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.

[360watt]

from creation.com:



NZ Creation Super Conference 2025: 5 days of stimulating creation talks from local and international speakers Learn more →

Also Available in:
Other Languages Kiswahili Español فارسی hrvatski
Other Languages

Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn Email

Jesus Christ our Creator​

A biblical defence of the Trinity​

by Jonathan Sarfati
First published in: Apologia 5(2):37–39, 1996
The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult for some people to understand. But this is what God has revealed in Scripture about His own Being, so we should believe it.
The doctrine of the Trinity states that in the unity of the Godhead there are three eternal and co-equal Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the same in essence but distinct in role — three Persons (or three centres of consciousness) and one Being (see diagram, below). The different senses of one-ness and three-ness mean that the doctrine is not self-contradictory. This is similar in principle to saying that the navy, army, and airforce are three distinct fighting entities, but are also one armed service. NB: this is not to suggest that the three persons are ‘parts’ of God. Indeed, each Person has the fullness of the Godhead (see Colossians 2:9). A better analogy is that space contains three dimensions, yet the dimensions are not ‘parts’ — the concept of ‘space’ is meaningless without all three dimensions.

Biblical derivation​

All things necessary for our faith and life are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. Some cults, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, and groups known as ‘Oneness’, or ‘Jesus-only’ Pentecostals (not to be confused with mainstream Pentecostals who do believe in the Trinity), are fond of pointing out that the word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible. But the doctrine can be logically proven from the following clear teachings of Scripture as follows:

Ancient diagram of the Trinity; redrawn by artist Debra Bosio Riley—the chosen colours are important, because the additive primary colours of light combine to form white light (see this picture).

• There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:8). Note that the Hebrew word for ‘one’ is echad which means composite unity — it is used in Genesis 2:24 where the husband and wife become ‘one flesh’. The word for absolute unity is yachid which is never used of God in the Scripture.
• The Father is called God (John 6:27, Ephesians 4:6).
• The Son is called God (Hebrews 1:8. He is also called ‘I am’ in John 8:58 cf. Ex. 3:14 — see below for more biblical proof). He has always existed (John 1:1–3, 8:56–58), but took on full human nature in addition to His divine nature at the Incarnation (John 1:14, Philippians 2:5–11).
• The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3–4), and is personal (Acts 13:2), not some impersonal force as the Jehovah’s Witness cult believes.
• They are distinct, e.g. at the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16–17 all three were present and distinct. The Son is baptized, the Father speaks from Heaven, and the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, flies down and lands on the Son. See the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ Note that the word ‘name’ is singular, showing that all three Persons are one Being.

The distinction in persons within the one God means that it is possible for Jesus to be the ‘one mediator between God and men’ (1 Timothy 2:5), and to be our ‘advocate with the Father’ (1 John 2:1) when we sin. An advocate is a defence lawyer, who pleads our case before a judge. This demonstrates a distinction between the persons.
The distinction makes the Substitutionary Atonement possible. How else could Jesus be the One on whom the LORD has ‘laid … the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6)? The one laying and the one on whom our sins are laid must be distinct.
Jesus said that His Father sent Him (John 14:24) and that the Spirit was sent by both the Father (John 14:26) and the Son (John 15:7). This also points to distinct centres of consciousness within the one God.
The fact that Jesus prayed to God the Father (John 17:1) shows there was a distinction between Father and Son. Since Jesus was fully human (as well as fully divine), and humans should pray, it follows that it was proper for Jesus to pray in His humanity.
Also, the deity of the Son, Jesus Christ, is further proved by the fact that He has attributes belonging uniquely to God, e.g.:

• He is the Creator (Colossians 1:16–17).
• He has the ability to forgive sins (Luke 7:47–50) and judge all people (John 5:27).
• He sends forth the Holy Spirit (John 15:26).
• He accepts worship (Hebrews 1:6, Matthew 14:33).
• He is called ‘Lord’ (Romans 10:9) where ‘Lord’ (kurios) is a translation of the Old Testament Yahweh (= God). (Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32 which makes this clear.)
• And He is identified with the ‘Alpha and Omega’ and the equivalent ‘the first and the last’ (Revelation 1:8, 17–18, cf. Isaiah 44:6).
• In the Old Testament, He is the Child who is called ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father’ (Hebrew is literally ‘Father of Eternity’, meaning ‘Author of Eternity’) (Isaiah 9:6, cf. 10:21) He would be born in Bethlehem, yet His ‘goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.’ (Micah 5:2)

Some Objections to the Trinity Answered​

Despite the clear Biblical evidence for the Trinity, some cults have objections based on misunderstandings of Scripture.

• Jesus said: ‘My Father is greater (meizon) than I’ (John 14:28). But this refers to the Father’s greater position in Heaven, not superior nature. Philippians 2:5–11 states that Jesus had equality by nature with God, but voluntarily took on the lower position of a servant. The same arguments apply to related passages about Jesus submitting to His Father’s will.

The word ‘better’ (kreitton) would have been used to describe superiority in nature if this is what had been meant. Indeed, kreitton is used to describe Jesus’ superiority in His very nature to the angels (Hebrews 1:4). The distinction can be illustrated in the human realm by the role of the Prime Minister — he is greater than us in position, but he is still a human being like us, so is not better in nature.

• Jesus is called ‘the firstborn of every creature’ (Colossians 1:15). However, in Jewish imagery, ‘firstborn’ means ‘having the rights and special privileges belonging to the eldest child’. It refers to pre-eminence in rank more than to priority in time. This can be shown in passages where the term ‘firstborn’ is used of the pre-eminent son who was not the eldest, e.g. Psalm 89:27, where David is called ‘firstborn’ although he was actually the youngest son.

‘Firstborn’ does not mean ‘first created’; the Greek for the latter is protoktisis, while firstborn is prototokos. In fact, the verses after Colossians 1:15 show that Christ Himself is the creator of all things.

• Jesus is Son of God. From this, some cults try to show that Jesus is somehow less than God. But in Jewish imagery, ‘the son of’ often meant ‘of the order of’ or ‘having the very nature of’. For example, ‘sons of the prophets’ meant ‘of the order of prophets’ (1 Kings 20:35); ‘sons of the singers’ meant ‘of the order of singers’ (Nehemiah 12:28). Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries understood that He was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for blasphemy (John 19:7).
• Jesus is the ‘only-begotten Son’ (John 3:16). The Greek word translated ‘only-begotten’ is monogenes, which means ‘unique, one of a kind’. Jesus is the unique Son of God, because he is God by His very nature (see above). Believers in Him become ‘sons of God’ by adoption (Galatians 3:26–4:7).

This is shown in the human realm by Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s ‘only begotten son’. Abraham had other sons, but Isaac was the unique son of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis chapters 15–18, 20), born when his parents were old

 

[synergy]

What?
My friend: this is the most erroneous statement I have read from you so far… I mean, academically.
No student of first grade Theology at any university would subscribe to such idea.
There was no “Unitarian heresy” at the time of Jesus.

Pharisees never thought thatJesus or the Holy Spirit were Persons of the Trinity simply because… that teaching didn’t exist at that time!!
No Hebrew fisher, housewife, carpenter, peasant, prostitute, scribe, potter, tax collector, merchant or priest thought that The God of Israel was triune. Nobody expected that the Messiah would be God.

Unitarism was not regarded as a heresy until the Council of Nicaea, which took place several generations after those Pharisees (325). Before that Council, it had been just a controversy, and nobody from the Trinitarian side really taught that those on the other side would burn in hell.

OT Prophets were repeatedly exposed to the literal presence of a Deity called the "Angel of the Lord" and Word of God. Prophets like Daniel were given visions of a Deity called The Son of Man, alongside the Father. This presence of the Preincarnate Jesus happened over and over again in OT. That Preincarnate presence could not possibly be the Father because nobody can see the Father. As time went on, the Pharisees put that fact aside and experienced Unitarian sclerosis of the mind. This came to a head when Jesus declared himself the "I Am" OT God. Full blown Pharisaic Unitarian is what the Pharisees manifested when they tried to stone Jesus. Today's Unitarians are a modern day spin off of that heresy.

 

[MTMattie]

Because of Bahá'u'lláh.
As a Manifestation of God, He makes the Unknowable God become close to me.

Close only counts in horseshoes.

I would much rather He be within me, as is the Holy Spirit.

 

[MTMattie]

And so what?
You are demanding a criteria (resurrection) that the hypothetical believer in Enoch's deity would not accept.
On the contrary, such hypothetical believer would rebuke: "Enoch didn't even have to die. That proves He was God because God cannot die."


How could you prove that Jesus came from above and Enoch didn't?
It would be just a matter of faith.

The hypothetical believer in Enoch's deity could tell you that the proof that he came from above is that he could not get corrupted and die.

Enoch came from Jared. Enoch's son was Methuselah

Enoch was Adam's great-great-great-great grandson (and Noah's great-grandfather)

All earth bound on this ball of mud we walk on.

 

[MTMattie]

Well, I think the evidence is there that the Catholics started the trinity.

When did they start it? Through Peter of whom Jesus chose to build his church?

And before you say that was an error in interpretation I will remind all that


Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are the focus of an ongoing debate over who or what “the rock” is that Jesus mentions. The immediate context contains a question that Jesus put to His disciples: “Who do you say I am?” (verse 15). Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16), to which Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (verses 17–18).

Is “this rock” on which Christ promised to build His church Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Is it the truth of Peter’s statement? Or is the rock Jesus Himself? In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100 percent sure which view is correct.

And remember.... The literal meaning of the name Peter is stone, boulder, or rock.

Also the fact is the first, acknowledged Christian church had Peter as its Pope.

You do not need to be a Catholic to appreciate what at first was started. You dont have to even like the RCC. DO NOT GET ME started on Frankie. (Pope Francis because what Peter may have started Frankie is turning upside-down. )

Dont you think that Peter may have been given some "privileged" information?

You had the Catholics and Orthodox for a very long time before other "Christian" denominations came into being.

Fact is that the historians of the ancient times all claimed there was a Trinity.

Tertullian, and Origen

My favorite...
Polycarp affirms the trinity.1 This is relevant because Polycarp's teachings matched that of the apostles.

1. • Polycarp (writting in c. AD 110-140): “May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God, help you to grow in faith and truth, in unfailing gentleness and the avoidance of all anger, in patience and forbearance, and in calmness and purity. To you, and to ourselves as well, and to all those under heaven who shall one day come to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Father who raised Him from the dead, may He grant part and portion among His saints.” [Polycarp to the Phillipians Section 12]

AND.....

another favorite...

Eusebius is possibly the best witness of the consistency of the pre-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.

Certainly as some would have been contemporaries of the apostles, again some would have more insight to form their opinions.

_____________________-

Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen | Maranatha Baptist Seminary

www.mbu.edu

Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen

Trinitarianism in the Early Church

Coleman Ford overviews the doctrine of the Trinity as its understanding developed in the church during the second through fifth centuries.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Trinitarianism in the Early Church​

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers​

Includes:

169–181: Theophilus of Antioch​

[edit]
Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to God, his Word and his Wisdom. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1–3:

...the three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

__________________________________________

So I'll stop posting links for now. There is a lot to read an digest and if after such you want more just ask.

 

[Studyman]

I have. Many times. Not just "now" like you have. Many many years ago. I once believed like you do. It is study that changed my mind.

You have never believed like me. But I used to believe like you. BTW, you never did answer my question about the level you wish to drag me and others down to.

In Rom. 3, "is Paul and David speaking about EVERY man being at your level, that he describes in his statements below? After all, you did say "ALL" men are on the same level as you are".

You tell me to pay attention to your words. But it seems prudent to establish some foundational beliefs in the religion you are promoting first. Given the warnings of the Jesus "of the Bible" about men who call Him Lord, Lord. Before you start telling me what Sin is and what Sin isn't, perhaps it would be prudent to have you answer my question first.

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Was Paul describing himself and the faithful here as all being at the same level as you and the Pharisees?

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's good...
but again, the vast majority of Christians do not do that.

I'm just going to stop right here with you. You're not experienced at all with theology.

Catholic pray the "Jesus Prayer".....

You might want to study more.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Abraham was not a Christian. He was a Jew. The first one. It is now clear to me that you do not understand the Bible or the power of God.

Abraham was a Gentile. A son of Noah. The word is not found in the OT. Doesn't exist. Study more.

 

[TomL]

When did they start it? Through Peter of whom Jesus chose to build his church?

And before you say that was an error in interpretation I will remind all that


Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are the focus of an ongoing debate over who or what “the rock” is that Jesus mentions. The immediate context contains a question that Jesus put to His disciples: “Who do you say I am?” (verse 15). Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16), to which Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (verses 17–18).

Is “this rock” on which Christ promised to build His church Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Is it the truth of Peter’s statement? Or is the rock Jesus Himself? In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100 percent sure which view is correct.

And remember.... The literal meaning of the name Peter is stone, boulder, or rock.

Also the fact is the first, acknowledged Christian church had Peter as its Pope.

You do not need to be a Catholic to appreciate what at first was started. You dont have to even like the RCC. DO NOT GET ME started on Frankie. (Pope Francis because what Peter may have started Frankie is turning upside-down. )

Dont you think that Peter may have been given some "privileged" information?

You had the Catholics and Orthodox for a very long time before other "Christian" denominations came into being.

Fact is that the historians of the ancient times all claimed there was a Trinity.

Tertullian, and Origen

My favorite...
Polycarp affirms the trinity.1 This is relevant because Polycarp's teachings matched that of the apostles.

AND.....

another favorite...

Eusebius is possibly the best witness of the consistency of the pre-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.

Certainly as some would have been contemporaries of the apostles, again some would have more insight to form their opinions.

_____________________-

Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen | Maranatha Baptist Seminary

www.mbu.edu

Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen

Trinitarianism in the Early Church

Coleman Ford overviews the doctrine of the Trinity as its understanding developed in the church during the second through fifth centuries.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Trinitarianism in the Early Church​

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers​

Includes:

169–181: Theophilus of Antioch​

[edit]
Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to God, his Word and his Wisdom. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1–3:



__________________________________________

So I'll stop posting links for now. There is a lot to read an digest and if after such you want more just ask.

UM No support for the papacy here

The disciples were still arguing about who was the greatest

Luke 22:24-30

Peter is nowhere shown supreme

Paul rebukes him Galatians 2:11-14 Peter erred on a Matter of faith and practice

James presides over the Jerusalem council and makes the final Decision

Acts 15:3-20

Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder and pastor

1PETER 5:1,2

The apostles send Peter

Acts 8:14

Peter never instructs anyone to give fealty to his successor

Petros is masculine but petra is feminine thus not a reference to Peter

Paul was in no way inferior to the chief apostles

2Corinthians 11:5; 12:11

Some additional facts

The French Roman catholic Launoy surveyed the patristic evidence with the following result

16 identified Peter as the Rock

8 identified all the apostles together as the Rock

44 identified Peters confession "Thou art the Christ. The son of the living God as the Rock

20 % affirmed the catholic understanding


The Jesuit Maldonatus

There are among ancient authors some who interpret on this Rock that is on this faith or on the confession of faith as Hilary, and Gregory Nyssen and Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria. St Augustine going further away from the true sense interprets on this Rock that is on myself Christ, because Christ was the Rock. But origin on this Rock that is to say on all men who have this faith

cited by James White pgs. 120,121 The Roman Catholic controversy



The vicar of Christ is not the Pope but the Holy Spirit

John 14 and 16



Irenaeus’s list of 12 bishops of Roman does not include Peter



God bypassed Peter and gave Paul his gospel

Galatians 2:7



Paul neglects the mention of the papacy

1Corinthians 12:28 Ephesians 4:11



Peter is called to justify his actions ?

Acts 11:2, 3

 

[Peterlag]

When did they start it? Through Peter of whom Jesus chose to build his church?

And before you say that was an error in interpretation I will remind all that


Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 are the focus of an ongoing debate over who or what “the rock” is that Jesus mentions. The immediate context contains a question that Jesus put to His disciples: “Who do you say I am?” (verse 15). Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16), to which Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (verses 17–18).

Is “this rock” on which Christ promised to build His church Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Is it the truth of Peter’s statement? Or is the rock Jesus Himself? In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100 percent sure which view is correct.

And remember.... The literal meaning of the name Peter is stone, boulder, or rock.

Also the fact is the first, acknowledged Christian church had Peter as its Pope.

You do not need to be a Catholic to appreciate what at first was started. You dont have to even like the RCC. DO NOT GET ME started on Frankie. (Pope Francis because what Peter may have started Frankie is turning upside-down. )

Dont you think that Peter may have been given some "privileged" information?

You had the Catholics and Orthodox for a very long time before other "Christian" denominations came into being.

Fact is that the historians of the ancient times all claimed there was a Trinity.

Tertullian, and Origen

My favorite...
Polycarp affirms the trinity.1 This is relevant because Polycarp's teachings matched that of the apostles.

AND.....

another favorite...

Eusebius is possibly the best witness of the consistency of the pre-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.

Certainly as some would have been contemporaries of the apostles, again some would have more insight to form their opinions.

_____________________-

Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen | Maranatha Baptist Seminary

www.mbu.edu

Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen

Trinitarianism in the Early Church

Coleman Ford overviews the doctrine of the Trinity as its understanding developed in the church during the second through fifth centuries.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Trinitarianism in the Early Church​

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers​

Includes:

169–181: Theophilus of Antioch​

[edit]
Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to God, his Word and his Wisdom. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1–3:



__________________________________________

So I'll stop posting links for now. There is a lot to read an digest and if after such you want more just ask.

E. W. Bullinger who I am a student of says there are 2 different Greek words used for "rock." A small little stone that blows around in the wind was what Jesus called Peter. And the other Greek word used was a solid rock which I'm sure Jesus was referring to himself with that rock since he is a solid rock and Peter was not.

 

[Peterlag]

Nothing there about roman Catholicism in those early years I quoted

And Jesus was in fact worshipped and accept worship

Luke 24:52–53 (KJV 1900) — 52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Matthew 28:17 (KJV 1900) — 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

John 9:38 (KJV 1900) — 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

Maybe you should just forget letting men may tickle your ears and believe scripture

Like I said the Catholics moved in very early. Historians see letters with holy water dating back as far as 80 or 90 AD. They may not have been called Catholics yet, but those Pagans were there very early on.

 

[TomL]

Like I said the Catholics moved in very early. Historians see letters with holy water dating back as far as 80 or 90 AD. They may not have been called Catholics yet, but those Pagans were there very early on.

Sorry we are talking about Jesus being worshipped and him accepting worship

Now if he was not God, he sinned in accepting worship

 

[Peterlag]

Sorry we are talking about Jesus being worshipped and him accepting worship

Now if he was not God, he sinned in accepting worship

The Scriptures say Jesus can be worshiped as the son of God. Not as God.

 

[TomL]

The Scriptures say Jesus can be worshiped as the son of God. Not as God.

Where?

John told you to worship the son as you worship the Father

Do you worship them the same?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You have never believed like me. But I used to believe like you. BTW, you never did answer my question about the level you wish to drag me and others down to.

Restate or post the link to whatever that was.

In Rom. 3, "is Paul and David speaking about EVERY man being at your level, that he describes in his statements below? After all, you did say "ALL" men are on the same level as you are".

You tell me to pay attention to your words. But it seems prudent to establish some foundational beliefs in the religion you are promoting first. Given the warnings of the Jesus "of the Bible" about men who call Him Lord, Lord. Before you start telling me what Sin is and what Sin isn't, perhaps it would be prudent to have you answer my question first.

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Was Paul describing himself and the faithful here as all being at the same level as you and the Pharisees?

I'm not a Pharisee but I'm certainly not without sin. I exalt Jesus Christ alone as sinless. You have a history of sin. I do too. Grace should end your silly opinion of your accomplishments. You obviously have an high opinion of yourself. We can wait till your body gives out on you and see..... just how well you help yourself. Anyone can do something good a few times. No one can maintain such throughout their entire lives. If they could, you could replace Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Abraham was a Gentile. A son of Noah. The word is not found in the OT. Doesn't exist. Study more.

Sorry. O should have said it wasn't found in the Torah.

 

[praise_yeshua]

E. W. Bullinger who I am a student of says there are 2 different Greek words used for "rock." A small little stone that blows around in the wind was what Jesus called Peter. And the other Greek word used was a solid rock which I'm sure Jesus was referring to himself with that rock since he is a solid rock and Peter was not.

You read his commentary. Bullinger died on 1913. How old are you? You're not his student.

Bullinger changed significantly throughout his life. He never reconciled his change with his commentary. Men never do. They just pretend they always believed the same things.

I bet you do the same things. Isn't it ethical to acknowledge your changes?

Have you changed since you "wrote your book" in 2000?

 

[praise_yeshua]

E. W. Bullinger who I am a student of says there are 2 different Greek words used for "rock." A small little stone that blows around in the wind was what Jesus called Peter. And the other Greek word used was a solid rock which I'm sure Jesus was referring to himself with that rock since he is a solid rock and Peter was not.

BTW.... the Greek word for "rock" is often a reference to a "rock formation". HUGE........

There is no difference in the Greek word in Matthew 16:18

 

[MTMattie]

I'm just going to stop right here with you. You're not experienced at all with theology.

Catholic pray the "Jesus Prayer".....

You might want to study more.

You mean they pray something other then the Our Father or the Rosary? Son of a gun.... I wonder if they know this?

 

[Studyman]

Restate or post the link to whatever that was.



I'm not a Pharisee but I'm certainly not without sin. I exalt Jesus Christ alone as sinless. You have a history of sin. I do too. Grace should end your silly opinion of your accomplishments. You obviously have an high opinion of yourself. We can wait till your body gives out on you and see..... just how well you help yourself. Anyone can do something good a few times.

I simply asked you again, based on your stated religious philosophy that all men are the same as you, at your level, and that you work to drag others down to your level. Your own words. I know you understand the question concerning Paul's words in Romans 3. I also know you are purposely refusing to answer again, for the 3rd time, by deflecting and directing the discussion away from your own preaching, to me personally. A practice your regularly engage in on this forum.

You are quick to judge all others, even their women. But hide from questions and Scriptures which may expose the hypocrisy in you. The Pharisees engaged in exactly the same religious practice. I didn't make you act this way, you choose to. I'm loving you as Jesus Loved me, by showing you your sins so that you might turn away from them and be renewed in the spirit of your mind. I pray that you might engage in a little reflection of your own deeds.

No one can maintain such throughout their entire lives. If they could, you could replace Jesus.

What an utterly foolish statement. All men have sinned. Even if a man did commit themselves fully to God, in obedience to His instruction in righteousness as Paul and Jesus both teach, they would still require Jesus' sacrifice to remove their past sins. The implication of your religion, that you must keep breaking God's Laws to give Jesus a purpose is foolishness.

1 John 2: 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, "that ye sin not". And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: