The Unitarian belief that Jesus is not God causes those who offer worship to the Father's Throne (where Jesus sits) to be guilty of idolatry.

[synergy]

It is not beneath this person to say that "Jesus was drawn away of his own sin". Take that as a sign as to what depths he will plunge into to promote his heresies:

Thus we have proof that Jesus was drawn away of his own lust.

 

[Runningman]

And in our continued discussion of John 1:1-3, this is what you ran away from:

That's why you call yourself the "Runningman". What's your next devious excuse to keep running away from John 1:1-3?

I’ve directly addressed John 1:1-3 already and you have apparently pulled another one of your stunts and just pretended it didn’t happen. Lol dude you are fooling no one.

Care to explain why you have not directly replied to any of my rebuttals?

 

[Runningman]

It is not beneath this person to say that "Jesus was drawn away of his own sin". Take that as a sign as to what depths he will plunge into to promote his heresies:

Look sinergy is running away to an entirely different subject again. You want to go into how Jesus is susceptible to being tempted with sin and God isn’t in scripture? It’s almost like you are TRYING to throw me underhanded pitches to prove Jesus isn’t God.

 

[Runningman]

It is not beneath this person to say that "Jesus was drawn away of his own sin". Take that as a sign as to what depths he will plunge into to promote his heresies:

And yes Jesus was drawn away by his own lusts, but not the sin of lust. Lust simply means a desire, but he never sinned.

Hebrews 4
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

James 1
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

[Peterlag]

I know you still have not dealt with the fact Phil 2:5ff shows the Word was not impersonal

For the gazillioned time. Words are not living things.

 

[Peterlag]

Post 147 does not answer the question asked. Telling me what you are not, does not tell me what you are. It wastes everyone's time and does absolutely nothing to further the discussion. The question having been asked multiple times without an actual answer, everyone now knows you're trolling. Employing ad hominem proves the case.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, and genealogies, and strife, and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

That should have been an easily and readily answered question.

• We, the modalists, Josh.
• We, the JWs, Josh.
• We, the LDS, Josh.
• We, the Oneness Pentecostals, Josh.
• We, the modalistic monarchianists, Josh.

Any number of responses would have been an actual answer to the question asked. I'll waste no more time with you.

You attack and accuse the way they did to Jesus.

 

[Peterlag]

New York Times bestselling author and Bible expert Bart Ehrman reveals how Jesus’s divinity became dogma in the first few centuries of the early church. The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.

He's an historian who covers the dates, places, and people who bickered about the trinity. He starts when the Catholics started and that was not when the Apostles were alive. It was around the fourth century. There's no historian records of a trinity until the Catholics invented it.

 

[TomL]

For the gazillioned time. Words are not living things.

That still does not address Phil 2:5 the nature of Christ/the word before becoming a man

 

[TomL]

I will not talk about the poster in derogatory manner without justification or in violation of the tou.

Yes, the whole of scripture informs every single verse.

In this case, the non-trin use of Col. 1:15 runs into conflict with a creature creating creation . This remains so even if the Greek "en" is translated "in," instead of "by." I will certainly take up that case if and when I find an attempt at reasonable and rational case for non-trinitarianism. In the absence of such a case there is no reason to engage fallacy beyond simply noting the fallacy (-ies) and asking for change. Those who won't answer the simplest of questions, employ argumentum ad populum and ad hominem (or any other logical fallacy), and blatantly misrepresent proof-texted verses without self-correction when the problems are noted aren't worth anyone's time and effort. It's best to simply make an alternative case so the less knowledgeable have some context and a means of recognizing the dross...... and move on.

Most of the non-trins here are cultists. By definition, they have no justification for arguing anything. It's only by grace and for the purpose of their evangelism that they're permitted in most Christian forums and gratitude for it is rarely expressed.

Yes, obviously a created being cannot be involved in creating all things

 

[TomL]

It's quite clear Jesus is a distinct being from God.

From God the father yes

Not from his deity

As Thomas

John 20:28–29 (KJV 1900) — 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


Paul

Titus 2:13 (LEB) — 13 looking forward to the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Peter

2 Peter 1:1 (LEB) — 1 Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith equal in value to ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

His disciples

Luke 24:36–53 (KJV 1900) — 36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them. 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. 50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Which would be an act of blashemy were Jesus not God (deity)

 

[MTMattie]

Huh? First of all, your assertion flies in the face of John 1:3 that declares that the Word of God, who is God and became flesh as Jesus, created everything. If Jesus was a pure creature then he would have had to create himself.

Second of all, your assertion is linguistically awkward. Rev 3:14 mentions the names of Christ in a row: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God. After those titles, the Angel mentions what Christs says. It is silly to mention names and then break the flow by inserting a non-name attribute and have that attribute say something. Attributes don't speak, people do.

Rev 3:14 And to the angel of the church of the Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God, says these things:

False Dichotomy. John 1:1 says "the Word was God". Jesus is God. Your assertion fails.

He does not believe John. Either here or Revelation. Even though Jesus loved him so he does not believe because he does not believe Jesus is who he has told us and there though he wont admit is just does not believe a thing He says either.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And yes Jesus was drawn away by his own lusts, but not the sin of lust. Lust simply means a desire, but he never sinned.

Hebrews 4
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

James 1
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Selective quoting.

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Lust brings forth sin.

As always, you're tarnishing the Impeccable and precious Nature of Jesus Christ.

 

[praise_yeshua]

New York Times bestselling author and Bible expert Bart Ehrman reveals how Jesus’s divinity became dogma in the first few centuries of the early church. The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.

He's an historian who covers the dates, places, and people who bickered about the trinity. He starts when the Catholics started and that was not when the Apostles were alive. It was around the fourth century. There's no historian records of a trinity until the Catholics invented it.

View attachment 986

Once again. You display your ignorance.

1. You reference Ehrman and post a link someone else's book.

2. Ehrman is an Atheist.

Leaving the Faith | The Bart Ehrman Blog

By the early to mid-1990s I had come to think that whatever I had held dear and cherished on the basis of my belief in the Christian God, could still be held dear and cherished without that belief. Do I stand in awe before the unfathomable vastness and incredible majesty…

ehrmanblog.org

3. Ehrman is not a historian. He has an agenda.

Anyone that doesn't know Ehrman is utterly lost in Apologetics of the last three decades.

You're denying God with Ehrman's works.

 

[praise_yeshua]

My friend Richard said to me last Sunday that he thinks he's got this trinity stuff figured out. He said and keep in mind it's not me saying it. He said to me that he thinks since worshiping Jesus as God is idolatry. Then that would explain why the trinity folks open a door to the devil spirits who block their understanding from seeing the truth.

Ehrman speaks for you?

 

[101G]

Ehrman speaks for you?

let's put this nonsense to rest. read post #194. case closed.

101G.

 

[TomL]

Revelation 3:14 in regards to Jesus being the "beginning" of the creation of God is a very common translation and an honest one. It also fully supports Unitarianism. It means that Jesus was created. It doesn't refer to beginning in the sense of rank, but rather in a temporal sense. That means on a timeline in creation, he is the beginning.

HELPS Word-studies​

746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").​

There are also versions that say Jesus is the originator of God's creation which ignores the context of the very verse it's in and inserts contradictions into Scripture. If Jesus was the originator of God's creation then God isn't the Creator. That pretty much overthrows the entire Bible since Creation originated from God yet some versions of Revelation 3:14 say that creation did not originate from God.

Just one of the many many many dogmatic and biased translation one may find in Bibles translated by Trinitarians and their sponsors.

Since you mentioned Genesis 1, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is no one there named Jesus. Jesus was the name given to a human baby, not the name of an alleged pre-incarnate person. Nor is there someone there named the Word.

Not if you believe scripture

John 1:3 (LEB) — 3 All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:10 (LEB) — 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world did not recognize him.

Colossians 1:16 (LEB) — 16 because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him,

Hebrews 1:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 1:8–11 (KJV 1900) — 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

Ephesians 3:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

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.

If you do, it harmonizes quite well

 

[civic]

And yes Jesus was drawn away by his own lusts, but not the sin of lust. Lust simply means a desire, but he never sinned.

Hebrews 4
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

James 1
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

I will go on record declaring you have a false christ, another jesus which also means as Paul declares in Galatians 1:6-9 another gospel.

Jesus was/is sinless, the Holy One, Good etc........... He is Impeccable just like the Father- To see Him is to see the Father- Jesus and the Father are One.

By saying Jesus lusts you are saying the Father lusts for Jesus only said and did what He saw the Father saying and doing. He did nothing apart from the Father and Gods will.

 

[civic]

I don't argue from silence. What do you suppose my argument was since I have no idea what you are talking about?

that Jesus only had the Holy Spirit at the baptism, not before.

btw- the visuals were for John the Baptist for him to know, not because Jesus needed it.

 

[civic]

Not if you believe scripture

John 1:3 (LEB) — 3 All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:10 (LEB) — 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world did not recognize him.

Colossians 1:16 (LEB) — 16 because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him,

Hebrews 1:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 1:8–11 (KJV 1900) — 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

Ephesians 3:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

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.

If you do, it harmonizes quite well

Amen

 

[JoshebB]

Why would I dodge my point about Jesus being a creation?

It's not my job to speculate about another's motives.

Slow down. You're not making sense.

I made a very valid and op-relevant point: the two verses cited do not say what was claimed. The error was not corrected; it is being defended. It does make sense.

Colossians 1:15 is pretty straight forward about Jesus being a creature in plain English.

The subject is the firstborn with the preposition "of" meaning that the firstborn belongs to or originates from the creatures. Therefore, the firstborn is in the category of the creatures and not separate from creation and is included with "every creature." Therefore the firstborn is not independent from the creatures, and therefore isn't God. Hence, he is the "image of the invisible God" and not the invisible God. 1 Timothy 1:17 proves Jesus isn't God with Colossians 1:15.

Colossians 1 (KJV)
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

1 Timothy 1 (KJV)
17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

No, it is not "straight forward." The fact remains the verses cited do not say what they were claimed to say. If you have to employ inference to make the case, then the eisegesis is implicitly acknowledged. In such case..... it would be you not making sense.


More importantly, I do not trade posts with posters who don't answer simple questions succinctly when asked. Neither do I trade posts with posters who repeatedly misrepresent scripture. I don't trade posts with those who repeatedly defend blatant error. Most importantly, perhaps, I don't trade posts with those who do not self-correct when a mistake is apparent. In an effort to extend a hand of goodwill and love (and obedience to God's word) I typically give the other person three tries to fix the problem (this practice has been witnessed here and in other forums). I will not discuss the verses with you if you don't, but I will post an exegetical explanation why those verses cannot be interpreted as they were.... and I'll ignore any subsequent protests on your part (and @Peterlag's) because of already existing established obfuscation and avoidance. Correct the mistake first. Clarify the claim(s) afterwards.



Will you now acknowledge the two verses cited (Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15) do not actually say what was claimed?