Search results

Dude, we have shown you the Bible verses, you just refuse to accept them.

I'm wondering how much of the teaching of the Apostle Paul that he quotes from so much, ATP actually understands or believes?

Errr..... what? None of that is in the Bible, dude! That stuff about Solomon being some sort of super-magician and using spirits to build things is pure folklore. And the idea of the Temple which God consecrated by His presence, as an earthly representation of heavenly realities that were to be...

Whether you - in contrast to the people who decided the NT canon, and centuries of Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Baptist believers - consider those letters to be by Paul or not, they are in the New Testament.

@ATP you have already admitted that there are statements in the New Testament that clearly teach Jesus' Deity. Unless you think your own denomination is wrong in what they tell you it means?

I think this illustrates the point that for some people - if it's something they very much want to believe is taught in the Bible, just one out-of-context verse will do. But if it's something they don't want to accept as in the Bible, no amount of quotations will do.

And if the Bible did say that the sky is blue, ATP would claim that scholars had proven it was really green, but he believes it to be purple, because Tradition.

We've shown you already dude.

Funny, I don't need people in robes and funny hats to tell me that being indwelled by the Holy Spirit is not the same as Pantheism. And here we have a classic case of the text saying one thing, and people like you seeing something totally different there, because you have been taught to see it...

By first-century Roman standards, yes having two wives would look very bad. Paul's point that church leaders should be people free from scandal.

None of the sermons in the book of Acts by Peter or Paul ever mention the virgin birth of Christ, so obviously that's just "tradition". Because if it was true, they would always tell everyone about it all the time. /sarcasm

It's almost as if you don't understand what I said there at all, and are just repeating yourself over and over. No, it's not "Tradition", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's what the Bible teaches.

The concept makes perfect sense, once you understand it. Hard to get there for most people though, as it's typically explained in an incoherent way by people who do not themselves understand, and don't expect you to either. The doubletalk in the Nicene creed about Jesus' eternal nature doesn't help.

Hi @King Arts The doctrine of the Trinity as we have it today was only formulated a few centuries after the time of the Apostles, so asking for a specific Bible verse that explicitly teaches it is a bit like standing outside at night with a telescope, and asking where in the sky you should look...

Given all the passages you just quoted, you should be able to answer that. I just quoted that same passage earlier - and you actually do see it there, even. But you won't admit it.

We could start with the passage from Romans I just quoted. What do you make of it?

@ATP It's good that you are actually reading the Pauline Epistles there. But when arguing from them, you seem to be making the same invalid argument over and over, with every passage you quote. Paul does not mention Jesus' Deity all the time when expounding the Gospel to people. This is not...

It says it so plainly that the Jews immediately wanted to stone Him for blasphemy. Beyond that, you are splitting hairs.

I didn't know this was a game for points. Not mentioning something is not the same as denying it. The most you can prove from those passages is that Jesus' Deity was not considered an essential part of the basic Gospel message, not something everyone needed to be informed of right up-front...

Yeah - repeats himself over and over, ignores responses, disregards the Bible whenever it suits him, pretends he cannot understand it...