For popular or very good threads
I've been debating this topic for over a decade online. And guess what? Not one single Trinitarian has been willing to be corrected by scriptural context. They do not care what the Bible says. It's about them and their personal philosophy.
Actually, they probably presented the same evidence I offered but you just dismiss all the evidence out of hand without any logical explanation. There comes a point when it becomes obvious there is no way you will accept the truth, and people grow weary.
 
@Alter2Ego

These are some of the strong points in Scooter's view, and I don't see that you addressed them:
Gen.1: 26 At creation, God spoke in the plural sense.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

AgnosticBoy:

Your quoting of Scooter's lame arguments by using Scooter's use of isolated verses (while ignoring context at Genesis 1:26) amounts to the blind leading the blind. Genesis 1:26 is clearly not literal since the Bible makes it clear that God is a spirit and humans are flesh and blood.

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (Genesis 1:26 -- English Standard Version)

Furthermore, when the words at Genesis 1:26 were spoken by the Almighty, there were already in existence millions of angels with him. He was speaking to one of those angels: The same angel whose spirit life was transferred into the womb of the virgin named Mary. That special angel who became flesh is known as Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
Also, mankind is made in the image and likeness of God. Not in the image and likeness of angels: Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I think one of Alter2Ego's strong points is his reference in Numbers:
"God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19 -- New International Version)
But perhaps this could just mean that God did not take on any human nature, yet. This was a time before Jesus's birth.

AgnosticBoy:

Your attempt at dancing around Numbers 23:19 by claiming at the time it was written, Jesus's birth on earth had not yet occurred falls flat. Here's why: Even after Jesus showed up on earth in human form, the Bible continued to say the following:


"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
(John 1:18 -- Webster's Bible Translation)


BTW: You shot yourself in the foot when you used the term "Jesus' birth," indicating Jesus had a beginning.
 
The same angel whose spirit life was transferred into the womb of the virgin named Mary. That special angel who became flesh is known as Jesus Christ.
This is a completely false statement. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He is not, was not a created being. He in fact is the Creator: John 1:1-4 & 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Until you recognize Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, I cannot have any serious discussion with you about the Bible. I understand now why your posts are off base.

BTW: you destroyed your entire argument by rejecting Jesus Christ as God.
 
I've been debating this topic for over a decade online. And guess what? Not one single Trinitarian has been willing to be corrected by scriptural context. They do not care what the Bible says. It's about them and their personal philosophy.
Actually, they probably presented the same evidence I offered but you just dismiss all the evidence out of hand without any logical explanation. There comes a point when it becomes obvious there is no way you will accept the truth, and people grow weary.
They presented the same out-of-context verses. When I showed them the context (surrounded words, verses, and/or chapters) and they saw that they were debunked by the context, they dug in by presenting the same behavior that you are presenting here. When I asked them questions about what the context said, they refused to answer the questions because they realized that the answer to the question would debunk their misuse of their so-called "trinity" verses.

But I've already told you that; haven't I? I've already told that's it's never about what the Bible actually says. It's about what Trinitarians choose to believe: their personal philosophy.
 
The same angel whose spirit life was transferred into the womb of the virgin named Mary. That special angel who became flesh is known as Jesus Christ.
This is a completely false statement. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He is not, was not a created being. He in fact is the Creator: John 1:1-4 & 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Until you recognize Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, I cannot have any serious discussion with you about the Bible. I understand now why your posts are off base.

BTW: you destroyed your entire argument by rejecting Jesus Christ as God.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You've already presented scripture which says point blank that humans are not able to see God. You sound confused.

Nonsense. Genesis 18:1-2 makes no mention of Jesus, and for good reason: The writing of that book was completed by Moses in 1513 B.C.E. At that point in time, Jesus was still heaven and had not yet been sent to earth. It was not until the First Century C.E., over a thousand years later, that Jesus' spirit life was transferred by Jehovah into the womb of the virgin named Mary.
Sorry, but that is wrong. This appearance of God had to be Jesus pre-incarnate. When Moses asked to see God's face, he was told no man could see His face and live (Ex. 33:18-22). Therefore, we know God in Genesis 18 was not the Father. It had to be God the Son. As you pointed out, it was Jehovah in the flesh.

Make up your mind, Scooter. You can't argue on both sides of the fence.
 
I've been debating this topic for over a decade online. And guess what? Not one single Trinitarian has been willing to be corrected by scriptural context. They do not care what the Bible says. It's about them and their personal philosophy.
Actually, they probably presented the same evidence I offered but you just dismiss all the evidence out of hand without any logical explanation. There comes a point when it becomes obvious there is no way you will accept the truth, and people grow weary.
They presented the same out-of-context verses. When I showed them the context (surrounded words, verses, and/or chapters) and they saw that they were debunked by the context, they dug in by presenting the same behavior that you are presenting here. When I asked them questions about what the context said, they refused to answer the questions because they realized that the answer to the question would debunk their misuse of their so-called "trinity" verses.

But I've already told you that; haven't I? I've already told that's it's never about what the Bible actually says. It's about what Trinitarians choose to believe: their personal philosophy.
😂😂😂
 
Now you are contradicting yourself. You've already presented scripture which says point blank that humans are not able to see God. You sound confused.
I quoted scripture that plainly supports the Trinity. I have also posted verses that shows Jesus Christ is God. I am not at all confused. Your posts reveal your confusion concerning who Jesus Christ is. You can’t even accept Jesus’ divinity. I cannot continue this nonsense.
 
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (Genesis 1:26 -- English Standard Version)
This is from John 4:24 and not Genesis 1:26.

Genesis 1:26 is clearly not literal since the Bible makes it clear that God is a spirit and humans are flesh and blood.
I don't agree with your reasoning. Just because something involves a spirit doesn't make it non-literal. To the Bible writers, spirits really do exist, and there are many of them. When Genesis 1:26 says "us", that just means that there's more than one spirit that's being referred to.

Furthermore, when the words at Genesis 1:26 were spoken by the Almighty, there were already in existence millions of angels with him. He was speaking to one of those angels: The same angel whose spirit life was transferred into the womb of the virgin named Mary. That special angel who became flesh is known as Jesus Christ.
Genesis 1:26 doesn't mention any angels. God could've been communicating with angels or amongst themselves (them = 3 beings that make up the Godhead), or even all of the above. Your explanations don't show why it couldn't be the latter 2 options.

If anything, Scooter and I have shown that the second to last option (the Trinity) is the case since we are not created in the image of angels nor did angels create anything. The "our" in Genesis 1:26 that is doing the creating and that we're in the image in, could only refer to God. And God referring to himself as "our" means more than one being involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter
Now you are contradicting yourself. You've already presented scripture which says point blank that humans are not able to see God. You sound confused.
I quoted scripture that plainly supports the Trinity. I have also posted verses that shows Jesus Christ is God. I am not at all confused. Your posts reveal your confusion concerning who Jesus Christ is. You can’t even accept Jesus’ divinity. I cannot continue this nonsense.
No, you didn't. The scriptures you quoted actually debunk Christendom's Trinity when the context is paid attention to. It is the context that gives the correct understanding of what is being stated.