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]

So you are anti-Trin?

Why is it do you suppose since the very first time the trinity was talked of it always centered around the same 3.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You never in your life have ever heard oiit suggested there could be another substitute here.

Always the same three . Each with their own appointments.

I mean we have the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary and she is with child... (still intact)

We have Jesus who for the sake of brevity became our savior.

We have the Father who designed every thing we are , for us, and got it done.

But still only the 3 above.

Talk to the woke Presbyterians and they are likely to somehow incorporate the Godess Sophia into their mix.

Yet at the end of the day there are only these 3.

Why?????

There is no biblical mention of Michael in the mix. Michael was doing other works.

So what are the woke Presbyterians up to?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You made a generalized statement about Muslims. That's what is wrong.
Then you made a more specific statement. That's much better.

You are an intelligent and noble person, who must learn how to debate with people of other religions.
To that end you will benefit from calming down and then read, think and post a comment.

I'm not going to "baby" anyone. If you were children, I would. I'm not going to patronize anyone. There are entirely too many adult "children" in this world pretend to be something they're not. You included.

You're coming my way in your dogma and you don't even realize it. I can see a difference. Which is good. I'll hold hope for you.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You should. Claiming a single Greek word has dual meanings where it is both singular and plural without establishing the necessary delineation required equals what?

Such delineation is important to avoid confusion when there is a more or less even use of the term for two or more meanings.
This is not the case.
The term "throne" is used in the Bible 170 times. If in more than 95% of cases the term is used to point out to a chair with a single person sits (or, metaphorically, a supreme authority held by a single person), then that is the meaning we should stick to, and work around any other instance in which such meaning is not used.

It is obvious that a crowd cannot sit on a chair, as Rev 3:21 indicates. So, "throne" is not a chair in Rev 3:21.

Same with the term "God". The term is mentioned in more then 4100 instances throughout the Bible.
If >95% of the instances God is used as if God was a single person, then we should understand that is the standard meaning, and work around those verses in which a different meaning should be sought.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I'm not going to "baby" anyone. If you were children, I would.

The point is that you look like a baby when you don't calm down to read, think and then post a comment.
So, don't treat yourself as a baby. Don't "baby" yourself!
You look like a baby when you through tantrums, skip logics, put on your Superman cloak and play a hero that Jesus does not need.

You are not defending Jesus. Jesus does not need your defense.
I am not defending The Father. He does not need my defense.
They are who they are, whatever our limitations, fantasies or misunderstandings.

We are debating ideas we hold about Jesus or The Father. Ideas, in addition, that have no impact whatsoever on what we do.
We are what we do.
We are what we believe only inasmuch as our belief changes what we do.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Such delineation is important to avoid confusion when there is a more or less even use of the term for two or more meanings.
This is not the case.
The term "throne" is used in the Bible 170 times. If in more than 95% of cases the term is used to point out to a chair with a single person sits (or, metaphorically, a supreme authority held by a single person), then that is the meaning we should stick to, and work around any other instance in which such meaning is not used.

Lies. This isn't true at all. You can't prove this at all. There is no Greek or Hebrew word for chair to be found in the Scriptures. Yet, here you are......

Just arbitrary nonsense. Simple mistakes in your part. God doesn't literally need to "SIT" in a chair nor a bench". God isn't lazy nor does He require rest.

It is obvious that a crowd cannot sit on a chair, as Rev 3:21 indicates. So, "throne" is not a chair in Rev 3:21.

Same with the term "God". The term is mentioned in more then 4100 instances throughout the Bible.
If >95% of the instances God is used as if God was a single person, then we should understand that is the standard meaning, and work around those verses in which a different meaning should be sought.

Good thing God isn't sitting in a chair.

You're even changing your percentages. Where is the 90/10 rule you created? The least you could do is settle on something and stick with it....

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Lies. This isn't true at all. You can't prove this at all. There is no Greek or Hebrew word for chair to be found in the Scriptures. Yet, here you are......

Of course I can prove it.
The Hebrew and Greek word for "throne" refers to a chair. Just go to your dictionary.

In the meanwhile, an image of a throne from Persian empire. How many people are sitting in that chair?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

God doesn't literally need to "SIT" in a chair nor a bench". God isn't lazy nor does He require rest.

I agree.
We are talking about metaphors, and why such metaphors were used.
God does not "sit" and has no "throne".

 

[praise_yeshua]

The point is that you look like a baby when you don't calm down to read, think and then post a comment.

I can read. English isn't your first language. Comprehension is your issue. Not mine.

So, don't treat yourself as a baby. Don't "baby" yourself!

That was a "winner"..... right? Such logic is left to children.

You look like a baby when you through tantrums, skip logics, put on your Superman cloak and play a hero that Jesus does not need.

Jesus doesn't need any of us. That includes you. Debate 101 requires that you not try to create a destination where a fact can applied equally to each of the debate participants? Have you ever taken a class in formal debate?

You are not defending Jesus. Jesus does not need your defense.
I am not defending The Father. He does not need my defense.
They are who they are, whatever our limitations, fantasies or misunderstandings.

Then why are trying to create a distinction between us? Remember. Debate 101. This is typical Unitarian Universalist rhetoric on your part.

We are debating ideas we hold about Jesus or The Father. Ideas, in addition, that have no impact whatsoever on what we do.
We are what we do.
We are what we believe only inasmuch as our belief changes what we do.

Not true at all. All works begin with belief. Works without belief is nothing more than empty compliance. This is why you do not require faith in Jesus Christ to please God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Of course I can prove it.
The Hebrew and Greek word for "throne" refers to a chair. Just go to your dictionary.

Provide your reference. It doesn't. Throne isn't a chair. You even admit it isn't 10 or 5 percent of the time. Not sure which it is now.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree.
We are talking about metaphors, and why such metaphors were used.
God does not "sit" and has no "throne".

Then stop this nonsense defense you have.

"Throne" represent authority. Stop this nonsense complaint about "only one person can sit in a chair".

 

[TomL]

Such delineation is important to avoid confusion when there is a more or less even use of the term for two or more meanings.
This is not the case.
The term "throne" is used in the Bible 170 times. If in more than 95% of cases the term is used to point out to a chair with a single person sits (or, metaphorically, a supreme authority held by a single person), then that is the meaning we should stick to, and work around any other instance in which such meaning is not used.

It is obvious that a crowd cannot sit on a chair, as Rev 3:21 indicates. So, "throne" is not a chair in Rev 3:21.

Same with the term "God". The term is mentioned in more then 4100 instances throughout the Bible.
If >95% of the instances God is used as if God was a single person, then we should understand that is the standard meaning, and work around those verses in which a different meaning should be sought.

A single being not necessarily a single person

Genesis 2:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Lies. This isn't true at all. You can't prove this at all. There is no Greek or Hebrew word for chair to be found in the Scriptures. Yet, here you are......

Just arbitrary nonsense. Simple mistakes in your part. God doesn't literally need to "SIT" in a chair nor a bench". God isn't lazy nor does He require rest.



Good thing God isn't sitting in a chair.

You're even changing your percentages. Where is the 90/10 rule you created? The least you could do is settle on something and stick with it....

This time I'm talking about the use of "throne" in all the Bible, OT included.
You are not reading carefully my posts.
Calm down, read, think and then post.
Don't treat yourself as a baby that you are not. You are an intelligent, noble grown up.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Of course I can prove it.
The Hebrew and Greek word for "throne" refers to a chair. Just go to your dictionary.

In the meanwhile, an image of a throne from Persian empire. How many people are sitting in that chair?

View attachment 1006

You're reference the authority of some men. Nothing more.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This time I'm talking about the use of "throne" in all the Bible, OT included.
You are not reading carefully my posts.
Calm down, read, think and then post.
Don't treat yourself as a baby that you are not. You are an intelligent, noble grown up.

You're losing it. When I say "Greek and Hebrew", I'm talking about the languages. Not OT/NT. The fact you don't understand this means what?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

A single being not necessarily a single person

Genesis 2:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Let me tell you this with all due respect: A 4-year-old child knows that his dad and his mom are not a single being.

A husband is not a single being with his wife. They have separate minds with separate thoughts and choices.
A husband is not even a single flesh with his wife. They have separate bodies.
The verse in question is a metaphor... and you know it!
The use of Genesis 2.24 to imply that God is not a single person has been refuted.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Let me tell you this with all due respect: A 4-year-old child knows that his dad and his mom are not a single being.

A husband is not a single being with his wife. They have separate minds with separate thoughts and choices.
A husband is not even a single flesh with his wife. They have separate bodies.
The verse in question is a metaphor... and you know it!
The use of Genesis 2.24 to imply that God is not a single person has been refuted.

A child knows when mother and father are not joined in a perfect relationship. They can take advantage of this. You know.... deception like you're doing.

Husbands and wives that are perfectly joined in Unity are ONE. You don't understand this at all. I can tell by your fake theological position that SEPERATES that which is Perfectly joined.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You're losing it. When I say "Greek and Hebrew", I'm talking about the languages. Not OT/NT. The fact you don't understand this means what?

If you have a different definition of "throne", present it.
If I was saying that a "throne" is an insect that inhabits the beaches of Australia, THEN I would have the obligation to present the proof, as my definition would be different from the definition everyone knows.
The definition I am presenting is standard. So I have no obligation to present any proof, inasmuch as I have no obligation to prove the meaning of "sheep", "stone", or "river".

Do your homework, my brother.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So lets take @Pancho Frijoles appeal to "throne" as being a "chair".

If what he says is true, then we are in big trouble when we swear by God's chair............

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

 

[TomL]

Let me tell you this with all due respect: A 4-year-old child knows that his dad and his mom are not a single being.

A husband is not a single being with his wife. They have separate minds with separate thoughts and choices.
A husband is not even a single flesh with his wife. They have separate bodies.
The verse in question is a metaphor... and you know it!
The use of Genesis 2.24 to imply that God is not a single person has been refuted.

Well scripture says they are one flesh (not being)

Are you telling us you do not believe scripture?

 

[praise_yeshua]

If you have a different definition of "throne", present it.
If I was saying that a "throne" is an insect that inhabits the beaches of Australia, THEN I would have the obligation to present the proof, as my definition would be different from the definition everyone knows.
The definition I am presenting is standard. So I have no obligation to present any proof, inasmuch as I have no obligation to prove the meaning of "sheep", "stone", or "river".

Do your homework, my brother.

I have. I said "throne" doesn't mean "chair". There is not such a distinction within Greek nor Hebrew. You even declared it a metaphorical representation. Yet here you, still trying to insist it IS.... a chair.

You really are something. You believe your own delusions because they are essential to narrative.

I have a suggestion. Give up your delusions and just change your theology.

That would require to abandon the people you "hold dear" and embrace Jesus Christ. This requirement is the essence of what it means to be "born again".

You will not abandon your delusions because Jesus doesn't mean that much to you.