Search results

Incorrect. I can know, and do know, what you "think" since you have put your thoughts into print for to read, and as scripture says: Pro_4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. Mat_12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things...

Obviously, but that is not the question of the OP (designed by yourself to place into question the eternal Deity of Jesus), but simply only half of the whole picture (as I said Muslims also attempt to do / claim about Jesus). Of course, Jesus was the 'true man' (1 Tim. 2:5), even the "last...

Not really my concern. It is a disgusting doctrine born of the "doctrines of devils" What you think, is not really relevant to the discussion. Only scriptural truth, which will set anyone straight, if they allow it.

You are confused as to what 'polytheism' really is. I have done no such thing. There are actually "three", not just "two" in Jhn. 1:1, as I have said in my responses. Did you not read those? I even stated that the Holy Ghost is the third, the hidden camera man behind the scenes, as the...

Hardly, and this is demonstrated in the book, already linked, with those details. You seem to have not read through all of the materials in that source. That there is only "one God" is not in question by myself, and already acknowledged and agreed to, and my position from the beginning, but...

Continuing further: Looking at Mss, and the vast evidence for this reading in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world...

Continuing: Looking at Mss, and the vast evidence for this reading in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up...

Hooo boy, let's get to this one. Straight from my Discord server and own notes: Codex B (Vaticanus) As for Codex B, or the Vaticanus Codex, it is claimed by Rome to be a very early period (4th century AD) manuscript in Codex (book) form, but there are serious issues with that claim. It is not...

No, Psa. 110:1, clearly distinguishes the Personages / Beings of the Father (identified as JHVH in Psa. 110:1) and the Son (identified as the Messiah, or Lord, Adonai, and High priest of the Father, in Psa. 110:1,4), just as Daniel 7 does between the "Ancient of Days" and the "son of man". It...

No, Psa. 102, as cited by Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, says that the Father is speaking to the Son: Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and...

You confuse "commonly" with actually and / or only. It does not matter if was not 'common', even as you use the word "commonly", that there are 'uncommon' uses for such (as in Heb. 1:8, &c.), even using your own position against yourself. This is what you have admitted by inference and word...

No. 'You' mean by your own private definition it is "impossible", but it is not "impossible" according to the actual text and its own definitions (Isa. 28;10,13). I cited at least Webster's 1828 in my response, and with scripture evidence as well, and the linked book material, which also gives...

See, your incorrect a prioric is showing, since the word "God" does not only mean "The Supreme Being", even as a standard dictionary will show - Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - God . It simply means a Ruler by which others look up to. It is like the word Boss. A Boss...

Of course not. As I said, you deny the truth of the matter because of your a prioric denial of such. It is that simple. A person who denies that 2+2=4, will of course, accept any other 'answer' (such as -1, 2, blue, pink fuzzy bunny slippers, &c) to suit themselves, simply to have a response...

You accuse me of not being humble through inference, based upon the standard of 'yourself', when it is yourself that said, "I regard myself as wiser than you in this matter ..." I would never say such a thing to you being under the Holy Ghost / Spirit. You are of course, free, in your...

Again, no. It was not merely "the authority of the name" which was "conferred", but the Son actually has the name of His Father, as the Son is the "express image" of the Father's Person (Heb. 1:1-3), and has the actual name of His Father, being Jr. as such, per Heb. 1:8-13, &c. among the places...

As I have shown - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? You are again incorrect, as your position is simply not the case. I provided a detailed explanation that the Son is also "JHVH" as well, and also provided other texts for consideration as well, when I said, "... The Person / Being of the Son, Jesus...

Incorrect. The Noun "God", "τον θεον", "ton theon" (Jhn. 1:1b) is not a "name" of the Father. The noun serves as multiple identifiers for the Father's Person / Being, in Nature and in Office / Position. Again, it is not "the articled Greek name" of the Father. The Father's name, has been...

Not in question. Already agreed to, already my position. Thank you for agreeing to my position.

I am not confusing the two words, Deity and God. I am explaining what I mean by the word God, in the context, which is inclusive of the identity of the nature of Deity. I am not merely explaining a position in this case. Yours is the confusion of my response, and the reason I provided the...