Faith Alone

Btw, I'm sorry that you are rejecting Jesus in Matt. 7:6.
By your reckoning, you just disobeyed him.

<Chuckle>
You probably believe the DaVinci Code was based on a true story too, don't you?
<Chuckle>
No.

So this suggests to me that you weren't interested in the Biblical foundation of the Trinity in the first place.
It seems to me that you're the one not interested in the foundation of the Trinity.

So thank you for confirming that I would have been wasting my time with you.
You NEVER have to respond to me, Theo. You're free to use your time as you see fit.
 
I know when I'm being insulted and falsely accused.
You haven't yet made a case for it.

That is a false statement.
You are, because Jesus was just an average human in your world, so to become "God's monogenes son", his unique son, he would have to be adopted after birth.

Both men came from God. God created Adam, and He fathered Jesus Christ through an act of creation. He created in Mary what was necessary for her to conceive His Son. That is NOT adoptionism.
Weasle words, because all you can account for is the creation in Mary of a set of biological life forms necessary for her to conceive. How those life forms were created has nothing to do with it. It is the fact there were created at all that is important. Apart from the "how" Jesus was the same as Adam because he "came from below" in your view.

You don't understand how Jesus came down from heaven.
I do. But you don't because for you "heaven" means God's plan, which is paganism, pure and simple. Your heaven is a pagan heaven.
 
@Theo1689, here's another book you might find interesting:

So just out of curiosity, have you actually read the book yourself?
At $1.99, I'm tempted to pick it up, but I've been reading the reviews.

First of all, the title suggests that 1 Cor. 8:6 is going to be a major part of the argument. I know that passage VERY well.

Secondly, I read a number of reviews that were absolutely "gushing" about the book, greatest thing since slice bread, and all that. But not really any specifics given. And since none of them mentioned that they were formerly Trinitarians who were convinced by the book, their reviews could simply be written off as 'confirmation bias".

Another reviewer mentioned that the authors' major M.O. was to quote from scholars, going to "appeal to authority" rather than the value of the arguments themselves. He also said that the same scholars used to attack the Trinity also used the same style of argumentation to attack the crucifixion, which is problematic, since consistency is a GOOD thing. And many citations were apparently incorrect or else out of context.

Another reviewer who was not a Trinitarian gave the book only one star, with the explanation that the book simply failed to suport its claim.

Perhaps you could share with us one or two of the better arguments from the book to give us a better idea of whether it's worth buying or not.
 
You are, because Jesus was just an average human in your world,
No he wasn't. He is the Son of God, born without sin.

so to become "God's monogenes son", his unique son, he would have to be adopted after birth.
He was BORN "God's monogenes Son."

Weasle words, because all you can account for is the creation in Mary of a set of biological life forms necessary for her to conceive. How those life forms were created has nothing to do with it. It is the fact there were created at all that is important. Apart from the "how" Jesus was the same as Adam because he "came from below" in your view.
No, Jesus came from God. God is his Father.

I do. But you don't because for you "heaven" means God's plan,
No it doesn't.

which is paganism, pure and simple. Your heaven is a pagan heaven.
Since I do not believe heaven is God's plan, you're beating on a strawman.
 
So just out of curiosity, have you actually read the book yourself?
I have.
At $1.99, I'm tempted to pick it up, but I've been reading the reviews.

First of all, the title suggests that 1 Cor. 8:6 is going to be a major part of the argument. I know that passage VERY well.
That verse is covered in the book, but it's not a "major part of the argument." And I have read your explanation of that verse, that you think it was Paul adapting the Shema to the NT times (or something close to that). I'm not convinced you know it as well as you think you do.

Secondly, I read a number of reviews that were absolutely "gushing" about the book, greatest thing since slice bread, and all that. But not really any specifics given. And since none of them mentioned that they were formerly Trinitarians who were convinced by the book, their reviews could simply be written off as 'confirmation bias".
That's possible.

Another reviewer mentioned that the authors' major M.O. was to quote from scholars, going to "appeal to authority" rather than the value of the arguments themselves. He also said that the same scholars used to attack the Trinity also used the same style of argumentation to attack the crucifixion, which is problematic, since consistency is a GOOD thing. And many citations were apparently incorrect or else out of context.

Another reviewer who was not a Trinitarian gave the book only one star, with the explanation that the book simply failed to suport its claim.

Perhaps you could share with us one or two of the better arguments from the book to give us a better idea of whether it's worth buying or not.
I'm not the writer you are.

For $1.99, take a chance, Theo. It's about half the cost of a Starbucks.

While "One God and One Lord" does cover the topic quite well, the first book I mentioned, "The God of Jesus," is more scholarly. While it costs more, you might enjoy it more.
 
No he wasn't. He is the Son of God, born without sin.
No different from anyone else: Heb 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,"

He was BORN "God's monogenes Son."
You said he was created God's son, by I asked what criteria constituted Christ being so created, and all you can do is point me to some Übermensch, some superhero, as if Christ was not like his brethren.

No, Jesus came from God. God is his Father.
That much is a lie as you say Jesus had no pre-existence. Alternatively "God" infers "God's plan" in yiour vocabulary.

No it doesn't.
Since I do not believe heaven is God's plan, you're beating on a strawman.
It's what the bible infers you believe:

1 John 1:2 "The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us"

If the "eternal life that was with the Father," i.e. in heaven, and has now appeared to us, was just "God's plan," then essentially, all we ever had was God's created superhero. All eternal life is just "God's plan".

So heaven "I came down from heaven" has no actual reality. "Coming down from heaven" is "fulfulling God's plan." The very concept of heaven & eternal life is reduced to "God's plan."

And besides which, since you reckon the risen Jesus is still "a man," a real man, like us, then heaven doesn't exist at all in biblical terms, because the bible says it is a spiritual abode, not one of flesh, which is the pagan conception. Your heaven seems to be pagan.
 
Last edited:
No different from anyone else: Heb 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,"
Christ was indeed made like unto his brethren, but he did not have a sin nature, and he did not sin.

You said he was created God's son, by I asked what criteria constituted Christ being so created, and all you can do is point me to some Übermensch, some superhero, as if Christ was not like his brethren.
Christ is a man, like us.

That much is a lie
It's not a lie.

as you say Jesus had no pre-existence.
Jesus Christ did not preexist his conception.

Alternatively "God" infers "God's plan" in yiour vocabulary.
It was God's plan to send a Messiah. He did so.

It's what the bible infers you believe:

1 John 1:2 "The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us"

If the "eternal life that was with the Father," i.e. in heaven, and has now appeared to us, was just "God's plan," then essentially, all we ever had was God's created superhero. All eternal life is just "God's plan".
God always had eternal life. Jesus Christ received everlasting life when God raised him from the dead.

So heaven "I came down from heaven" has no actual reality. "Coming down from heaven" is "fulfulling God's plan." The very concept of heaven & eternal life is reduced to "God's plan."
We disagree on how Jesus Christ came down from heaven.

And besides which, since you reckon the risen Jesus is still "a man," a real man, like us,
Jesus Christ is certainly still a man, although he has been glorified and highly exalted by God.

then heaven doesn't exist at all in biblical terms, because the bible says it is a spiritual abode, not one of flesh, which is the pagan conception. Your heaven seems to be pagan.
I cannot explain the particulars, but the highly exalted man Jesus Christ is currently in heaven at the right hand of God.
 
Christ was indeed made like unto his brethren, but he did not have a sin nature, and he did not sin.
So he was not like unto his brethren? There is no such thing as a "sin nature" that isn't human flesh. What you say isn't intelligible because "sin nature" is just a euphemism for the flesh. The two are interchangeble in English, and translate just a single Greek word.

Christ is a man, like us.
Contradicting what you said above.

It's not a lie.
It is a lie. No-one came from God in your theology.

Jesus Christ did not preexist his conception.
See above.

It was God's plan to send a Messiah. He did so.
A man without a sin nature? No such man is known to the human race, given the Greek term mistranslated as "sin nature" (σάρξ - sarx) really means ordinary human "flesh".

Christ has the same constituition as anyone else. You are looking for the source of Christ's sinlessness in the wrong place. It lies in him coming from above, not from him being created differently.

God always had eternal life. Jesus Christ received everlasting life when God raised him from the dead
So you discount the phrase "eternal life that was with the Father" as an untruth.

We disagree on how Jesus Christ came down from heaven.
No, we disagree that Jesus came down from heaven at all.

Jesus Christ is certainly still a man, although he has been glorified and highly exalted by God.
A glorified man is not a human person because he has a "spiritual body," not a body of flesh.

I cannot explain the particulars, but the highly exalted man Jesus Christ is currently in heaven at the right hand of God.
In which case he cannot be a human being because: "No man can see me and live." Ex 33:20
 
Last edited:
Back
Top