Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, it's just an old heresy.Imagican, Arius and his followers argued that Christ was not Deity. Indeed, Christ could not be Deity, as God cannot suffer or change.
OK, so why do you think Jesus is now divine after God made him that way? Because you are a Bible believer? Because you believer whatever the Bible says?Jesus is indeed divine. But not because he has always existed like the Father, but because he was created and made divine by the Father. The doctrine of the trinity does not have understanding on how the Father creates beings that image himself and give them authority and power, to act as God in creation.
OK, so why do you think Jesus is now divine after God made him that way? Because you are a Bible believer? Because you believer whatever the Bible says?
Where does it say Jesus was born of a virgin in the Old Testament? And how do you know they were honest and fully sane witnesses and that 50 years later the gospel writers retold the facts exactly right?Indeed, the prophecies of old have pointed to this Jesus Christ that became born of a virgin, and his life fulfilled many olden prophecies, and his death and resurrection was witnessed by many. And the outpouring of holy spirit with power was also witnessed by many. He is indeed the son of God that pre-existed and everything he has spoken is the truth.
Where does it say Jesus was born of a virgin in the Old Testament? And how do you know they were honest and fully sane witnesses and that 50 years later the gospel writers retold the facts exactly right?
If you are saying he is a son of a preexisting God or that Jesus preexisted, you are well on the way to catholic theology.
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 [NIV])
Baptize all nations in the name of the Trinity, it says.The Trinity, Rakobsky, has roots in Scripture, true. However, it is generally recognized as an extra-biblical doctrine. Many of the Trinitarian terms, such as the homoousios (of one essence) are not at all in teh Bible.
So what is so miraculous? "Maidens" (It doesn't say virgin) often give birth, and if you read the rest of the chapter Isaiah lists other completely normal random things as "signs".Here is the prophecy in Isaiah,
These men did not speak out of their own will, but as holy spirit moved them to speak. Holy spirit is a real being, not just some figure of speech. Whoever has holy spirit can indeed prophesy.
Baptize all nations in the name of the Trinity, it says.
Arians are stuck arguing that it doesn't mean they combine into one even though it has a nice ring to it.
OK. So how does he know anything else is not a forgery in the Bible?@cgaviria argues, against all manuscript evidence, that Matthew 28:19 is a forgery.
You haven't answered my question.
OK. So how does he know anything else is not a forgery in the Bible?
Maybe Isaiah's ending section is a forgery too. That's what many scholars think.
Maybe he will say thats a forgery too?This is because I don't need to; John 1:3 says our Lord created all things. Not all life, but all things. The words "Let there be light" can be attributed to Him; if anything was created before those words, it could also be attributed to Him, for by Him, all things were made.
Why can't he just imagine that the evidence exists or create it ex nihilio?This is a legitimate objection to arguments from higher criticism being used to reject Scripture. Whereas one can complain about the lack of consistent manuscript evidence in favor of 1 John 5:7, the Adultery pericope, or the Longer Ending of Mark, there is no evidence to cast doubt on Matthew 28:19.
This is because I don't need to; John 1:3 says our Lord created all things. Not all life, but all things. The words "Let there be light" can be attributed to Him; if anything was created before those words, it could also be attributed to Him, for by Him, all things were made.
Maybe he will say thats a forgery too?
How does he know Moses wrote the whole Torah or is that forgery too?
You're affirming that light was not the first thing Jesus Christ created and that somehow he brought water into existence before his first utterance? How very contradictory and nonsensical. This is why it is difficult to reason with people like you, you refuse to see the how unsound your own reasonings are.
Of course. But maybe you underestimate the power of the will and of visionary-ism. Maybe he "knows" that it's a mistranslation even if in normal circumstances he would not care and just accept the translation?He says John 1:3 is mistranslated. I disagree, because panta means "all" or "all things," whereas he seems to want it to mean "all life", which is different (see Acts 17:25, panin zoen).
I am going to look at an Interlinear Peshitta and the Vulgate on John 1:3 for purposes of comparison.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?