And? What do you want me to say?

A thought is not a voice shroom

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.”

You do not hear Jesus.


Biblical Unitarianism, contrary to its name, is not biblical and have led many astray.
There is no content here ^^^ except the verse of scripture, just more of your opinions and general putdowns.
 
In the sense of the incarnation, yes "Mary is the mother of God."
Then your God is a man ...So you have two Gods. One is a man and the other is his father a spirit..
Historically, that phase says nothing about Mary.
So why is it in the RCC prayer? And why are you claiming her to be the mother of God?

I said historically. Do you not know what that word means?

If you choose to take that claim as a claim about Mary, then you are purposefully misrepresenting our, including Roman Catholics, position.
Nope you just wrote Mary is the mother of God. And RCC prays to Mary as the mother of God.
What does that have to do with anything we are talking about?
It has everything to do with your denial of multiple Gods when you actually have them.

FYI, I'm ignoring your silliness. If you want to believe nonsense about me, have fun. God will hold you in account for how you treat me.

Yep, That's why I am a Trinitarian, and not Oneness.
You just answered yes to,
The word was also with God...A God with a God is two Gods...
However, you pretend "The Word was God...The Word became flesh" means "Two Gods."
You just said yes in this very post.
So, you reject what Scripture clearly says "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
I reject that it meas Jesus was God ... Since Jesus is your God, which God is your father?

You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."

For the 5th time, You took "given the other distinctions" as "give them other distinctions."
You are playing with words...in both cases they are given other distinctions...
You said "I am not accusing anyone of anything they did not claim..." when you took "given the other distinctions" as "give them other distinctions."
So how is that a lie? In both cases they were given other distinctions. What are you quibbling about?

Is your issue that you don't understand English very well?

Really? "I had with you before the world was." John 17:5.
That is a conversation between two...You keep putting your foot in your mouth.

Why do you reject "I had with you before the world was." John 17:5?

Besides, if "there are no mentions of distinctions in the scriptures.", that alone doesn't give you the right to accuse me of claiming I "give them other distinctions."
Well since there is no mention of distinctions in the scriptures, who is giving them other distinctions in this conversation?

I.e. you think you can sin against your fellow man if you think they are incorrect theologically.

Yeah, alien claims like "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
They are taken out of context therefore from Uranus.

Taken out of context? No context was given to take them out of. I'm quoting Scripture, and you're rejecting that passage out of hand.

God Bless
 
I said historically. Do you not know what that word means?
Historically is referring to past events...Historically RCC claims Mary is the mother of God.
FYI, I'm ignoring your silliness. If you want to believe nonsense about me, have fun. God will hold you in account for how you treat me.
You are ignoring the truth. You believe in nonsense that is not written in the scriptures. God will hold me in account if I don't tell you the truth.
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
I reject your understanding of the scriptures. We have established that God is Jesus father. Can you use "Jesus father" in place of God in what you post? It will read ...The Word was Jesus' father...The word became flesh.
Did Jesus father become flesh?
Is your issue that you don't understand English very well?
No...In fact I understand it very well. Do you agree that God is the father of Jesus? Do you agree that the Word was God means The Word was Jesus father?
Why do you reject "I had with you before the world was." John 17:5?
No I don't reject "I had with you before the world was" Jesus is saying he had glory with his father before the world was. He is not saying he was God before the world was.
I.e. you think you can sin against your fellow man if you think they are incorrect theologically.
How it it a sin to correct you? You are adding to the scriptures.
Taken out of context? No context was given to take them out of. I'm quoting Scripture, and you're rejecting that passage out of hand.
The context of the scripture is God is the father of Jesus. You should know this. You just admitted to not knowing the context of the passage you quoted. So how can you claim I am rejecting something that you have no idea of what the context is?
 
Historically is referring to past events...Historically RCC claims Mary is the mother of God.

You are ignoring the truth. You believe in nonsense that is not written in the scriptures. God will hold me in account if I don't tell you the truth.

I reject your understanding of the scriptures. We have established that God is Jesus father. Can you use "Jesus father" in place of God in what you post? It will read ...The Word was Jesus' father...The word became flesh.
Did Jesus father become flesh?

No...In fact I understand it very well. Do you agree that God is the father of Jesus? Do you agree that the Word was God means The Word was Jesus father?

No I don't reject "I had with you before the world was" Jesus is saying he had glory with his father before the world was. He is not saying he was God before the world was.

How it it a sin to correct you? You are adding to the scriptures.

The context of the scripture is God is the father of Jesus. You should know this. You just admitted to not knowing the context of the passage you quoted. So how can you claim I am rejecting something that you have no idea of what the context is?
Anyone who had glory with The Father before the world was IS God.
 
I said historically. Do you not know what that word means?
Historically is referring to past events...Historically RCC claims Mary is the mother of God.

And, what do you think "Mary is the mother of God" meant in say 500ad?
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
I reject your understanding of the scriptures. We have established that God is Jesus father. Can you use "Jesus father" in place of God in what you post? It will read ...The Word was Jesus' father...The word became flesh.
Did Jesus father become flesh?

I didn't present an understanding, but you still rejected even the quoting of Scripture. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
Why do you reject "I had with you before the world was." John 17:5?
No I don't reject "I had with you before the world was" Jesus is saying he had glory with his father before the world was. He is not saying he was God before the world was.

So, you're an Arian then? You believe the person who would become Jesus was in the beginning with God? After all, you just said "he had glory with his father before the world was."

I.e. you think you can sin against your fellow man if you think they are incorrect theologically.
How it it a sin to correct you? You are adding to the scriptures.

You didn't just correct me. You accuse me of things I do not do constantly.
Taken out of context? No context was given to take them out of. I'm quoting Scripture, and you're rejecting that passage out of hand.
The context of the scripture is God is the father of Jesus. You should know this. You just admitted to not knowing the context of the passage you quoted. So how can you claim I am rejecting something that you have no idea of what the context is?

The text says "The Word was God...The Word became flesh." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh." The text says "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
The text says "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
The text says "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

I'm quoting Scripture, and you're rejecting passages out of hand.
God Bless
 
And, what do you think "Mary is the mother of God" meant in say 500ad?
It means whoever said it was wrong then and whosoever says it now is also wrong. God has no mother or father. Therefore the premise that Jesus is God is also wrong.
I didn't present an understanding, but you still rejected even the quoting of Scripture. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
Then you presented a misunderstanding. You are not quoting scripture sir...you are cherry picking parts of certain verses of the scriptures to formulate your false doctrine.Plus you missed the question...Did Jesus' father become flesh?
So, you're an Arian then?
No I am a saint of God. Nowhere in the scriptures does anyone command me to be an Arian
You believe the person who would become Jesus was in the beginning with God?
doesn't the scripture say it?
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
After all, you just said "he had glory with his father before the world was."
Jesus said it ,I am speaking after Jesus...
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
You didn't just correct me. You accuse me of things I do not do constantly.
Then you are not aware of what you are doing.
The text says "The Word was God...The Word became flesh." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh.
(1)Do you agree that the Word is Jesus ?
(2) Do you agree that Jesus' father is God?
(3)Do you agree that "the Word was God" = Jesus was his father?
(4)Do you agree that "The Word became flesh" =Jesus was his father become flesh?
" The text says "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
This is explained here...
Heb 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
How does this help your argument that Jesus is God?...Do you reject this?
Heb 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
The text says "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
That text translation presents two Gods...one God is the father and another begotten God at his side.
The text says "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
You calling God your father does not make you equal with God does it?
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
I'm quoting Scripture, and you're rejecting passages out of hand.
You are misrepresenting the scriptures. Nothing here says Jesus is God. Except to those who believe in multiple Gods
here is scriptures...
Luke 22:69
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Here is one proving that the devils are smarter than you
Luke 4:41
And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
 
And, what do you think "Mary is the mother of God" meant in say 500ad?
It means whoever said it was wrong then and whosoever says it now is also wrong. God has no mother or father. Therefore the premise that Jesus is God is also wrong.

If you believed in Scripture, you would know "the Word was God" and "the Word became Flesh." Mary was the human mother of the Word who was God become flesh. Deal with Scripture.

I didn't present an understanding, but you still rejected even the quoting of Scripture. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
Then you presented a misunderstanding. You are not quoting scripture sir...you are cherry picking parts of certain verses of the scriptures to formulate your false doctrine. Plus you missed the question...Did Jesus' father become flesh?

You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."

The text says "The Word was God...The Word became flesh." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh.
(1)Do you agree that the Word is Jesus ?
(2) Do you agree that Jesus' father is God?
(3)Do you agree that "the Word was God" = Jesus was his father?
(4)Do you agree that "The Word became flesh" =Jesus was his father become flesh?

Why are you using your human reasoning to reject Scripture? You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."

The text says "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
This is explained here...
Heb 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Are you trying to reject what Hebrews says about the Son by quoting Hebrews? Wow, I believe both. You believe the first in such a way as to reject the later. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

The text says "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
That text translation presents two Gods...one God is the father and another begotten God at his side.

It's interesting how you reject what John actually wrote in light of your theology? You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."

The text says "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
You calling God your father does not make you equal with God does it?
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

That depends on how one calls God their Father. But, even if I call God my father without making me equal with God, that doesn't deny what Scripture says Jesus did: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

I'm quoting Scripture, and you're rejecting passages out of hand.
You are misrepresenting the scriptures.

I'm quoting Scripture, not representing or misrepresenting them. On the other hand, you're rejecting passages out of hand.

God Bless
 
If you believed in Scripture, you would know "the Word was God" and "the Word became Flesh."
If you believe the scripture you would know that "was" cannot be "is" And God is the father of Jesus whom you call the Word.
Mary was the human mother of the Word who was God become flesh. Deal with Scripture.
Mary was not in the beginning therefore she cannot be the mother of the Word who you are saying was God his father. Mary is the mother of Jesus who is flesh and not God.
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
You really must stop misrepresenting the scriptures. Was cannot be is and God is not flesh.
Why are you using your human reasoning to reject Scripture? You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
Why are you using alien reasoning from Uranus to misrepresent the scriptures. Jesus is the son of God. He has a God who is his father.
Are you trying to reject what Hebrews says about the Son by quoting Hebrews?
I am not rejecting anything but your misrepresentation...Since Hebrew is speaking about the son you must agree that the son is not God, but his father is God
Wow, I believe both.
Both must agree
You believe the first in such a way as to reject the later.
You assume one to be contrary to the other.
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
I agree that God says that about his son Jesus. but that does not make Jesus God else that is two Gods
It's interesting how you reject what John actually wrote in light of your theology? You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
That is a misrepresentation of the scripture seeing that it states a God at the side of God the father.
That depends on how one calls God their Father.
nonsense...Calling God your father cannot make anyone equal with God.
But, even if I call God my father without making me equal with God, that doesn't deny what Scripture says Jesus did: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
Again you are misrepresenting the scriptures. Jesus never said he was equal with God. In fact he said his father is greater than him...Greater than is not equal to.
I'm quoting Scripture, not representing or misrepresenting them. On the other hand, you're rejecting passages out of hand.
But you are misrepresenting...since you are taking the scriptures out of context.
 
If you believe the scripture you would know that "was" cannot be "is" And God is the father of Jesus whom you call the Word.

Mary was not in the beginning therefore she cannot be the mother of the Word who you are saying was God his father. Mary is the mother of Jesus who is flesh and not God.

You really must stop misrepresenting the scriptures. Was cannot be is and God is not flesh.

Why are you using alien reasoning from Uranus to misrepresent the scriptures. Jesus is the son of God. He has a God who is his father.

I am not rejecting anything but your misrepresentation...Since Hebrew is speaking about the son you must agree that the son is not God, but his father is God

Both must agree

You assume one to be contrary to the other.

I agree that God says that about his son Jesus. but that does not make Jesus God else that is two Gods

That is a misrepresentation of the scripture seeing that it states a God at the side of God the father.

nonsense...Calling God your father cannot make anyone equal with God.

Again you are misrepresenting the scriptures. Jesus never said he was equal with God. In fact he said his father is greater than him...Greater than is not equal to.

But you are misrepresenting...since you are taking the scriptures out of context.
Calling God your LITERAL Father, as Jesus did, DOES make you equal with God as the Jews well knew.
 
Calling God your LITERAL Father, as Jesus did, DOES make you equal with God as the Jews well knew.
God is the literal father of those born again. That does not make the born again equal with God.
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
 
If you believed in Scripture, you would know "the Word was God" and "the Word became Flesh."
If you believe the scripture you would know that "was" cannot be "is" And God is the father of Jesus whom you call the Word.

Seriously? "Was" is the past tense of "is". How can you think this is a good response?

Mary was the human mother of the Word who was God become flesh. Deal with Scripture.
Mary was not in the beginning therefore she cannot be the mother of the Word who you are saying was God his father. Mary is the mother of Jesus who is flesh and not God.

What part of human mother didn't you understand? The Word was God and became flesh by being born of Mary.


You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
You really must stop misrepresenting the scriptures. Was cannot be is and God is not flesh.

I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."

Are you trying to reject what Hebrews says about the Son by quoting Hebrews?
I am not rejecting anything but your misrepresentation...Since Hebrew is speaking about the son you must agree that the son is not God, but his father is God

I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: " But of the Son he says...You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Wow, I believe both.
Both must agree.

They do; You just pretend otherwise.

You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "But of the Son he says,...“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
I agree that God says that about his son Jesus. but that does not make Jesus God else that is two Gods

Or, it makes him the same God as the Father.

It's interesting how you reject what John actually wrote in light of your theology? You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
That is a misrepresentation of the scripture seeing that it states a God at the side of God the father.

I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."

That depends on how one calls God their Father.
nonsense...Calling God your father cannot make anyone equal with God.

Wow, "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" means that he called God his own Father in such a way as to require his hearer to think Jesus was claiming equality with God as God's Son.

But, even if I call God my father without making me equal with God, that doesn't deny what Scripture says Jesus did: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
Again you are misrepresenting the scriptures. Jesus never said he was equal with God. In fact he said his father is greater than him...Greater than is not equal to.

How? Scripture says "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." Therefore, "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." How am I misrepresenting Scripture here? You can't misrepresent Scripture by quoting it.

God Bless
 
God is the literal father of those born again. That does not make the born again equal with God.
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
False. God is the ADOPTIVE Father of those born again.
Sons by adoption do NOT count.
 
Seriously? "Was" is the past tense of "is". How can you think this is a good response?
Yep therefore "was" is not "is" DoctrineofGraceBapt was a sperm
What part of human mother didn't you understand?
What part of human mother cannot make Gods do you not understand
The Word was God and became flesh by being born of Mary.
The flesh not God. You are quoting scriptures why do you not believe what you are quoting. it says he became flesh...nothing more.
I can't be misrepresenting Scripture;
Yes you are, was God means was in the past. Became flesh means became flesh therefore flesh. Do you wish to add anything to the scriptures?
I'm just quoting it.
Yes it says was God...You were being dogmatic so continue being dogmatic. Hold to your words. WAS God. Not IS God. Became flesh. Not became God or God-Man.
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
You shouldn't be misrepresenting the scriptures.
I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: " But of the Son he says...You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
You keep misrepresenting WAS as IS....and misrepresenting became flesh as became God or God-Man.
They do; You just pretend otherwise.
They don'r you are pretending they do.
Or, it makes him the same God as the Father.
No it does not. Where is your quote for that . You boast of quoting the scriptures...Where is your quote saying that rubbish?
I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
Of course you are. You are projecting two Gods...One God seeing another God. Please tell me that is not what you mean, and explain what you actually mean.
Wow, "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" means that he called God his own Father in such a way as to require his hearer to think Jesus was claiming equality with God as God's Son.
No it does not. That would make him a liar because he said his father is greater than him. Greater than does not mean equal to.
How? Scripture says "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
You just assumed he was calling God his father in such a way as to require the hearers to think he was claiming equality with God. So you admitted he did not say he was equal with God. That is called putting words in a persons mouth.
Therefore, "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." How am I misrepresenting Scripture here? You can't misrepresent Scripture by quoting it.
You are not quoting Jesus bro. You are misrepresenting him. Did Jesus say he was equal with God? ..NO.. in fact he said his father is greater than him.
You believe Greater than means equal to. So you will come up with a silly excuse to justify your alien thinking from Uranus.
 
False. God is the ADOPTIVE Father of those born again.
Sons by adoption do NOT count.
The passage does not say adoptive does it? It says born of God.
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

My friend adoptive is if the will of man and the flesh.
 
False. God is the ADOPTIVE Father of those born again.
Sons by adoption do NOT count.
The passage does not say adoptive does it? It says born of God.
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

My friend adoptive is if the will of man and the flesh.
 
Seriously? "Was" is the past tense of "is". How can you think this is a good response?
Yep therefore "was" is not "is" DoctrineofGraceBapt was a sperm

So, the Word was God, but is no longer God?
What part of human mother didn't you understand?
What part of human mother cannot make Gods do you not understand

We don't say that. So, maybe you should stop being silly.

The Word was God and became flesh by being born of Mary.
The flesh not God.

Obviously, became flesh not became God. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God."

I can't be misrepresenting Scripture;
Yes you are, was God means was in the past. Became flesh means became flesh therefore flesh. Do you wish to add anything to the scriptures?
I'm just quoting it.
Yes it says was God...You were being dogmatic so continue being dogmatic. Hold to your words. WAS God. Not IS God. Became flesh. Not became God or God-Man.
You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."
You shouldn't be misrepresenting the scriptures.

I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "The Word was God...The Word became flesh."

I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "But of the Son he says...You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."
You keep misrepresenting WAS as IS....and misrepresenting became flesh as became God or God-Man.

I can't be misrepresenting WAS as IS; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "But of the Son he says...You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Or, it makes him the same God as the Father.
No it does not. Where is your quote for that . You boast of quoting the scriptures...Where is your quote saying that rubbish?

Thank you for your uniformed, anti-scriptural opinion. I'll take it as an example of what to not believe.

I can't be misrepresenting Scripture; I'm just quoting it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
Of course you are. You are projecting two Gods...One God seeing another God. Please tell me that is not what you mean, and explain what you actually mean.

No, you are reading Scripture and pretending it means two Gods. I didn't give any interpretation whatsoever. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John wrote it; I quote it; you reject it. You really shouldn't reject Scripture: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
Wow, "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" means that he called God his own Father in such a way as to require his hearer to think Jesus was claiming equality with God as God's Son.
No it does not. That would make him a liar because he said his father is greater than him. Greater than does not mean equal to.

So, what do the words "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" mean? Because, that's what Scripture says.
How? Scripture says "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
You just assumed he was calling God his father in such a way as to require the hearers to think he was claiming equality with God. So you admitted he did not say he was equal with God. That is called putting words in a persons mouth.

No, I'm assuming nothing. Scripture says "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." Deal with Scripture.
Therefore, "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." How am I misrepresenting Scripture here? You can't misrepresent Scripture by quoting it.
You are not quoting Jesus bro. You are misrepresenting him. Did Jesus say he was equal with God? ..NO.. in fact he said his father is greater than him.
You believe Greater than means equal to. So you will come up with a silly excuse to justify your alien thinking from Uranus.

Yeah, I'm quoting John, and John has all the Authority of Jesus to write the Truth as an Apostle. How am I misrepresenting Scripture here: "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." ? You can't misrepresent Scripture by quoting it. Deal with Scripture.

God Bless
 
Back
Top