7's in Bible = SUPERNATURALLY inspired - free 500 page download, page-154

"You didnt give valid points at all

You changed from being a trinitarian to a unitarian which is nearly as silly"

"You're doing a ppm Decoy with your second line here. "

So is it true what i said,or not?


"You didn't address the valid points I made, based on the Bible, use those verses to counter it.

Hence, until you address them, you're not in the position to say there not valid."

Oh yes i did,do you read this thread?
Whereu asked me give him one verse to show that God had a literal son

"The clear Bible truth is, you don't need a pre-existing Son to send."

Not true
I also replied to this point
The son is the author of faith,he is the originator of faith,because he was the first being to ever have faith.

He is the one who first had faith in God
Before any creation happened,because God used his son to create all things

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
1cor 1.16

Obviously if he created the heavenly beings,he had a pre existence

"Conception/birth from Mary, is still a literal Son, just not the way humans are."

Thats a literal human son
In eternity he was a literal spirit son
The express image of his father
Proverbs 8 and psalms 30
Gen 1.1 john1.1 the list goes on and on.
All this was addressed in my post to whereu that he didnt read because he dosent really like debate,only if he can ask the questions and lead the debate,all these things were addresed in what he referred to as word salad,(couldnt be bothered)

"All sents, sendings are after he was raised in the word Due 18:18, Luke 2:40, 52 where he then grew in favor with God and was Baptized and sent into the world, just as the Clear example in John 17:18 shows.

Gal 4:4 Unquestionably sets the time stamp of when he was sent, as above here."

Well of course it does,he had to become a human and a that entails

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Philipians 2.7


"Did your pre-existing Jesus fall out of favor somewhere????????"

philipians 2.7 as i quoted and all the other verses show God used the son as the creator
I would love to see your creativity with the above phil 2.7 and how you do word gymnastics on that.

"I hope you're not going to suggest, this is only speaking of the man aspect of Jesus, surely not?????"

Sorry the bible will dissapoint you on this,not me

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Pre existent son,the next verse says this son got sent to earth

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

So very obvious,this is the same subject,the son and his annoiting in his pre existance,because he laid the foundations of the earth

Consistsnt with john 1.1 and gen 1

----------
"When I have mentioned Unitarian, is was really only to show, that they would be the closest to what I say the Bible shows."

You are correct in saying its whst you say the bible shows,but obviously in the ot and the above texts i used,the son was used by the father to be the creator.

:I belong to zero denomination, accept the Bible and who it represents."

Not when it comes to this subject you dont represent what the bible says

"Unitarian - nearly as silly you say -> rarely have you countered my post, using what I quote and the Bible."

Mostly because your posts are so long,and so hard to understand how could i?
But i have replied,im going over the same things again with you on the same subject ive already answered

"In desperation you try and force some OT verses, to fit your seeds."

Far from desperation
More dismissive of what you are saying,it makes zero sense on this subject

"Goodness me, we have many prophesies of the future one and not a single one even Hints at, this one pre-existed in some form, who would come down and take upon flesh or even more crazy, enter the womb of Mary."

You dont even come close on that one
Before Abraham was ,i am
Very sad comment,ive addressed this adnauseum

"So why on earth would anyone create such a story, that clearly doesn't exist???????????????????"

Lol,again,so sad,the jews knew full we God has a son,the ot is chock full of this,the jews just said he wasnt him

"Speaking of silly -> Michael being Jesus would take a bit of beating, hmmmmmm

"Again,an ignorant comment"

Micha el one means one who is like God in hebrew

You ve been told this over and over and still say the same pointless stuff

The angel of the lord,my name is in him,you ve also been told over and over
Angel is an english word,translated from the greek anglos,which according to the context or verse used,can mean several things,but you would know this if you took the time to look at the greek in each application

Archangel as you have been told over and over,means when talking of Michael the leader of the angels,the prince

The archangel **riel refused worship from Daniel
The angel of the lord when wrestling with jacob accepted his worship
Here is a big problem for you?
Why if it was a created being,like the picture you try to paint,to justify your belief,did this being accept worship?
WHEN worship alone belongs to God?

Hebrew 1 God says about his son,let all the angels worship him,so Obviously it has to be his son,this is why he is called Michael your prince.,obviously,the prince is the son of the king.

Theres many other verses given in.my reply to whereu when he asked for proof in this thread ,and too you in other discussions

Problem is you go off on massive tangents and dont address the points talked about in return to your claims,snd like this post i have to repeat them over and over




-----------

"You obviously havent researched the origin of unitarianism ,and also its proponents today,if you did you would see it was origen,and you would realise this belief leads to literal isreal are Gods people and zionism"

You are effectively doing a ppm here, taring all reformers etc with the same brush and trying to give them the same roots."

Unitarian roots and history are from what i said they are,origen
Show me differently?
Because unitarian belief isnt biblical and isnt acient like what the jews believed on the subject.

"As above, do NOT tag me with what others do or follow, I did NOT come to my findings from some guys off the net etc, it was from the Bible."

By what youve expressed on this forum,the two match up,im not judging you by anyone else,im matching what you say and others and its the same thing,thats the point,youre going on like what you are saying is the first time ive heard this stuff,i just didnt know the actual belief you held was called unitarian,then the penny dropped and i saw it was the same as the others

"It was probably not much longer if any, than 12 mths or so, that I even come across Unitarianism."

Well its the same sentiments as you express

"The Bible is clear, who is NOW God's Israel -> those of Jesus's.

And I don't fall for the created term - Zionism etc

The above two points, are only a snippet of the Big deceptions going on."

Agree