Rico

Simple man with simple tastes

[truthache @truthache68]

😅 The end of the road for the moon landing.

Thekingbeartaria has shared why it’s geometrically impossible for earth to appear on the Moon’s horizon the way NASA claims.

There is also more information stemming from the original forensic work Rob Skiba did years ago—the clear manipulations in the Apollo photos (using NASA’s own image).

Once you see 👀 both pieces together, the official story collapses.

[Rico @Rico8008]

@MatthewHartke What brand of bottled water was used?

[Yahweh @yahweh83enigma]

@bradleybaird4 https://t.co/vaBywwefYv

[Rico @Rico8008]

@TextingEvent @schizoidretard @bashuser Uh huh, and there's a form of communication that people do called talking. Maybe, she talked to other people in the hospital.

[Martinus est logicus @MartinusLogicus]

It is impossible for a human being to gestate a non-human being.

Given that the unborn are gestated by human beings, it follows as a corollary that the unborn are human beings. Denying this produces a contradiction:

P1: Human beings can only gestate human beings.
P2: The unborn are gestated by human beings.
Q: The unborn are human beings.

P1, P2 ⊨ Q

Equivalently:

⊨ ((P1 ^ P2) -> Q)

That is, there is no possible interpretation in which P1 and P2 are true while Q is false. Therefore:

P1 ^ P2 ^ ¬Q ⊨ ⊥

That is, accepting P1 and P2 while denying Q produces a contradiction. Thus, given P1 and P2, the unborn cannot be anything other than human beings.

#ProLife

[Rico @Rico8008]

@ali_sarp @SteveLovesAmmo

[Rico @Rico8008]

@schizoidretard @bashuser You do know nurses work in other parts of the hospital too?

[Rico @Rico8008]

This is a helpful explanation of what eternal generation means. But as a Biblical Unitarian, my question is more basic: where does Scripture actually teach it?

Where does Scripture say the Father eternally and necessarily generates the Son’s “personal subsistence” while communicating to him the entire, numerically undivided divine essence?

Those are very precise metaphysical claims, yet I don't see the apostles explaining God that way.

Scripture instead repeatedly calls the Father the God of Jesus (John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; Eph. 1:3,17; Rev. 3:12). Jesus calls his Father “the only true God” (John 17:3), and Paul says, “for us there is one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6).

Even the analogy with Adam and Seth raises a question. Adam begets Seth and communicates human nature to him—but the result is two human beings, not one human being. So sharing the same kind of nature doesn't establish numerical identity of being.

I understand that Nicene theology answers this by saying the divine essence is indivisible and numerically one. But again, that's the very claim I'd like demonstrated from Scripture rather than assumed as the framework through which Scripture must be read.

Calling something an 1,800-year-old doctrine tells us about its historical pedigree. It doesn't establish that Jesus or the apostles taught it.

[Rico @Rico8008]

@DrFrankTurek Letting someone else read the Bible for you

[Rico @Rico8008]

Calling it an oxymoron doesn't make it one. Biblical Unitarians believe exactly what Jesus said: the Father is “the only true God” (John 17:3), and what Paul said: “there is one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6). If that's unbiblical, show from Scripture why those statements don't mean what they plainly say.

[Rico @Rico8008]

I agree that the wedding-tradition explanation shouldn't be used if there's no historical evidence for it. But replacing an unsupported tradition with an assumption doesn't solve the problem.

Jesus says plainly that the Son does not know, while the Father does know (Matt. 24:36). The verse never says, “The Son knows but chooses not to access his omniscience.” That's being supplied by later theology.

And Phil. 2 doesn't say Jesus remained omniscient while voluntarily refusing access to certain knowledge. Luke says Jesus actually “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52), and Hebrews says he “learned obedience” (Heb. 5:8).

John 10:30 doesn't say, “I and the Father are one God.” Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” and later prays that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (John 17:21–23). Clearly, being “one” does not by itself mean being one being.

Most importantly, Jesus doesn't merely distinguish himself from the Father. He calls the Father “the only true God” and then distinguishes himself as the one sent by that God (John 17:3).

So Matthew 24:36 seems quite straightforward: the Father possessed knowledge the Son did not. Saying Jesus was actually omniscient but voluntarily prevented himself from knowing it may harmonize the verse with Trinitarian theology, but that's not what the verse itself says.

[Rico @Rico8008]

I hope you don't mind me interjecting out of the blue.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I actually think we may be focusing on the wrong question.

For the sake of argument, I am perfectly willing to accept Matthew 28:19 exactly as it appears in our Bibles:

“Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

But where does that verse say that these three are one God? Where does it say they are coequal, coeternal persons sharing one divine essence?

It doesn't.

Mentioning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together establishes that all three have an important place in Christian baptism. It does not define their nature or relationship as the later doctrine of the Trinity does.

In fact, look at the verse immediately before it. Jesus says:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN to me.” (Matthew 28:18)

Given by whom?

Jesus consistently identifies the source of his authority as the Father. The Father sends him, teaches him, gives him authority, raises him from the dead, exalts him, and places all things under him.

Jesus also says:

“The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

He calls the Father:

“The only true God.” (John 17:3)

After his resurrection he says:

“I ascend to my Father and your Father, to MY GOD and your God.” (John 20:17)

And Paul writes:

“For us there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER... and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)

That distinction continues even after Christ's exaltation. Revelation 3:12 records the glorified Jesus repeatedly speaking of “my God.”

So my objection isn't to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appearing together in Matthew 28:19. My objection is to reading a fourth-century theological definition back into a verse that never states it.

The Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others can certainly demonstrate what early Christians believed and practiced at various times. But they cannot override the words of Jesus himself.

And interestingly, even the quotations you provided don't actually state the later Nicene doctrine. Justin distinguishes “God the Father and Lord of the universe” from “our Savior Jesus Christ” and the Holy Spirit. Simply mentioning all three does not establish ontological equality.

I absolutely believe Jesus is far more than an ordinary man. He is the Messiah, the unique Son of God, the one through whom God works, the one God has exalted above every other authority, and the one to whom every knee must bow.

But Scripture repeatedly distinguishes Jesus from the God who sent, empowered, raised, exalted, and glorified him.

So the question I would respectfully ask is not:

“Can you find Father, Son, and Holy Spirit mentioned together?”

Obviously we can.

The question is:

Where does Scripture actually say, “The one God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three coequal and coeternal persons”?

Because when Scripture explicitly identifies the “one God,” we instead find:

“For us there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER.” — 1 Corinthians 8:6

And when Jesus himself identifies the “only true God,” he looks toward heaven and says to his Father:

“That they may know YOU, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom YOU have sent.” — John 17:3

That's why I believe the Father alone is the one true God—not because I want to diminish Jesus, but because I want to maintain the distinction Jesus himself made between himself and his God and Father.

A Brother In Christ

[Rico @Rico8008]

I agree that biblical Christianity depends on accepting Jesus for who Scripture says he is. The question is: who does Scripture actually say he is?

Jesus identifies the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3), says “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), calls the Father “my God” (John 20:17), and after Jesus’ resurrection Paul still writes, “for us there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

None of that denies the greatness, authority, prehuman existence, or unique position of Christ. It simply takes seriously the distinction Scripture repeatedly makes between God and His Son.

So saying “one God eternally existing as three persons” doesn’t prove the Trinity is biblical. Show me where Scripture actually defines the one God that way.

I absolutely believe in the biblical Christ: the Son of God, the Messiah, the one sent by God, exalted by God, and given authority by God. The question is whether believing everything Scripture says about Jesus requires us to go one step further and declare that Jesus is the God whom Jesus himself worships and calls “my God.”

[Rico @Rico8008]

@TosserDog @John_F_kJr Charlie Chaplin

[Rico @Rico8008]

@bruce_mcgonigal Also, um, is the shooter Guile from street fighter? Looks kinda like him.

[Rico @Rico8008]

@FlerfWatch @benwehrman Lol, you obviously don't go outside much.

[Rico @Rico8008]

@TheFlatEartherr Scar not scare.

[Rico @Rico8008]

@esbrockman It's just a thousand pictures of boobs.

[Rico @Rico8008]

@yhbryankimiq Read your Bible again. Because he already came with his kingdom. We are living in The Little season.