❓Deuteronomy 6:4

No, you didn't.



The evidence I supplied concerning Acts 1:24-25 still remains unrefuted.

Time for you to get out of your world of delusion and dishonesty.
The dishonesty is all yours as I was deferring to the nominal addressee, YHWH, which was certainly then inferred by the unqualified term "Lord" and in accordance with Jesus's commands. Juxtaposition of other words is completely irrelevant, and reveals the lengths that Sabellians will go to in order to promote their doctrines of chaos and confusion.

Moreover I didn't say that Jesus didn't hear the prayer or answer it in accordance with his promises, as I conceded it; and neither did I suggest that those praying were unaware that it would be answered by Jesus. So I will not debate with you: Sabellians are never worth the effort of debate, as they seek always to exalt themselves above everyone else by insulting them. You have not made any point that is relevant to this thread. I will therefore re-request that you desist from replying to any of my posts.
 
Last edited:
It does address your question.

1. "Only God" is the proper recipient of prayer (1 Kings 8:38-39).
2. The Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer (Acts 1:24-25).
3. Therefore, the Lord Jesus is God.

Thus, the proper recipient of prayer applies to more than the Father.
The recipient of prayer there is the Father, not Jesus.

But beyond that, even if there was a place in the bible where Jesus was the recipient of prayer (which there isn't), it would still not follow that the word "I" refers to more than one person because this is a grammatical issue. Grammatically, in the GNT "I" denotes only ever one person, never two or more.
 
The dishonesty is all yours as I was deferring to the nominal addressee, YHWH, which was certainly then inferred by the unqualified term "Lord" and in accordance with Jesus's commands. Juxtaposition of other words is completely irrelevant, and reveals the lengths that Sabellians will go to in order to promote their doctrines of chaos and confusion.

Moreover I didn't say that Jesus didn't hear the prayer or answer it in accordance with his promises, as I conceded it; and neither did I suggest that those praying were unaware that it would be answered by Jesus. So I will not debate with you: Sabellians are never worth the effort of debate, as they seek always to exalt themselves above everyone else by insulting them. You have not made any point that is relevant to this thread. I will therefore re-request that you desist from replying to any of my posts.

See post 24. I am not bothering to read your drivel.
 
The appellation "Lord" without any allusion to the "Lord Jesus", or to Jesus himself, appears in:

Matt 1:20,
Matt 1:22,
Matt 1:24,
Matt 2:13,
Matt 2:15,
Matt 2:19,
Matt 3:3/Isaiah 40:3
Matt 4:10,
Matt 9:38,
Matt 11:25,
Matt 22:37,
Matt 22:44,
Matt 27:10,
Matt 28:2

(Couldn't be bothered to count any more.)

Also note that in Matt 4:10 & Matt 22:44, Jesus refers to his own Father in heaven (i.e. God) as "Lord."

But with reference to the topic of this thread, see: Act 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord [of all] and Christ [of all]."

Nothing here which says that Jesus has been made "God" (although I concede "God" as a descriptor for the form and power of God per Jn 1:1c). So "God"(title) does not include Jesus here, and neither does the elevation of Jesus into being "Lord [of all]" supervene those places where God in the OT is referred to in the NT as "Lord:" cf. Jesus's testimony in Matt 4:10 & Matt 22:44.

So who is speaking "drivel"?
 
Last edited:
Acts 1:24.
Act 12:23 "And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."
 
Act 12:23 "And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."

Which does nothing to counter the fact that the "Lord" in Acts 1:24 refers to Jesus.

For you to think that it does demonstrates the buffoonery of your assertion.
 
Which does nothing to counter the fact that the "Lord" in Acts 1:24 refers to Jesus.
To a Sabellian, or to a Trinitarian, this carnal thing matters greatly. But Jesus desires those who worship God in Spirit and in truth, John 4:24, which I don't detect in your bigotry that seeks to exclude the Father at every opportunity.
 
To a Sabellian, or to a Trinitarian, this carnal thing matters greatly. But Jesus desires those who worship God in Spirit and in truth, John 4:24, which I don't detect in your bigotry that seeks to exclude the Father at every opportunity.

You still dodge Acts 1:24.

Say 'hello' to my Ignore button.

Goodbye.
 
Of equal significance to Deut 6:4 are the numerous verses stating simply "I [singular] am God [Elohim - Plural]" Ps 46:10.

There can be no doubt that these all teach that God is to be treated as one, and not more than one.

But one person? No: rather "one God." This is a major problem in Trinitarianism: God is "God," and not "a person." If God is "God," how can God be anything other than "God?"
That depends upon the use of the term person/ persons. I am pretty sure they do not use the term is the sense normally used of a human being. I think it is used more to describe the relationship within the Godhead.
 
That depends upon the use of the term person/ persons. I am pretty sure they do not use the term is the sense normally used of a human being. I think it is used more to describe the relationship within the Godhead.
Sadly, this fact doesn’t matter in this instance, for neither “cjab” nor “The Real John Milton” have any interest in representing opposing positions accurately.
 
That depends upon the use of the term person/ persons. I am pretty sure they do not use the term is the sense normally used of a human being. I think it is used more to describe the relationship within the Godhead.
My point was that the bible never uses the term "persons" to describe relationships within deity, or "within God" (whatever it means to Trinitarians), although it does utilize personal pronouns. The risen Christ is often treated as if a "person," by analogy with his human self. But the Father - never.

Deity is described by labels specific to deity, which avoids the anthropomorphisms which bedevil Trinitarianism. The title label "God" is used of the Father exclusively by unanimous consent of Jesus and the apostles, along with many other titles in the OT. In the OT, "El/Elohim" can be used as a descriptor, and in the NT "God" is used as a descriptor in a few places, Jn 1:1c, John 20:28 and John 10:34-36 etc, but these can be ignored when dealing with the specific phrases under consideration, i.e. Deut 6:4 and "I am God" phrases, where God is used as a title.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top