A Christian who deny Jesus is God in Flesh

[justbyfaith]

@soul, your quote that has my name on it is not something that I have said (on two counts). Kindly change it to fit the poster who said it.

Thank you....

 

[jaybird]

You are misrepresenting my argument again, just in a different way. Again, I actually said, "God did not use angels to create man in His image and likeness (Gen. 1:26)..."



You asked, "Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?" and "When sodom was destroyed was it done in the way of angels or the way of the Lord?" The latter is a rephrasing of the former because both ask who the responsible party is. The fact the answer to both questions is either "God" and/or "angels" is just evidence each asks the same thing.

In addition to denying you rephrased your question, you chose to persist in dishonesty, by twisting the style of one of your own questions claiming it is a "how" question, where the answer is "fire."

Q: "When sodom was destroyed was it done in the way of angels or the way of the Lord?"
A: "Fire"

That is asinine and prideful.

If same they would have different answers. You run run from this because it proves you wrong, look at all these hoops your going through, it's so sad, all this to avoid a question. I never seen some dig a hole this deep

Now you are deliberately trying to take this topic in a different direction to avoid facing your error, which is claiming the following verse refers to God and angels: "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). The problem is, if "Let us make" refers to God and angels, then "to our image and likeness" refers to the image and likeness of God and the image and likeness of angels, which means man was created by God and angels to the image and likeness of God, and the image and likeness of angels. However, that contradicts your belief man is only made to the image of God, including Gen. 1:27 where it is confirmed man was created only to God's image and likeness, not to the image and likeness of angels as well.



I did not ask what @Wrangler was thinking, but I showed you what he was doing (#976). Again, instead of answering this following grade school science question: do you understand water (singular) exists in the following states: liquid, solid, and gas (vapor)?, he tried to keep distracting from it until all he could do was put me on ignore. I asked you the same question in another thread and you did not answer it. I asked you in this thread and once again you did not answer it.

Ironic that I am the one with the "flawed theology," yet the two of you are defending positions that are so weak you have to resort to arguing dishonestly, and refuse to even admit that I am right about a grade school science question.

The sodom question proves my point. You know I am right because you will not answer question.
Did you have an example showing the Lord talks to Himself when he does things?
Also, why did no one believe this before the trinity was invented 400 years after Jesus?

 

[jaybird]

The answer to it is why you claim the following verse refers to God and angels:

and already you are starting off on the wrong foot. its not the Most High "and" angels. its the Most High. when the Most High sends an angel, its the Most High. if an angel gets sent down to our world to plant a tree, the tree was planted by the Most High. when sodom was destroyed by angels, again, thats the work of the Most High. how many times do we see angels speaking, hundreds, when they speak what does the bible say, the Lord said this, the Lord commanded that. the angels are speaking but its the Lord working through them.

"And he said, let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). Again, the problem with assuming God used angels in this situation is, if "let us make" refers to God and angels, then "to our image and likeness" refers to the image and likeness of God and the image and likeness of angels, which means man was created by God and angels to the image and likeness of God, and the image and likeness of angels. However, that contradicts your belief man is only made to the image of God, including Gen. 1:27 where it is confirmed man was created only to God's image and likeness, not to the image and likeness of angels as well.

when an angel acts its not an act of the angel, its the act of the Most High.same would apply to the "our likeness" its not the likeness of angels, its the Lord, just the same as that tree the angel planted, the Lord planted that tree.

there are zero scriptures that prove the Most High talks to the other Most High.
i have posted several scriptures proving angels act in the Lords name and when someone is sent by the Lord, the language used is the same as Gen 1 :
"let "us" make . . ."
"who shall go for "us""
same language

then you have the dilemmas that can not be explained.
there is no scripture that has the Father talking to Himself.
no one ever believed Gen 1 "us" was the Most High talking to another Most High. from the days of Moses until 400 plus years after Jesus not one person understood this passage in such a way. all the great men of G-D such as Elijah, Moses, Samuel, these great men didnt get it but these roman councils that were full of men obsessed with power, persecution and personal wealth, these guys figured it out what Elijah, Moses and Samuel couldnt? i dont think so.

I did not ask what @Wrangler was thinking, but I showed you what he was doing (#976). Again, instead of answering this following grade school science question: do you understand water (singular) exists in the following states: liquid, solid, and gas (vapor)?, he tried to keep distracting from it until all he could do was put me on ignore.

I have asked you the same question at least three times now and each time you did not answer. Why?

how does it exist in these different states? heat water up it becomes vapor, are you saying if we heat Jesus up He becomes the Father?
water is not a he or a she, water is an "it". is the Most High an "it"?

 

[jaybird]

If God used angels to create man like you claim, then God created man along with them, because of how the following verse is written: "And he [God] said, let us [God and angels] make man to our image and likeness [God's image and likeness and the image and likeness of angels]." The problem with that is it contradicts your belief man is only made to the image of God, including Gen. 1:27 where it is confirmed man was created only by God, and only to His image and likeness.

when the Lord uses an angel, its an act of the Lord. when the Lord says "our" image, its still the image of the Lord. you are free to prove me wrong, simply provide a scripture where angels act independently of the Lord.

So, you do not understand water exists in the following states: liquid, solid, and gas (vapor). In that case, watch the following video for children on water:

when i repeated the question:
"how does it exist in these different states?"
i guess i should have explained better. no one knows what your talking about nor how this has anything to do with anything, so when we say "how does it exist in these different states?" its us repeating the question to make sure we heard you right because it makes no sense, you have to remember that we do not live in the trinity twilight zone world where everything is backwards, one equals three, greater means equal, i am not a man means i am a man, son of means father of, etc etc.

these little word psyche games may impress you guys in your little trin groups, but to us, when someone says Jesus sits at His own right hand because he is the hand because you dont hold the cup of water but your hand holds the cup of water, its really an absurd argument.

forget the yes and no games, just tell me how water proves the trinity, the faster you do that the faster i can disprove it.

 

[jaybird]

"And, he [God] said, let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). The word "us" is a plural personal pronoun. The word "our" is a plural possessive pronoun

Therefore, either God was referring to Himself in the plural or He was referring to Himself and [insert here]. If the latter, that means "our [plural] image and likeness" refers to the image and likeness of both parties involved in creating man, which contradicts Gen. 1:27: "And God created man to his own image [singular]: to the image of God [singular] he created him: male and female he created them."

It doesn't matter, angels DO NOT act on their own authority. Show me a scripture there angels act independent or add their own name to the work of the Lord.

Also I do not watch cartoon videos, make your point or move on.

 

[jaybird]

What does not matter?

The part you omitted

So, like @Wrangler, you do not want to answer the following basic science question: do you agree water [singular] can exist in three states [plural]? Why?

When you talk down to people and treat them as children how do you think they should respond?
I said skip to the point. I already said water is water, the Lord is not water , etc etc. Make your point and we can go from there.

 

[Wrangler]

its us repeating the question to make sure we heard you right because it makes no sense, you have to remember that we do not live in the trinity twilight zone world where everything is backwards, one equals three, greater means equal, i am not a man means i am a man, son of means father of, etc etc.

these little word psyche games may impress you guys in your little trin groups, but to us, when someone says Jesus sits at His own right hand because he is the hand because you dont hold the cup of water but your hand holds the cup of water, its really an absurd argument.

forget the yes and no games, just tell me how water proves the trinity, the faster you do that the faster i can disprove it.

What a great post!

The funny thing about the water question is that I repeatedly pointed out how there are 5 states of matter. Water is matter. This does not align with the theologically loaded question. Rather than update a worldview to match our understanding of reality, the water question is repeated AS IF it was not answered.

The game is to load questions with implied premises. I reject the premises implied. Rather than move on, the conversation takes laps. While entertaining to a point, it is no longer meaningful discussion.

 

[jaybird]

The part of your post (#1023) I omitted in post #1024 does not matter? Lol, so, then it does not matter that I omitted it! Also, you have to address the problem your belief angels created man causes. Refer back to #1022.

No problem, just give me an example of angels acting in their own name, I will be waiting.

Lol, so now you have resorted to blaming me for your not wanting to not respond to a basic science question claiming without evidence that I "talk down to people." For the sake of argument, even if I do, what does that have to do with you and a basic science question? Nothing. This is just an excuse to "justify" your not wanting to answer it and "save face."

Just make your point, why can you not do that?
I get we are both asking questions and you're now accusing me of dodging but I made my point first, you ignored it, and only then was I forced into the basic questions which you continue to ignore.
Make your point with the water, if I if ignore that, then switch to the questions, that's how discussion debates work. Show a little gentleman courtesy.

 

[justbyfaith]

i guess i should have explained better. no one knows what your talking about nor how this has anything to do with anything, so when we say "how does it exist in these different states?" its us repeating the question to make sure we heard you right because it makes no sense, you have to remember that we do not live in the trinity twilight zone world where everything is backwards, one equals three, greater means equal, i am not a man means i am a man, son of means father of, etc etc.

these little word psyche games may impress you guys in your little trin groups, but to us, when someone says Jesus sits at His own right hand because he is the hand because you dont hold the cup of water but your hand holds the cup of water, its really an absurd argument.

Of course the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[jaybird]

Of course the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

I'm not drinking the kool aid

 

[jaybird]

Angels can act on behalf of God, but not every act of God was by Him through angels. There is a difference between acting on another's behalf and creating x to the image and likeness of x.

"And, he [God] said, let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26). The word "us" is a plural personal pronoun. The word "our" is a plural possessive pronoun.

Therefore, either God was referring to Himself in the plural or He was referring to Himself and [insert here]. If the latter, that means "our [plural] image and likeness" refers to the image and likeness of both parties involved in creating man, which contradicts Gen. 1:27: "And God created man to his own image [singular]: to the image of God [singular] he created him: male and female he created them."

Your claiming that angels did not act in creating because this would make it a co creation and void the idea that the Lord acted alone. I am arguing that angels do not act alone, act on their own authority, they have none, they act for the Lord. When an angel acts, when the Lord acts, either way is the same result. An angels involvement does not change the authority of the Lord. If angels have their own authority it would make a difference but there is no example of angels ever acting on their own. Only fallen angels act on their own authority.

Part of my point involves your answer, but like @Wrangler, you do not want to answer the following basic science question: "do you agree water [singular] can exist in three states [plural]?" I will ask other anti-Trinitarians here and perhaps they can answer it.

I will be back to respond, at work

 

[101G]

justbyfaith said↑
The Spirit that descended and took on an added nature of human flesh did not change.

For one thing, the Father stayed behind in eternity.

jaybird said: ↑So one Most High was in the heavens, and another was down here in this world.
Ohh boy smh

I have a question, is this one Spirit or two? Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

so, let us ask it this way, is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, two different "Spirits?" Yes or No ..... the answer is right there in the verse itself..... Romans 8:9.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Wrangler]

It's so funny how the question of 'A Christian who deny Jesus is God in Flesh' turns into a "can," a potential, the never ending laps of hinging on the question of "do you agree water [singular] can exist in three states [plural]?"

Trinitarians make this Appeal to Ignorance. IF something 'can be' for Topic A, it does not mean it is that way for Topic B. It's such a weak, illogical argument. And this is revealed when my rebuttal is not accepted that there are 5 states that matter "can" exist in ... let the laps continue.

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith said↑
The Spirit that descended and took on an added nature of human flesh did not change.

For one thing, the Father stayed behind in eternity.

jaybird said: ↑So one Most High was in the heavens, and another was down here in this world.
Ohh boy smh

I have a question, is this one Spirit or two? Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

so, let us ask it this way, is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, two different "Spirits?" Yes or No ..... the answer is right there in the verse itself..... Romans 8:9.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

One Spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

 

[justbyfaith]

I'm not drinking the kool aid

What you are not realizing is that it is not being given out by Jim Jones or anyone like him, but by Jesus Himself; and you can either drink the kool-aid (flavored, living water) or the toilet water that this world has to offer (see John 4:13-14, John 6:35, John 7:37-39).

If you choose the latter, you will never be satisfied (John 4:13-14).

 

[Michiah-Imla]

KJV is the most error prone version around.

It is quite interesting that a couple of sloppy manuscripts are found (one in the trash) in the 1800’s, are used to change the traditional text, are the basis of every original language “help” book out there, and are now used to malign the traditional text...

Quite interesting indeed.

And quite sad at the same time.

 

[101G]

One Spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

Correct, the same one Spirt, and it was the Spirit of Christ that was in the OT prophets testifying of the salvation to come.... but Christ was not in the OT... but JESUS was... Yikes. same Spirit, same person.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Wrangler]

It is quite interesting that a couple of sloppy manuscripts are found (one in the trash) in the 1800’s, are used to change the traditional text, are the basis of every original language “help” book out there, and are now used to malign the traditional text

You are maligning the far superior manuscripts found after the KJV was written.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are maligning the far superior manuscripts found after the KJV was written.

The Westcott & Hort / Alexandrian text is basically watered down.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

You are maligning the far superior manuscripts found after the KJV

Any manuscript with constant corrections and erasures and just plain sloppiness are worthy of being discarded and STAYING discarded. To use a faulty manuscript to “correct” what has been handed down through the years is stupidity; especially when the chief reason is solely because of how old they are: As if age means anything with regards to authenticity.

The men responsible for introducing the errors of these newly discovered trash manuscripts ignored scriptural principles.

One that comes immediately to mind is this one:

Proverbs 22:28
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

How anyone would rather believe that words were added to the scriptures instead of words being left out is amazing.