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.

[TomL]

The Word of life is still there in 1 John 1:1-3 being called an it. How do you harmonize that with your doctrine?

You completely ignored the fact that the apostles heard, saw, touched and handled and nowdeclare

Who or what did the apostles declare in the gospels

Say it

Did the apostles declare an impersonal thing or did they declare a personal being who gives eternal life

it is an appropriate pronoun because it addresses an aspect of Christ who gives eternal life

Eternal life by metonymy is used to represent Christ

Can eternal life create all things, have a mind, think demonstrate humility (Phil 2:5)

 

[praise_yeshua]

I didn't offer anything else. I simply showed you on good authority how Jesus isn't mentioned in the verse you provided. Rather than focusing so much on debating... you should be alerted to the fact about something important regarding the Bible and you should be scrambling to find out what happened to cause what you thought to be proof to turn out quickly debunked. Go for it.

You can't offer anything else.

τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ is very common phrase found throughout the NT. In fact, it is found just a few words previously in the exact same chapter.

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,
τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

So you have the same traditions found in most all manuscripts.

All you're doing is "Googling" again. You google till you find something that agrees with you and then "copy and paste".

How about using some brain cells that carry your own voice. Learn how to study. Learn the arguments yourself. Stop this copy paste style you're using.

As I've told you before. You're reading and referencing "normalized data". Greek manuscripts are collected and then edited into editions.

Pay attention to the raw data.

 

[TomL]

No personal OT appearances of the Word. For example, following John 1:1 we should expect there to be a personal being named the Word doing or saying something. There quite plainly is not.

You have a number of problems

The messenger (angel) of the Lord who is called Jehovah

The Word of God who appears to men and speaks

The fact the Old Testament quotes men saying they saw God and Jesus stating no one has heard or seen the father

The fact Old Testament appearances/events are seen involving Jehovah and are declared to be appearances/events involving jesus

 

[synergy]

The word of God isn't God.

You're flat out contradicting John 1:1 "the Word was God". Just that is enough to throw the rest of your judaizing heretical thoughts out the window.

It's about the words of God coming to Shemaiah, not because the word is a person, but the message came.

Who gave you the authority to change "Word of God" to "words of God" in the Bible?

Hence, the "word of God" speaks of the LORD in the third person. That's proof the word of God isn't God. Same thing in 1 Ch 17:3.

Since when do words speak words??? A person speaks words. This is elementary school stuff.

1 Kings 12
22But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God: 23“Tell Rehoboam son of Solomon king of Judah, all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and the rest of the people 24that this is what the LORD says: ‘You are not to go up and fight against your brothers, the Israelites. Each of you must return home, for this word is from Me.’ ”

Wonderful Trinitarian verses where the Word of God communicates the message of God the Father. Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[praise_yeshua]

You completely ignored the fact that the apostles heard, saw, touched and handled and nowdeclare

Who or what did the apostles declare in the gospels

Say it

Did the apostles declare an impersonal thing or did they declare a personal being who gives eternal life

it is an appropriate pronoun because it addresses an aspect of Christ who gives eternal life

Eternal life by metonymy is used to represent Christ

Can eternal life create all things, have a mind, think demonstrate humility (Phil 2:5)

The problem sometimes is the English language itself. Personification comes from French and is greatly misunderstood. Very few people pay attention to words of most any language. English can be very deceiving relative to perceptions. Synonyms vary significantly in the English language.

A perfect example of this is found in

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

(ESV) For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
(GW) So he is our peace. In his body he has made Jewish and non-Jewish people one by breaking down the wall of hostility that kept them apart.
(NET) For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility,

 

[Runningman]

You can't offer anything else.

τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ is very common phrase found throughout the NT. In fact, it is found just a few words previously in the exact same chapter.

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,
τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

So you have the same traditions found in most all manuscripts.

All you're doing is "Googling" again. You google till you find something that agrees with you and then "copy and paste".

How about using some brain cells that carry your own voice. Learn how to study. Learn the arguments yourself. Stop this copy paste style you're using.

As I've told you before. You're reading and referencing "normalized data". Greek manuscripts are collected and then edited into editions.

Pay attention to the raw data.

I can offer a lot more, but rather than assigning tasks to me, if you have any further points to make then the burden is on you to do so. If you choose not to hold you ground then don't blame me for your laziness. This is a debate, do you homework. If you have something, bring it before me and I'll address it.

Given that in the earliest manuscripts there is nothing about Jesus being mentioned, you have produced a non sequitur. It means your point does not follow clearly from a premise.

Yes, Jesus' name is in Acts 19:5 and there's good premise for being baptized in the name of Jesus. The idea of the "word of Jesus" coming to someone is further contradicted by the context. There isn't just one subject in Acts 19, but it's compound. Even if it was the "word of Jesus" coming to them, to would contradict the idea that Jesus is the Word.

This is what we call a pickle and you're in one.... again.... (this is going to happen a lot when you challenge the Bible)

Option 1: If you say the word of Jesus is Jesus then Jesus isn't the word.
Option 2: If you agree the word of Jesus is not Jesus then you lost your point.
Option 3: If Jesus is the word then Acts 19:10 would read like "the Jesus of Jesus" which is nonsense.

 

[Runningman]

You have a number of problems

The messenger (angel) of the Lord who is called Jehovah

The Word of God who appears to men and speaks

The fact the Old Testament quotes men saying they saw God and Jesus stating no one has heard or seen the father

The fact Old Testament appearances/events are seen involving Jehovah and are declared to be appearances/events involving jesus

Thank you so much for finally bringing up the AOTL. I have been waiting on someone here to make the false claim that you did.

Go to Zechariah 1 where the angel of the Lord is not God Almighty. They are speaking to one another.

Zechariah 1 (NIV)
12Then the angel of the Lord said, “Lord Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?” 13So the Lord spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me.

 

[TomL]

The problem sometimes is the English language itself. Personification comes from French and is greatly misunderstood. Very few people pay attention to words of most any language. English can be very deceiving relative to perceptions. Synonyms vary significantly in the English language.

A perfect example of this is found in

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

(ESV) For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
(GW) So he is our peace. In his body he has made Jewish and non-Jewish people one by breaking down the wall of hostility that kept them apart.
(NET) For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility,

I guess he is an impersonal thing afterall i.e. peace (sic)

LOL

Good grief how absurd an argument that would be

The argument of Runningman is no less absurd

 

[Runningman]

You're flat out contradicting John 1:1 "the Word was God". Just that is enough to throw the rest of your judaizing heretical thoughts out the window.

Who gave you the authority to change "Word of God" to "words of God" in the Bible?

Since when do words speak words??? A person speaks words. This is elementary school stuff.

Wonderful Trinitarian verses where the Word of God communicates the message of God the Father. Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

So you don't believe in basic english? I understand, you must sacrifice the language to preserve your beliefs, but unfortunately for you, you won't be allowed to here. The word of the Lord referring to the LORD in the third person means the word of the Lord isn't God. You have lost your point.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I can offer a lot more, but rather than assigning tasks to me, if you have any further points to make then the burden is on you to do so. If you choose not to hold you ground then don't blame me for your laziness. This is a debate, do you homework. If you have something, bring it before me and I'll address it.

No you will not.

Given that in the earliest manuscripts there is nothing about Jesus being mentioned, you have produced a non sequitur. It means your point does not follow clearly from a premise.

That is a lie. You can't even reference the earliest manuscript that supposedly "proves you right". I gave the task of naming the manuscript. You have no ide where to start. You don't even have access to the information. You can't google it and find in the first page of the search result. AI can't tell you.

So you DON'T KNOW......

Yes, Jesus' name is in Acts 19:5 and there's good premise for being baptized in the name of Jesus. The idea of the "word of Jesus" coming to someone is further contradicted by the context. There isn't just one subject in Acts 19, but it's compound. Even if it was the "word of Jesus" coming to them, to would contradict the idea that Jesus is the Word.

Being baptized in the NAME of Jesus means what exactly? You certainly don't care to honor such a name.

I made an argument that you don't even recognize. I established the use of "τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ" as common practice in the manuscript evidence. The oldest manuscript has "τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ".

What you shared is a lie. You just repeated a lie. That is all you did. Cambridge often lies. After all, they have an Anglican history. Not that you would know this. You're about a deep as a thimble full of water.

This is what we call a pickle and you're in one.... again.... (this is going to happen a lot when you challenge the Bible).

I challenged Cambridge. Pay attention.

Option 1: If you say the word of Jesus is Jesus then Jesus isn't the word.
Option 2: If you agree the word of Jesus is not Jesus then you lost your point.
Option 3: If Jesus is the word then Acts 19:10 would read like "the Jesus of Jesus" which is nonsense.

No it would read.... "τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ" Which is what it reads.

You don't even recognize the issue. Acts 19:10 is unique in the inclusion of λόγος. You're pitiful.

How old are you?

 

[TomL]

Thank you so much for finally bringing up the AOTL. I have been waiting on someone here to make the false claim that you did.

Go to Zechariah 1 where the angel of the Lord is not God Almighty. They are speaking to one another.

Zechariah 1 (NIV)
12Then the angel of the Lord said, “Lord Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?” 13So the Lord spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me.

You should have waited longwer

Angel of Yahweh

Examples of use of the Hebrew term מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה are found in the following verses, here given in the King James Version translation:

• Genesis 16:7–14. The angel of the Lord appears to Hagar. The angel speaks as God in the first person, and in verse 13 Hagar identifies "the LORD that spake unto her" as "Thou God seest me".
• Genesis 22:11–15. The angel of the Lord appears to Abraham and refers to God in the first person.
• Exodus 3:2–4. The angel of the Lord appears to Moses in a flame in verse 2, and God speaks to Moses from the flame in verse 4.

• Judges 2:1–3. An angel of the Lord appears to Israel.
• Judges 6:11–23. An angel of the Lord appears to Gideon, and in verse 22 Gideon fears for his life because he has seen an angel of the Lord face to face.
• Judges 13:3–22. The angel of the Lord appears to Manoah and his wife and, in verse 16, tells them to offer to the LORD if they are to make an offering ("And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah [...] if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD."). Later Manoah thought he and his wife will die for they "have seen God"
• Zechariah 3:4. The angel of the Lord takes away the sin of the high priest Joshua.

• Genesis 31:11. The angel of God calls out to Jacob in a dream and tells him "I am the God of Bethel".
• Exodus 14:19. The angel of God leads the camp of Israel, and also follows behind them, with the pillar of fire.

 

[TomL]

So you don't believe in basic english? I understand, you must sacrifice the language to preserve your beliefs, but unfortunately for you, you won't be allowed to here. The word of the Lord referring to the LORD in the third person means the word of the Lord isn't God. You have lost your point.

Apparently it is you who does not for, Anything can be spoken of in the third person

you offer a worthless argument

 

[praise_yeshua]

Apparently it is you who does not for, Anything can be spoken of in the third person

you offer a worthless argument

Like.....

Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?

 

[Runningman]

No you will not.

Yes I will and you're utterly powerless to stop me.

That is a lie. You can't even reference the earliest manuscript that supposedly "proves you right". I gave the task of naming the manuscript. You have no ide where to start. You don't even have access to the information. You can't google it and find in the first page of the search result. AI can't tell you.

It's not a lie. They are not teaching anyone in seminary that Jesus is in Acts 19:10. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says so. It's also freely available for you to research on your own.

So you DON'T KNOW......

Laughable.. give it up.

Being baptized in the NAME of Jesus means what exactly? You certainly don't care to honor such a name.

Don't run away from Acts 19:10. You were wrong. The manuscripts that pre-date the KJV don't include the "word of Jesus"

I made an argument that you don't even recognize. I established the use of "τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ" as common practice in the manuscript evidence. The oldest manuscript has "τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ".

What you shared is a lie. You just repeated a lie. That is all you did. Cambridge often lies. After all, they have an Anglican history. Not that you would know this. You're about a deep as a thimble full of water.



I challenged Cambridge. Pay attention.



No it would read.... "τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ" Which is what it reads.

You don't even recognize the issue. Acts 19:10 is unique in the inclusion of λόγος. You're pitiful.

How old are you?

Nonsense. There are much older manuscripts than what the KJV is based on. We have better, older, manuscripts nowadays. Are you even aware of what versions the NIV and misc other modern Bible's use nowadays? You're showing your ignorance. I am not about to give you a history lesson on manuscripts. If you are not equipped to be having high level discussions on the Bible then, again, don't blame me for it.

 

[Runningman]

Apparently it is you who does not for, Anything can be spoken of in the third person

you offer a worthless argument

Referring to someone in the third person means the speaker isn't the same person they are referring to. To make sense of how we speak to one another requires we follow basic grammar constructs... otherwise, if you ignore them, it is nonsense like the Trinity doctrine.

 

[TomL]

Referring to someone in the third person means the speaker isn't the same person they are referring to. To make sense of how we speak to one another requires we follow basic grammar constructs... otherwise, if you ignore them, it is nonsense like the Trinity doctrine.

I hope you are not imagining the trinity doctrine teaches Jesus is the Father

That is not Trinitarianism

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes I will and you're utterly powerless to stop me.

You can say whatever you want. You're a perfect example of an inept Unitarian. Keep it up. What I said was you're not proving anything but ignorance.

It's not a lie. They are not teaching anyone in seminary that Jesus is in Acts 19:10. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says so. It's also freely available for you to research on your own.

Who cares what Cambridge is teaching someone in "seminary". Besides, Cambridge has long been forgotten. You can't find the evidence that Cambridge used to make that statement. Thusly, all you have are the words of ignorant men. Just another blind follower of nonsense. You referenced the first reference you could find that agreed with you. Pitiful. I know the subject and how to do actual research instead of "googling".

Laughable.. give it up.

You're utterly powerless to stop me.

Don't run away from Acts 19:10. You were wrong. The manuscripts that pre-date the KJV don't include the "word of Jesus"

Geesh. Again. You show your ignorance. It has nothing to do with the King James edition. Byzantine manuscripts predate the 4th century. There are many bible based upon the so called "Byzantine textform". The earliest witnesses are in Byzantine textform for many manuscripts throughout the NT. Don't believe this silliness you're reading. If you ever care to actually know the evidence, then you'll reference manuscripts. You can't. You don't know how.

Nonsense. There are much older manuscripts than what the KJV is based on. We have better, older, manuscripts nowadays. Are you even aware of what versions the NIV and misc other modern Bible's use nowadays? You're showing your ignorance. I am not about to give you a history lesson on manuscripts. If you are not equipped to be having high level discussions on the Bible then, again, don't blame me for it.

The NIV isn't taken from manuscripts. It is taken from a edited text referenced as the "4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament" or the "UBS4".

Such people love it when men like yourself don't ask questions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I hope you are not imagining the trinity doctrine teaches Jesus is the Father

That is not Trinitarianism

He doesn't know Trinitarianism. The more I interact with him the more I believe he follows Allah.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Referring to someone in the third person means the speaker isn't the same person they are referring to. To make sense of how we speak to one another requires we follow basic grammar constructs... otherwise, if you ignore them, it is nonsense like the Trinity doctrine.

Do you believe Jesus is the Christ?

 

[TomL]

He doesn't know Trinitarianism. The more I interact with him the more I believe he follows Allah.

A Muslim?