101G has no point to make, it's been made by God already.... (smile). so don't worry, from your answer you have no clue who God is or what he is... (smile), good day.... YIKES!Monotheism.
Deut 6:4 says "one", not "first".
Gen 1:1 says "beginning", not "first".
So what is your point?
Just like your picture, you continue to remain a secret agent in your mind. Good night.101G has no point to make, it's been made by God already.... (smile). so don't worry, from your answer you have no clue who God is or what he is... (smile), good day.... YIKES!
101G.
did not God made all things including the duck... LOL, LOL, LOL, Oh Dear.If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and flies like a duck itās a duck
For some reason, trinitarians pretend John 1:14 says God became flesh.The Word became flesh
The reason is John 1:1 "the Word was God". Crack open your Bible and you will see that phrase.For some reason, trinitarians pretend John 1:14 says God became flesh.
now crack open your bible, and is not the same one person who is God in John 1:1 and 1:3 is the same one Person who MADE ALL THINGS in Isaiah 44:24? now crack that open....... (smile).....The reason is John 1:1 "the Word was God". Crack open your Bible and you will see that phrase.
Right. The word was god, not Jesus. It's so odd that you keep making this substitution in your mind. It's as though you cannot grasp that the word in John 1:1 literally refers to God's thoughts (expressed) and not another Being.The reason is John 1:1 "the Word was God".
Permit me to introduce you to the Word of God Person:Right. The word was god, not Jesus. It's so odd that you keep making this substitution in your mind. It's as though you cannot grasp that the word in John 1:1 literally refers to God's thoughts (expressed) and not another Being.
did you not get the E-Mail? why are you still substituting? Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."Right. The word was god, not Jesus. It's so odd that you keep making this substitution in your mind. It's as though you cannot grasp that the word in John 1:1 literally refers to God's thoughts (expressed) and not another Being.
finally a ray of HOPE, now apply the same COMMON SENSE to John 1:1 & 1:3 and Isaiah 44:24Permit me to introduce you to the Word of God:
Rev 19:11 And I saw Heaven opened. And behold, a white horse! And He sitting on him was called Faithful and True. And in righteousness He judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 And His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head many crowns. And He had a name written, one that no one knew except Himself.
Rev 19:13 And He had been clothed in a garment dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Again with this nonsense! Permit me to introduce you to eisegesis.Permit me to introduce you to the Word of God Person:
Rev 19:11
No the Bible say so in John 1:1- the Word was God. Bible Truths 101.For some reason, trinitarians pretend John 1:14 says God became flesh.
bible truth..... 101.... (smile), I been noticing that......No the Bible say so in John 1:1- the Word was God. Bible Truths 101.
You have introduced me many times to your eisegesis and what you wrote certainly qualifies again as such. Who would ever think, based on Rev 19:11-13, that the Word of God who was God is just a "thought"?Again with this nonsense! Permit me to introduce you to eisegesis.
You cannot just impose what Rev 19:11 says on John 1:1 AS IF they are making the same point. Not every use of the word "word" in Scripture refers to Jesus and John 1:1 is one of those times.
Rev 19:11 is refers to a title, "Word of God."
John 1:1 refers not in a title but general use of the word "word" - with no reference to the title whatsoever!
The idea that 1,000's of singular pronouns ought to be cast aside by such extreme eisegesis is absurd. What is the title of this thread? (HINT: It's not about abusing titles).
For some reason, trinitarians pretend John 1:14 says God became flesh.
So Fred you are saying with simple double substitution, that the Angel of the Covenant is the Redeemer (of evil - from sin) that is Christ. I do not agree, although it's an interesting concept.
Yeah I have Fred...'properly worship' I agree, as the triple emphasis with the 3 different descriptions of the Father God is evident in Gen 48:15-16. And Christ was never at the scene at that time, as he became the instrument of what the two descriptions of God and angel of God represented centuries later. Christ fulfilled all these three element and description of God.Have you seen post 202?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Human grammar can only be used to support the trinity?
However, I'm addressing the claim that one use of plural pronouns supercedes 1,000's of singular use pronoun implications. And "plural" pronouns do not suggest 3. Grammar.