You're crashing out big time!
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
You're crashing out big time!
Runningman
Active Member
Sticking with Scripture is your idea of crashing out. I am totally not surprised, as usual.
Your massive confusion is a total wipe out.
Runningman
Active Member
I just said stick with the Scripture. Fred's response is that is "crashing out" and a "total wipe out."
Problem is, I get your terrible teaching alongside the Scripture.
I'll take forth the precious from the vile (Jer. 15:19).
Runningman
Active Member
I haven't made any teachings, as I just repeat what the Bible says. It's your teachings regarding the trinity that are completely made up out of thin air.
Runningman
Active Member
I think it just dawned on me that you all reallllllly don't like what the Bible says about how there is no trinity. It makes sense now. I believe I have said it before, but you are free to keep your religion if you wish, but leave our Scripture out of it. Stick with your creeds and whatnot.
synergy
Active Member
I caught on many decades ago that our One God is a Trinity (3 Persons). Let me remind you how you managed to mangle John 1:1, the English language, the Greek language, and even general common sense:
- You have difficulty understanding the grammatical fact that pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent.
- Your categorical mistake when you think that partaking of an item transforms your nature into that item.
- Your ignorance of the Greek word κοινωνία,
- Your ignorance of Greek neuter pronouns in 1 John 1.
- You said that "the Word is not actually God" which flat out contradicts John 1:1c that says "the Word was God".
- At no time does Jesus ever have to "partake" of divine nature. That's because he is God to begin with (John 1:1c).
- The REV translates from God only knows which originals when they dreamt up the phrase "what God was the word was".
One word: hyperliteralist.
Even though the one word was sufficient, I will add this info.
We are not told of him saying "I repent of my sins." That is just your necessary injection into the account to discredit Jesus. Jesus could also ask John simply to baptize him. Thus there is no reason to take your interpretation as trustworthy, especially since it denies who Christ is. Basically you deny his righteous and perfect life as the perfect sacrifice for our sin.
TibiasDad
Active Member
The Word was God; the Word became flesh; the Word in flesh was named Jesus, for he would save his people from their sins!
Doug
TibiasDad
Active Member
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1-2
Jesus and the Father were together and both are eternal in existence, thus they are both God!
Doug
Runningman
Active Member
I honestly don't know why you spend so much time in John 1:1. You also seem to be changing arguments every other post. At the beginning you argued that the Word has the qualities of God which would make the Word godly, not God because the Word is not The God. When that didn't work out, you went back to your preferred English translation where you have stayed for a few comments as if it somehow helps you.
Using your interpretation, John 1:1promotes binitarianism at the minimum, but you don't believe in binitarianism either. You aren't doing yourself any favors here. You also lack any sort of 1:1 correlation between Jesus and the Word. i.e., Jesus is never explicitly called the Word anywhere in the Bible, the Word is never said to be a member of a godhead, etc.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
You would be a hyperliteralist, too, if it would help you at all. For example, @synergy is already doing it with John 1:1.
Do you believe that in the beginning the Word was God with God? Why do you not twist the life out of that verse and reinterpret the meaning and all of the words until you make it bend to your desires? Because you don't need to reinterpret it because you can use what it literally says. Well, me too!
That's why I am a Unitarian lol. We have total dominance over all of Scripture. Anywhere you look we can find God being described as a singular person, but you can't find God described in the same way you believe. This is why you prefer metaphysical and non-literal interpretations 99% of the time. You can't use literal, but you can use extra-biblical philosophy. I already got you guys figured out.
Runningman
Active Member
Read the post you just just replied to. I am not saying Jesus ever sinned. Scripture teaches Jesus is sinless.
Runningman
Active Member
Yes Jesus is the savior God created (Acts 2:36) but 99% of the Bible says there is but one singular God described with singular personal pronouns. The Bible does this exhaustively for God, not exaggerating at all, thousands of times, without even calling God a they or them once. Wow, no one used the common persons' tongue to ever say God is a "they" or "them" in the Bible. I would never use the minority verse to define the majority of verses, You are using what is called Logos Theology and it contradicts the entire Bible the way you represent it.
Runningman
Active Member
Gonna need some Scripture to support your claims. Where does the Old Testament say that in Genesis? This is for your journey of discovery. You need to find the answer with your own eyes or you will never believe it if I told you.
TibiasDad
Active Member
1) Baptism was not required in the OT, so John’s baptism was a new phenomenon as a practice.
Jesus had nothing to repent of, which John clearly understood when he said, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
In other words, Jesus didn’t need to repent but John knew he should be baptized unto repentance.
2) Jesus stated why he was being baptized, saying, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”
He essentially was telling John “Do it immediately; this will fulfill righteousness”, and it established the example that his followers would follow after.
The Apostle John records John the Baptist as giving the reason for Jesus being baptized, saying, “I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
Jesus did not “change his mind” about what his life would be, he instinctively knew knew what his purpose was, and demonstrated it at the age of 12 by amazing the Teachers of the Law with his knowledge and understanding of the scriptures. He stayed behind when his family left Jerusalem, unbeknownst to them, and when asked why, he said he “had to be about his Father’s business.”
Scripture never says or implies that Jesus “changed his mind” about what he would do in life as an adult.
Doug
TibiasDad
Active Member
I just gave you scripture! The NT expands and interprets the OT, showing the true and intended meaning of the OT.
Nothing you would tell me would stand the test of scripture, if it could, you would not refrain from making your counter argument.
Doug
synergy
Active Member
You're barking up the wrong tree. We are not modalists. Only Modalists insist that the Word is the God (the Father). You just added another misunderstanding to your list of unitarian gaffes.
I also went to English to show you how you mangle both languages. You're an equal opportunities language mangler.
The Word and Jesus are directly associated with each other through the Greek word "ἐσκήνωσεν" in John 1:14. That Greek word literally means “pitched a tent” or “tabernacled” among us. This term directly connects to the Old Testament, where God manifested His presence through the physical Tabernacle. John draws a powerful parallel: just as God dwelled in the Tabernacle, the Word, who was God, dwelt among his people in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the new and greater Tabernacle, the visible manifestation of the invisible God. John affirms this when he writes, “We beheld His glory…”—the same divine glory that once filled the Tabernacle is now fully revealed in the person of Christ.
Let's add your latest gaffes to your list of how you managed to mangle all of John 1, the English language, the Greek language, and even general common sense:
- You mistake us for Modalists by falsely accusing us that we do not differentiate between the Word and the God (the Father).
- Your ignorance of the Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν in John 1:14.
- You have difficulty understanding the grammatical fact that pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent.
- Your categorical mistake when you think that partaking of an item transforms your nature into that item.
- Your ignorance of the Greek word κοινωνία,
- Your ignorance of Greek neuter pronouns in 1 John 1.
- You said that "the Word is not actually God" which flat out contradicts John 1:1c that says "the Word was God".
- At no time does Jesus ever have to "partake" of divine nature. That's because he is God to begin with (John 1:1c).
- The REV translates from God only knows which originals when they dreamt up the phrase "what God was the word was".
Similar threads
