The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[Runningman]

so Jesus is accused of blasphemy. That is only canceled if he is God. Duhhh

They were not stoning him for spitting on the sidewalk. If perchance some qualified scholar finds reason to say Jesus is less than the Father, that is not denying Jesus in the Godhead. Also, I have not tried to check if Josh McDowell says everything a hundred percent accurate. I roughly know your comeback on that point.

Also, when you quote The Father is greater than I -- it begs the question whether that is in the incarnate state where Jesus spoke essentially as his humanity or whether Jesus refers to his Sonship in the Godhead.

These are the same people who Jesus said are liars and stated their father is the devil who had a stated motive to kill Jesus. They didn't understand what Jesus was saying nor believe him. See John 8:43-45 for proof.

Additionally, in John 10:34-36 Jesus characterized their statement as an accusation, not the truth. Jesus turned and refuted them saying that they are all gods, all children of the Most High, which means Jesus was saying that as the son of God that he is the same as them, which means it's not a claim to being God to say "I am the son of God." Scripture says so.

Your propaganda books are filled with half truths and misrepresentations and I have all of your recycled talking points pinned down because I have read your playbooks.

 

[mikesw]

These are the same people who Jesus said are liars and stated their father is the devil who had a stated motive to kill Jesus. They didn't understand what Jesus was saying nor believe him. See John 8:43-45 for proof.

Additionally, in John 10:34-36 Jesus characterized their statement as an accusation, not the truth. Jesus turned and refuted them saying that they are all gods, all children of the Most High, which means Jesus was saying that as the son of God that he is the same as them, which means it's not a claim to being God to say "I am the son of God." Scripture says so.

Your propaganda books are filled with half truths and misrepresentations and I have all of your recycled talking points pinned down because I have read your playbooks.

so you have read my playbook called the Bible? That is too bad because you have not understood it. If the view of the opponents of Jesus was off, the NT writers could have stated that the Pharisees and others who claimed the blasphemy were improperly identifying Jesus as showing himself qualified to show himself in his right to speak the things he has said. So you error is duly noted.
Again the statement of a passage that said "you are gods" that was a judgment against some unidentified people is hardly basis to deny the deity of Jesus. You keep making weak, fallacious arguments so you can deny who Jesus is.

 

[Runningman]

so you have read my playbook called the Bible? That is too bad because you have not understood it. If the view of the opponents of Jesus was off, the NT writers could have stated that the Pharisees and others who claimed the blasphemy were improperly identifying Jesus as showing himself qualified to show himself in his right to speak the things he has said. So you error is duly noted.
Again the statement of a passage that said "you are gods" that was a judgment against some unidentified people is hardly basis to deny the deity of Jesus. You keep making weak, fallacious arguments so you can deny who Jesus is.

Your playbook isn't the Bible. You are what is called a trinitarian apologist because you are a person who offers your reasoned defense, justification, or argument in favor of trinitarianism. The book you mentioned and the book I mentioned are both trinitarian apologetics books. If the Bible was enough these books wouldn't exist. You all have to write endless volumes of material and commentary to try to justify yourselves.

 

[mikesw]

Your playbook isn't the Bible. You are what is called a trinitarian apologist because you are a person who offers your reasoned defense, justification, or argument in favor of trinitarianism. The book you mentioned and the book I mentioned are both trinitarian apologetics books. If the Bible was enough these books wouldn't exist. You all have to write endless volumes of material and commentary to try to justify yourselves.

Right. The bible is not enough since unitarians, JWs, Mormonites and others disregard the testimony of scripture and basic Greek grammar. Without defense of the Bible, you might as well defend the Christadelphians, JWs and Mormonites as equal and accurate interpretations as yourself. You do not have an upperhand in this discussion by claiming your interpretation supersedes all the scholars. I figure you are expressing your frustration that you cannot claim superiority in this discussion. I do understand that Christadelphians read some passages they think overrule all other scripture and thus claim they have the advantage in discussions, but that only exists in their own minds, without prevailing in actual debates.

 

[Runningman]

Right. The bible is not enough since unitarians, JWs, Mormonites and others disregard the testimony of scripture and basic Greek grammar. Without defense of the Bible, you might as well defend the Christadelphians, JWs and Mormonites as equal and accurate interpretations as yourself

I have been waiting for you to even talk to me about the Bible using only the vocabulary contained therein. I also only read trinitarian-translated Bibles 99% of the time. They still don't contain the arguments presented by your apologetics books.

 

[mikesw]

I have been waiting for you to even talk to me about the Bible using only the vocabulary contained therein. I also only read trinitarian-translated Bibles 99% of the time. They still don't contain the arguments presented by your apologetics books.

Haha. So read that book that discusses the grammar directly in the scriptures about the deity of Christ. You fail in whichever path you seek. Scripture has testified to the preexisting personal One who in being God and becoming flesh walked among us as Jesus. It is your obligation to deny the testimony of scripture in your doctrinal defense. The grammar testifies against the unitarian, JW, Mormonites, Oneness groups, and Christadelphians. The "translation" is not the issue at hand.

 

[mikesw]

The general idea presented in the book (pp 230-236) concerning John 1 is that backing up from v14 points to the male pronoun being properly applied to the Word in translation from the Greek and showing the personhood of the Word.

 

[Runningman]

Haha. So read that book that discusses the grammar directly in the scriptures about the deity of Christ. You fail in whichever path you seek. Scripture has testified to the preexisting personal One who in being God and becoming flesh walked among us as Jesus. It is your obligation to deny the testimony of scripture in your doctrinal defense. The grammar testifies against the unitarian, JW, Mormonites, Oneness groups, and Christadelphians. The "translation" is not the issue at hand.

Good luck changing the fact that the Father is "alone the true God" which is enough to debunk your argument.

 

[Runningman]

The general idea presented in the book (pp 230-236) concerning John 1 is that backing up from v14 points to the male pronoun being properly applied to the Word in translation from the Greek and showing the personhood of the Word.

Things can be personsified without being a person. See the entire Old and New Testament for the word never being called a he. See everywhere else where the Word is called a thing. Exegesis and the grammar of John 1 require the word be a thing. It's not a person.

 

[mikesw]

Good luck changing the fact that the Father is "alone the true God" which is enough to debunk your argument.

Back to the one-verse unitarianism. You forget that Jesus is not a separate true God. They are one.

 

[mikesw]

Things can be personsified without being a person. See the entire Old and New Testament for the word never being called a he. See everywhere else where the Word is called a thing. Exegesis and the grammar of John 1 require the word be a thing. It's not a person.

And allegorical relationship of a thing to a person is also permissible and is the only idea that makes sense here. Duhh.

An "it" does not become a person. Duhh again. Your view is like the evolutionist having to define when an unconscious chemicals became a conscious, living item.

You will go to the ends of the earth to deny who Christ is.

We have already explained many times that the Logos is used as a metonym that shows preexistence with God and not being the sole "person" within God. This explains to both Jews and Greeks in their cultures the true logos of which they only had sort of a crude representation. If you think an "it" created the world, you can try to live in that imaginary world.

 

[Runningman]

And allegorical relationship of a thing to a person is also permissible and is the only idea that makes sense here. Duhh.

An "it" does not become a person. Duhh again. Your view is like the evolutionist having to define when an unconscious chemicals became a conscious, living item.

You will go to the ends of the earth to deny who Christ is.

We have already explained many times that the Logos is used as a metonym that shows preexistence with God and not being the sole "person" within God. This explains to both Jews and Greeks in their cultures the true logos of which they only had sort of a crude representation. If you think an "it" created the world, you can try to live in that imaginary world.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate outside of John 1 that the Word is a he, that the Word should even be capitalized, that the Word is God, or anything in line with your interpretations. Nothing like this exists in Scripture for you. This is why you have countless limp-wristed apologetics books because the Bible is your enemy regarding who God is.

 

[Runningman]

Back to the one-verse unitarianism. You forget that Jesus is not a separate true God. They are one.

The Bible says that the person in your trinity that you also call "Father" is said to be the true God alone. So the trinity isn't the true God, but the Father is. What is your workaround against Scripture contradicting your trinity? How do you ignore Scripture and just keep going as if the Father being the only and only God is going to disappear?

 

[mikesw]

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate outside of John 1 that the Word is a he, that the Word should even be capitalized, that the Word is God, or anything in line with your interpretations. Nothing like this exists in Scripture for you. This is why you have countless limp-wristed apologetics books because the Bible is your enemy regarding who God is.

That is so ignorant of the basis for John 1. I wish you could understand scripture more readily.

One reason John 1 uses "logos" is because it bridges from the Jewish and gentile cultures concerning a logos behind creation. John corrects that. The other is to describe the preexisting One (called allegorically the Logos) being God but then becoming flesh. An allegory does not have to be repeated over and over again. But we see Jesus as the Word more directly in Rev 19:13. So you lose your argument again, no matter how wimpy you think it might be to defend the testimony of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

The Bible says that the person in your trinity that you also call "Father" is said to be the true God alone. So the trinity isn't the true God, but the Father is. What is your workaround against Scripture contradicting your trinity? How do you ignore Scripture and just keep going as if the Father being the only and only God is going to disappear?

your alternative to the Trinity is to claim that Jesus is a distinct and separate God. Do you want to double your confusion?

 

[mikesw]

The Bible says that the person in your trinity that you also call "Father" is said to be the true God alone. So the trinity isn't the true God, but the Father is. What is your workaround against Scripture contradicting your trinity? How do you ignore Scripture and just keep going as if the Father being the only and only God is going to disappear?

so you are saying the God of the bible is a false god. That leaves you an atheist or a pagan.

I'm not surprised then that you would not want to see proper exegesis on the various texts.

 

[Runningman]

so you are saying the God of the bible is a false god. That leaves you an atheist or a pagan.

I'm not surprised then that you would not want to see proper exegesis on the various texts.

God according to Scripture is the Father and that is who I am saying is "alone the true God" as Jesus plainly stated. The trinity on the other hand is indeed a false god, an idol invented in the 4th century, that will be destroyed. Maybe you think that if you walk like a Christian, act like a Christian, and say religious things that it makes you such, but that isn't the case. Simply calling your god "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" is not the same thing as actually having any relation to the real God at all.

The error you are always perpetuating is called a false equivocation or a kind of semantic shift. This explains why when your religion and beliefs are debunked using Scripture you somehow see devout Christians as atheists, pagans, or calling who you think God is a false god. It's just that you are biblically illiterate and confused to the bone.

 

[Runningman]

your alternative to the Trinity is to claim that Jesus is a distinct and separate God. Do you want to double your confusion?

Belief in God and Jesus are distinct and separate beliefs.

John 14
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe in Me as well.

 

[mikesw]

God according to Scripture is the Father and that is who I am saying is "alone the true God" as Jesus plainly stated. The trinity on the other hand is indeed a false god, an idol invented in the 4th century, that will be destroyed. Maybe you think that if you walk like a Christian, act like a Christian, and say religious things that it makes you such, but that isn't the case. Simply calling your god "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" is not the same thing as actually having any relation to the real God at all.

The error you are always perpetuating is called a false equivocation or a kind of semantic shift. This explains why when your religion and beliefs are debunked using Scripture you somehow see devout Christians as atheists, pagans, or calling who you think God is a false god. It's just that you are biblically illiterate and confused to the bone.

again you promote a new, novel, gnostic, private doctrine as if all Christians misunderstood God before you came around. That is too prideful and presumptuous on your part. You have to use a new grammar of Greek that rejects all scholarship. Nor will you evaluate your interpretation in view of strong scholarly study. That admits your doctrine is protectively private and personal instead of truly investigated.

 

[mikesw]

Belief in God and Jesus are distinct and separate beliefs.

John 14
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe in Me as well.

Right. Since you do not believe Jesus then you have not found the true God.