Christianity is all about following Jesus' teachings.
You guys dismiss this simple principle.
His word is not complicated as you guys are making it out to be.
Questions for Arians
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Christianity is all about following Jesus' teachings.
You guys dismiss this simple principle.
His word is not complicated as you guys are making it out to be.
Right Divider
Body part
It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem complicated to you.
You do not "follow Jesus" or you would follow Paul as he follows Christ.
Your fake Jesus is going to be an eternal mistake for you.
Do you really expect anyone to believe this?
I know man made doctrine believers don't or you will come out of it.
This coming from someone who believes in the self-made (read: man-made) doctrine of "believe only certain of Jesus' words and toss the rest of the Bible out the window."
You're the one saying Jesus' words are too complicated when you claim not to understand John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:7, and John 16:13. The Holy Spirit is not an it. Jesus never called Him that. Jesus always referred to the Holy Spirit as He. I've just given you four texts in which Jesus call Him that. Four really simple texts in which Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is a he, not an it. I defy you to find a single Bible text that calls the Holy Spirit an it.
Come on Meshak. You're the one with the man-made doctrine claiming that the Holy Spirit is an it. There is zero Biblical support for such a belief. You cannot give a single text to support such a belief. I have given you multiple texts in which Jesus, by referring to the Holy Spirit as "He", is saying that the Holy Spirit is a person.
WOW, strip them of their reputation, and ignore anything they may offer, eh? 0 rep means you can't receive or send.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: Untrue, clearly. I asked a question AND used scripture. Again, it is the Arian/Unitarian that dismisses John 1:1 and John 20:28 They are simply this clear and stand on their own without my 'Trinitarian' help. Try not to be occupied with unfounded and unfoundable accusations and assessments. It amounts, clearly, to posturizing without substance or even being 'able' to substantiate it, especially in light of standalone scriptures. Moreover? We agree often with Unitarians against tri-theism by example.
Point? Note both where we 'agree' as to where we disagree. Why? Because 'we' agree on about half of the scriptures - thus your observation is CLEARLY untrue. Think more, assert less. -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
:think: I can appreciate defense or commentary, but you'd have to go a little further to explain the problem.
lain: NOT helpful at all. "Simply" turn it around: "dwell in." Point of your soundbyte today? :think:John 1:1 without improvements is as clear as mud; and John 20:28 is obviously one incomplete sentence with two subjects separated by kai.
Saying the material of God was the word is dumb and idolatrous, and Thomas did not equate Jesus and God as can easily be seen by the sentence in English as well as Greek.
Last edited:
Some words are not what you imagine to be. The English "worship" inside the bible is represented by a greek word προσκυνέω meaning bow at.:think: I can appreciate defense or commentary, but you'd have to go a little further to explain the problem.
Lon
Well-known member
Most of them are exactly what I view them to be because I'm familiar with the words I use. I'm more interested in "ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου" and "εἰσελεύσομαι" than προσκυνέω here.
OR you are dumbing it down? :think: It just isn't helpful to assert at this point. It very much is (necessarily pedantic, for meaning between disagreement) a 'show me, don't tell me' thread. We must/necessarily substantiate our claims/postulations else we are just into a bickering hesaid/shesaid thread. To me, the discussion then becomes "me vs. you" rather than 'Where is God in all of this?" I'm aiming for that high road whether I make it or not. I appreciate fervency (self involvement) in one's theology, but one MUST see God behind the discussion with verses or it is all for naught here. -Lon
᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Sorry, John 1:1 is JUST that clear, in English even: "with AND was God"
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
Sorry, John 20:28 IS just that clear in English even "Thomas said TO Jesus, You are Lord of me and God of me."
NOBODY can dumb it down or try to make it harder, they are JUST this clear. Sorry. I can't but think you'll fret and fluster with no wheel traction. There is no Greek or English professor that could dissuade anybody here. All is just this this clear and cannot be elucidated. There is no 'context' that would make it say anything different. It simply is this clear.
Revelation 3:20 says 'dwell in' εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ.
It IS just that clear. I've pedantically shown it to be. Nobody can obscure this. It just can't be done. You can try if you like but I'm confidant in my language ability. -Lon
Really? Then why is indwell in the dictionary and has been for more than 100 years?
It's a loaded religionizing baloney word.
Last edited:
Is that "BS" an abbreviation for vulgar language?
No, it isn't.
What is it an abbreviation of?