Thomas... My Lord and my God

Doug Brents said:
He was a sin offering. But he was also made to be sin on our behalf, as Isaiah said He would be. Adding the word "offering" to that passage doesn't make the verse dispute other Scripture, but it does make it say something that the original writer (and the Holy Spirit who authored it) meant for it to say.
Click to expand...
But God cannot become sin.
 
uh. maybe that is why God's Son became incarnate so that his body could take it on. However, the metaphysical sense may be beyond our understanding, but the effect and benefit to us makes better sense to those who recognize that God can do these things. Maybe someone can share this with Peterlag.
 
There's reasons why the Bible does not teach Unitarianism in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why the Bible teaches that God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about Unitarianism in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like Unitarianism and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the Unitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should not believe or confess that Jesus is God. Unitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would not come to the earth as a man. Unitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Unitarian, and Unitarianism and nonTrinitarian.

If any of this nonsense - Unitarianism - was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.
 
dwight92070 said:
There's reasons why the Bible does not teach Unitarianism in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why the Bible teaches that God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about Unitarianism in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like Unitarianism and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the Unitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should not believe or confess that Jesus is God. Unitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would not come to the earth as a man. Unitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Unitarian, and Unitarianism and nonTrinitarian.

If any of this nonsense - Unitarianism - was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.
Click to expand...
Thomas' reaction to seeing Jesus resurrected would have been a perfect time for Jesus to say "No. I am just a resurrected person."
 
mikesw said:
oh right. you were gone when peterlags spin on their views was exposed.
If we take this as a good evidence of unitarian distorting of meaning, we can recognize that Erickson is just saying not to read the Trinitarian doctrine improperly into the text of scripture. That is not to to reject the recognition of our triune God but just to be humble in our reading of scripture in its context. For the unitarian, he cannot allow people to understand God in a broad sense but only in a hyperliteralist sense that makes God two dimensional and constrained to man's imagination of an anthropomorphic deity.
No matter how many errors Peterlag makes, he just copies and pastes them back at a later date.

Be careful of Peterlag. He never learns when errors are pointed out in his posts and understanding.
Click to expand...
I don't consider quoting the Bible to be a spin. The Bible doesn't even mention the Trinity or describe it. Almost anything with Scriptural backing would be better than the entirely baseless religion that you seem to promote.
 
Peterlag said:
My opinion fits with the scope of the entire Bible. Your opinion does not fit anywhere. Jesus was a sin offering. He did not become sin because if he could he would not be the son of God.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is something Trinitarians don't understand. It is dangerous to assign sin to God in any way, shape, or form. I also believe it's pardonable because many people are just genuinely misunderstanding the Bible on the point of Jesus becoming sin.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not precise, more like performing theological surgery with a chainsaw rather than a very fine scalpel. They created the form of their beliefs, but it's very rough around the edges. Things like God becoming sin, God dying, etc are questions they have not accounted for.
 
Runningman said:
I don't consider quoting the Bible to be a spin. The Bible doesn't even mention the Trinity or describe it. Almost anything with Scriptural backing would be better than the entirely baseless religion that you seem to promote.
Click to expand...
I was identifying how Peterlag misused quotes by people. Some scholars want to help avoid misconceptions if people do not find the word "Trinity" in the scripture. Layman will often get upset at it and overreact by denying the evidence of the Trinitarian God found in scripture. Several people got the warning too late and fell for the unitarian heresy.
 
Runningman said:
Yes, that is something Trinitarians don't understand. It is dangerous to assign sin to God in any way, shape, or form. I also believe it's pardonable because many people are just genuinely misunderstanding the Bible on the point of Jesus becoming sin.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not precise, more like performing theological surgery with a chainsaw rather than a very fine scalpel. They created the form of their beliefs, but it's very rough around the edges. Things like God becoming sin, God dying, etc are questions they have not accounted for.
Click to expand...
I just read the following booklet and I have provided a paragraph written from the booklet. I am one of the most knowledgeable guys on the planet concerning the subject of the resurrected Christ. And thus, I don't really need to learn anymore. And yet this A.E. Knoch increased my understanding of the Christ. God cannot relate to us because we can only understand human stuff. So in Christ we have the mouthpiece of God. And that ladies and gentlemen cannot sin or die.

"All comes through Christ, from the beginning to the end. He is the channel, not the source or the object of all things. When entering into the world, he said, "Lo... I am arriving to do thy will oh God." (Hebrews 10:7). This is one of his most gracious glories. Let us not rob Christ of it by making him identical with God in this regard. He will vanish if we do. The Christ cannot be conceived with a will of equal force with the Father. "not my will, but Thine" is the illuminating flash which reveals the relation existing between the will of Christ and his God."

A.E. Knoch - Christ and Deity (Edition 2.0)

http://www.ccg.org/weblibs/study-papers/p237.html
 
Last edited:
Peterlag said:
I just read the following booklet and I have provided a paragraph written from the booklet. I am one of the most knowledgeable guys on the planet concerning the subject of the resurrected Christ. And thus, I don't really need to learn anymore
Click to expand...
Oops. I had not realized your status. That gives me confidence to trust in you now.
 

Similar threads

D
Who was the Book of John Addressed to?
19 20 21
Replies
403
Views
4K
GodsGrace
GodsGrace
Obadiah
God The Holy Spirit
Replies
2
Views
51
Fred
F
civic
Worship God
Replies
4
Views
162
360watt
3
civic
You shall worship the Lord you God only.
5 6 7
Replies
133
Views
2K
Capbook
C
Runningman
Jesus doesn't share God's exclusive glory
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
360
DavidTree
DavidTree
Back
Top Bottom