Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

You need to repent of your hate before it leads you to commit the sins of previous trinitarians.

I have no hatred to repent of, and your accusation of it is yet another lie that you need to think about the consequences of. If lies are the "fruits of the spirit" that you exhibit, one wonders what spirit you have in you.

Now, instead of dodging the issue by insulting me, explain how John 1:1-2 makes sense if there is no trinity and God's name is Jesus.

ETA: 100 pages, woot-woot!

reply to post by truejew


And again, you have zero moral high ground to judge or lecture anyone on what is offensive to women when you support them being silent in church, that they must wear skirts, and that they cannot teach you anything because they had the simple misfortune of being born with a vagina instead of a penis.

You're a hypocrite.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

You need to repent of your hate before it leads you to commit the sins of previous trinitarians.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

I've had some major run in's with Not Ur
But always respect the replies

You'd do well to listen to intelligent debate and accept that you don't know everything

Especially with your TrueJew thing

Might want to change that to Jew wannabe

Just saying

Cody

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

You need to repent of your hate before it leads you to commit the sins of previous trinitarians.

I have no hatred to repent of, and your accusation of it is yet another lie that you need to think about the consequences of. If lies are the "fruits of the spirit" that you exhibit, one wonders what spirit you have in you.

Now, instead of dodging the issue by insulting me, explain how John 1:1-2 makes sense if there is no trinity and God's name is Jesus.

ETA: 100 pages, woot-woot!

edit on 1-8-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Are you saying that Jesus is not God?

Originally posted by truejew
Are you saying that Jesus is not God?

Where do you see that in what I wrote?

If God's only name is Jesus and there is no trinity, then John 1:1-2 makes absolutely no sense.

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with Jesus, and Jesus was Jesus. Jesus was with Jesus in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Does that make sense to you?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

And again, you have zero moral high ground to judge or lecture anyone on what is offensive to women when you support them being silent in church, that they must wear skirts, and that they cannot teach you anything because they had the simple misfortune of being born with a vagina instead of a penis.

You're a hypocrite.

edit on 1-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I do not hate women as you accuse. I only teach that men and women have different roles, which is Biblical.

Originally posted by adjensen
Where do you see that in what I wrote?

You said that Jesus is not God's name and in John 1:1-2, you claim God was someone other than Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Whatever you think of me, you should apologize to Colbe.

Originally posted by truejew
I do not hate women as you accuse. I only teach that men and women have different roles, which is Biblical.

Where does NuT accuse you of "hating women"? He says that you oppress and diminish them because of their gender, which is not Biblical.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
Where do you see that in what I wrote?

You said that Jesus is not God's name and in John 1:1-2, you claim God was someone other than Jesus.

I never said that Jesus is not God. Stop deflecting and answer the question. Does John 1:1-2 make any sense to you, as restated in your "anti-trinitarian, God's only name is Jesus", terms?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
Where do you see that in what I wrote?

You said that Jesus is not God's name and in John 1:1-2, you claim God was someone other than Jesus.

I never said that Jesus is not God. Stop deflecting and answer the question. Does John 1:1-2 make any sense to you, as restated in your "anti-trinitarian, God's only name is Jesus", terms?

If Jesus is not God, who is He?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I do not hate women as you accuse. I only teach that men and women have different roles, which is Biblical.

Where does NuT accuse you of "hating women"? He says that you oppress and diminish them because of their gender, which is not Biblical.

It is Biblical that men and women have different roles. It is not Biblical to use offensive words to women like he has done.

reply to post by truejew


As usual, your lack of reading comprehension and/or inability to answer a simple question results in your attempt to deflect a reasonable inquiry.

We may now assume that you are in agreement, that your Modalism makes a mess out of the Bible, since you are unable to provide a reasonable defence against that argument.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

As usual, your lack of reading comprehension and/or inability to answer a simple question results in your attempt to deflect a reasonable inquiry.

We may now assume that you are in agreement, that your Modalism makes a mess out of the Bible, since you are unable to provide a reasonable defence against that argument.

Who is God in John 1:1-2? Is He Jesus or not?

Actually, I am showing that the trinity makes a mess out of John 1:1-2, by making Jesus not the same being as God.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

And again, you have zero moral high ground to judge or lecture anyone on what is offensive to women when you support them being silent in church, that they must wear skirts, and that they cannot teach you anything because they had the simple misfortune of being born with a vagina instead of a penis.

You're a hypocrite.

edit on 1-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I do not hate women as you accuse. I only teach that men and women have different roles, which is Biblical.

Well, if I am to use the working definition of "hate" that you apply to others then yes you do. Or do you want to invoke special pleading?

Originally posted by truejew
Actually, I am showing that the trinity makes a mess out of John 1:1-2, by making Jesus not the same being as God.

No, you aren't. Here is the trinitarian John 1:1-2:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. Jesus was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Here is the mess that Modalism makes of that:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with Jesus, and Jesus was Jesus. Jesus was with Jesus in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Two persons, one God? Makes complete sense.

One person, two roles, one God? Makes the text a complete mess.

There is no way that John would have written that sentence in the fashion that he did if he was a Modalist, so you're either left with either assuming that it is a forgery added later, or accepting that John was not a Modalist. And, if a forgery, you have to make the same assumption of Matthew's depiction of Jesus' baptism, as well as pretty much every other author of the New Testament, as they all clearly depict Father and Son as being separate entities who interact with each other.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I do not hate women as you accuse. I only teach that men and women have different roles, which is Biblical.

Where does NuT accuse you of "hating women"? He says that you oppress and diminish them because of their gender, which is not Biblical.

He is talking about the claim that he is a misogynist. He is using only one of the four definitions of that word which is a man that hates women, yet ignoring another possible definition which is a man who thinks women are inferior to men.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Whatever you think of me, you should apologize to Colbe.

No I shouldn't because I didn't do any injustice to her. She was attacking Protestants and it was unnecessary.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Actually, I am showing that the trinity makes a mess out of John 1:1-2, by making Jesus not the same being as God.

No, you aren't. Here is the trinitarian John 1:1-2:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. Jesus was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Here is the mess that Modalism makes of that:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with Jesus, and Jesus was Jesus. Jesus was with Jesus in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Two persons, one God? Makes complete sense.

One person, two roles, one God? Makes the text a complete mess.

There is no way that John would have written that sentence in the fashion that he did if he was a Modalist, so you're either left with either assuming that it is a forgery added later, or accepting that John was not a Modalist. And, if a forgery, you have to make the same assumption of Matthew's depiction of Jesus' baptism, as well as pretty much every other author of the New Testament, as they all clearly depict Father and Son as being separate entities who interact with each other.

Unless you are saying that there are two Jesus', one God the other not God, you are in the same position we are.

The correct Modalism John 1:1-2 would be...

In the beginning was the plan of the Son of God, and the plan of the Son of God was with Jesus, and the plan of the Son of God was Jesus. The plan of the Son of God was with Jesus in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Whatever you think of me, you should apologize to Colbe.

No I shouldn't because I didn't do any injustice to her. She was attacking Protestants and it was unnecessary.

A Christian would apologize.