Anthony Burgoyne

Practical theologian, Biblical Unitarian, Fellowship starter.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@ICE_Elricus What about it? 🤔

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

Basic Biblical fact: Jesus is distinguished from God a vast number of times in the New Testament. Not just 'the Father', but 'God' with no qualifiers.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@OrthodoxyAG Jesus? Nope, unless you're referring to a few ambiguous verses.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@aslaveofJEHOVAH @AbaddonSpeaks "Revelation was written by John. The same John that wrote the gospel."

I don't think so. And if your argument requires this, it now has a big asterisk next to it.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@FastChase The idea he was physically assaulted by Athanasius is pretty goofy, tbh.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

😂 Arius was actually about 40 years older than Athanasius, so this is a weird anachronistic image (similar to Trinitarian claims about what NT authors were thinking, tbh!).

[Rick Davis @TheRhetorRick]

@aaron_p_edwards

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@1997kds_ Yep - it's a twofer. ;)

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

You have ***1*** corroborating verse in another work by (most likely) another author, standing against verse after verse after verse which distinguishes Jesus from 'the Word' throughout the NT, *including* the Fourth Gospel itself.

Rev. 19:13 is a fig-leaf over the embarrassing mountain of data you have to explain away.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@KellieMichele75 😂

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@aslaveofJEHOVAH @AbaddonSpeaks The author of Revelation has already distinguished the Word from Jesus in his book, starting with the second verse. It is applied as *a name* here, *because of* that distinction.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@realbenbriggs Because someone in the 5th century told you that?

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@AbaddonSpeaks The manuscripts arguments are not at all clear, which is why this is considered a major textual variant. If your #1 reason for saying the Unitarian thesis was never convincing to you is a major textual variant, that to me itself doesn't seem that convincing.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@AbaddonSpeaks Is it wise to base an argument on a major textual variant re 1:18?

Remember, Thomas doesn't say just 'theos' but 'ho theos'.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@Spiritt_Truth @JohnPiper 'Ego eimi' (what Jesus says here in the Greek) doesn't mean 'God' in the Greek OT, but even if we were to grant that bizarre view, that's also not grammatical:

"Before Abraham was, God."

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@NastyBombaz No, the Greek itself is ambiguous. I don't think it's wise to try to base an argument on a grammatically ambiguous verse.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

When Paul says

"heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17)

all the co-heirs are distinguished from God here. That includes Christ.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

Why You Should Care About the Two Powers Heresy:

https://t.co/6Jqk6zzb3D

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

Tired of mini-Heisers yipping at you in the comments?

Start with this introduction to the Two Powers heresy by @RestitutioSF .

Video linked below. 👇

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@CatholicCo200 No, that's not the claim. God can give authority to forgive sins, as Matthew tells us, for ex.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

Basic Biblical fact: according to Stephen in Acts, God speaks through the angel in the burning bush. The angel is not God.

[Anthony Burgoyne @PracticalTheolo]

@NastyBombaz Romans 9:5 is grammatically ambiguous. Given the context, the standard Trinitarian interpretation is almost certainly wrong. Indeed, many Trinitarian translations don't follow the standard one.

Here's a better translation:

https://t.co/47t8UnZPAw