever community one was in. So age isn’t the sole indicator and that’s it because there is still the matter of the Bible to deal with. Jesus is no where to be found in the Old Testament saying or doing anything. That’s proves your preferred version of 1 Cor. 10:9 to be a fairy tale.
civic
Well-known member
nope Paul identifies Christ as Lord in his epistle, not the Father,
argument from silence fallacy alert.................
Runningman
Well-known member
Paul identified the Father as Lord of heaven and earth in Acts 17:24,25 and said He isn't served by human hands.
Guess who has human hands?
You just love to leap from one heresy to another. Tomorrow it's going to be another heresy. It's called Runningman's Heresy du Jour.
Runningman
Well-known member
One person’s heretic is another person’s saint. I’m an orthodox Christian, believe it or not.You just love to leap from one heresy to another. Tomorrow it's going to be another heresy. It's called Runningman's Heresy du Jour.
Let's try this..."talk about the post and not the poster" thing.
Maybe you hold to everything else common among Christians but you deny the primary one of the Trinity. If someone just did not understand the Trinity, that person could still be an orthodox Christian.
It is not just that we have the oldest testimony of Christ in 1 Cor 10:9, it is that Christ appears in the various languages and geographical distribution. Plus it is used in the majority of texts. You just selectively choose the word that, while not denying Christ in the Exodus, gives you maybe a sliver of hope that he was not there at the time of Exodus. But I do not know what hope you garner from deny the deity of Christ.
Runningman
Well-known member
Please show me where there were Christians in the Bible practicing Trinitarianism.
Runningman
Well-known member
we still have the Old Testament completely refuting your “oldest testimony” argument.
Question. Is Jesus the same person as YHWH in your beliefs?
Um New Testament references to the Old Testament identify Christ as YHWH
And more than one is called YHWH in the Old Testament
Multiple posts you have not addressed testify to this.
Sorry in context the lord is Christ
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 we have your confession the father is not lord as per your handling of 1cor 8:6
1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
So even if lord were the correct translation (it is not the majority one) it still points to Christ
Hello you are refuted once again by your own words
further as all things are by him, he is pre-existent
and another one of your scripture denying doctrine is rebutted
so you are going to disregard the New Testament. It does not sound like you are worth listening to then.
It gets blended in the Old Testament about who of the Trinity is being encountered. That is what the Jewish interpreters encountered. I'm sorry if you have not understood the nuances.
