Search results

The term “Unitarian” is more of a qualitative term. It describes a certain type or essence of theology, namely, that God is one sole individual. The sole “essence” of the Unitarian theological framework is simply that God is one sole individual. Where it gets more complex, is just “who” is that...

Um, yes you are a Unitarian. You absolutely are a Unitarian. I know you are in denial about it, because all Modalists are (in denial). They don't like the fact that the label "Unitarian" has been hijacked by other Unitarian subsets, i.e., "Socinians," "Biblical Unitarians," and therefore go...

I'm quite familiar with 1 Cor. 15. You act like you're the only one that's read it. What about it? It only has problems when you think the Father and the Son are the same "person." You are forgetting that Trinitarians are not Unitarians. And you assume your faulty framework back onto...

The wording isn't complex. You just haven't read your NT. It's you who cannot let Paul interpret Paul. He tells you exactly what he means in Acts 13:30-33, and then again in Heb. 5:5. No need to perv out his words.

Yes, I did address the very thing you say I have not. Paul interprets the passage (Ps. 2:7) in Acts 13:30-33 as a reference to Jesus' resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God, duh. And that is exactly the topic under discussion in Heb. 1 and 5:5. Ps. 2:7 has nothing to do about...

Um, no. Allow me to demonstrate your error. Heb. 1 is set with the exaltation of Christ in the backdrop. In 1:4, Christ (after making purifications for sin), “had sat down at the right hand of God.” Notice the parallel language here as in Acts 13:30-33, where Paul states, Picking up where...

I'm not the one saying Christ spoke to Himself. I am not the Modalist ("Unitarian"). I am Trinitarian. While on earth, Christ prayed to the Father, who is both, numerically and personally distinct. Christ did not simultaneously exist in "heaven" as "the Father," and on the "earth" as "the...

No, it's not because I "trust" commentators. It's because I'm quite familiar with the passage and know the objections. After all, I have spent the last 15 years of my life interacting with Unitarians over the deity of Christ. That, and I also come from a Modalist background. To be blunt: I...

I'm going to break this down in a way that will make it easy on you. But first, you need to confess you do not know the language. It shows on multiple fronts. Your "translation" is quite flawed, because you are trying to parse words without recognizing basic Greek grammar. First of all, the...

I guess I don't see the problem. But first, let's discuss the elephant in the room: You seem to be taking 1 Tim. 6:15-16 as a reference to the Father. And then trying to connect that back to Rev. 17, where the Lamb is identified with the same titles. However, there are problems. While it is...

I do want to say briefly, I do think Christ's activities in creation correspond with YHWH's. Don't think I'm trying to distinguish Christ from YHWH, when I have been making the connections to YHWH this entire time. All I am attempting to do is show a distinction of persons. It does not matter...

Of course.

I didn't ignore Heb. 2:10. I cited the companion passage, Rom. 11:36 in Post #55. In fact, it was critical to my argument. If you take the argument I just made regarding Col. 1:16 and apply it to Heb. 1:1-3, then you will see the problem you are faced with. You have exactly the same issue...

That's not a catch. Had you read Post #55 carefully, you have known why that is. Let me point something out to you that may not have been brought to your attention before, particularly regarding Col. 1:16-17. I made reference to this on another thread here on ChristianChat, which may prove...

Yes. Col. 1:15-17, 1 Cor. 8:6, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1:10-11.

Yes. There is "one God," "from whom" are all things, and "one Lord," "through whom" are all things. By the use of the two titles ("God"/"Lord") and the two prepositional phrases ("for"/"through"), this is showing distinction between two persons. However, where you lose site is in the fact...

This has been a topic I've studied for a very long time. I am really quite unaware of any "conflicting" passages, so long those passages are read in their contextual settings.

Absolutely. Do you expect me to say that He's 50% man?

Yes, Jesus became man. Notice, I said "Jesus became man," NOT "the Father became man." The pre-existent Christ who existed together with God, became a man, and while on earth, He communed through prayer with God the Father (a distinct "person"), not His "heavenly" soul. Like men do not pray...