Search results

I'm going to press you on this. Jude 9 is frequently cited as evidence for Jesus being Michael the Archangel. Jude 9 cites from the “Assumption of Moses” (a document that has been preserved for us in other languages), and proponents of this view try to tie Jude 9 in with what is said of the...

I have often said, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably isn't a cow." I am wondering if my suspicions are correct. Let's see just "what" sort of beast lies beneath, shall we? You said that "Jesus emptied Himself completely at birth." But what does that mean exactly...

Problem 4: Piggy-backing off Gen. 1:26, imagery from the Genesis creation mandate permeates the letter to the Colossians. In v. 6, Paul declares that “in all the world” the gospel is “bearing fruit and growing.” Similarly, in v. 10 Paul exhorts the Colossians to “bear fruit” in their efforts and...

Problem 3: Gen. 1:26 has historically been understood through the centuries to refer to a plurality of persons who were involved in the act of creation. Hence, through the second and third centuries, this was the most commonly held interpretation in the Christian world. To cite a few authors...

Problem 2: Each time the verb na-‘ă-śeh (Gen. 1:26, “Let Us make”) is used in the OT, it always has reference to a plurality of personal subjects who are always involved in the action. There are no exceptions (least Gen. 1:26–27 be the one exception). So then, why should Gen. 1:26 be the lone...

There's numerous problems here. You made some very serious misteps. Problem 1: Depending on which version of Job (the Masoretic or the LXX) you read, it may indicate that the angels cried for joy when God brought the starry hosts into existence. But if you consider the Genesis account; God...

"Cooked up," he says. "Don't take it seriously," he says. Question: Is that necessarily advice you should be offering when it entails the very subject of salvation? Regardless whether one holds to Trinitarianism, what one believes about the Son of God matters. It's the difference between a...

Sometimes a simple illustration will go a long way. ;)

Words get their meaning from the way they function in a sentence. You don't just get to pick whatever definition you wish to and apply it. That is not how this works. As I previously stated, ἐν can be used to speak of instrumentality or agency, but its usage is determined by its function in...

No. Does that answer your question? You clearly do not know the language. Perhaps you should invest in a copy of BDAG.

Let me remind you what I said, What part of this is not clear? Where did you get the idea that Trinitarians understand ἐκ as "instrumentality," when that is exactly the opposite of what I just said? ἐκ does not mean agency/instrumentality, nor can it. That is the entire point. ἐν (not ἐκ)...

I also want to point out a very obvious error. You have repeatedly referred to Christ as a "Trinitarian Jesus" who forever sits on the right hand of a "Trinitarian God." But here's a News Flash: We don't believe the individual persons are Tri-personal. That is, Jesus is not a "Tri-personal"...

You do realize that the preposition does not always mean in the "spherical" sense, right? It can mean "in" (in the spherical sense), but can also mean "by" or "with." When it carries a "spherical" sense, it usually does so when agency is being expressed. Hence, Col. 1:16. The use in Heb...

You do realize that the preposition does not always mean in the "spherical" sense, right? It can mean "in" (in the spherical sense), but can also mean "by" or "with." When it carries a "spherical" sense, it usually does so when agency is being expressed. Hence, Col. 1:16. The use in Heb...

The nine passages that are traditionally cited are Jn. 1:1, 1:18, 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Pt. 1:1; Heb. 1:8; Acts 20:28, and 1 Jn. 5:20. Other examples could probably be added to the list, but these are the "traditional" nine. That said, a couple examples listed in these "traditional nine" may be...

No, you need to reread what I said and this time very carefully, and without your Unitarian goggles on. It should be pointed out that the term "submit" is only ever used when speaking of distinct persons. That is where your flaw is, as I have been expressing this entire time. You are more...

The term for “made subject” (hupotageesetai) is used in contexts where the meaning can only be position and rank (not in essence or nature). This term stems from the verb hupotasso, which is used quite often in Scripture as in the following examples: Christ made Himself subject to His parents...

I am critiquing it: You haven't elaborated. You need to elaborate so other people can understand your objection. Simply pointing to a text and claiming I haven't answered is not an "elaboration." I obviously do not understand your objection if I am calling on you to elaborate more, right?

Again, you have not articulated an objection. What about "Corinthians" contradicts my view? Articulate the argument so I can interact with it.