What a sad display of confusion and blind adherence to tradition. Where does scripture say any of that nonsense?

"You have been presented with scriptural proof several times by multiple Christians of the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus, and salvation through the Gospel. Each time you have deflected by making comments such as this one about Zemirah. You have never refuted the scriptural proofs!"

The fact of the matter is just the opposite. In my articles I have presented many proofs of the falsity of the Trinity and Deity of Jesus, none of which have been specifically addressed or refuted by anyone on this forum. Instead the response is always the same - a general statement about how I am wrong and then some quotations from Trinitarian teachers. Very lame!

[quote=TexaCan]Looks like you’re spinning your wheels…………. Only 18 people were curious enough to even look at this unbiblical lie!

Zemirah addressed this lie last month under your thread……

You mean she attempted to, and she couldn't even attempt it in her own words, she had to use someone else's material.

So, if what I wrote is an unbiblical lie, then please take just one point that I made in the article and show why it isn't true.

https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/23/a-christmas-myth/

Go to my blog and if you can find a donate button I'll give you $100. If you can't how about not slandering me?

Was it too hard for you to follow?

You said concerning what Zemirah posted: "This study is easy to understand and follow for those that haven’t spent much time studying the Bible." Yes but for those who have spent much time studying the Bible it is inane.

Such shallow and pitiful exegesis. What ignorance! But this is what orthodox indoctrination does to a person.

Many 'orthodox' Christians read Hebrews 1 as teaching the deity of Jesus. But is this really the best reading of that passage or is something else going on there? Find out in this article:

https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2021/09/30/an-interpretive-key-to-hebrews-chapter-1-part-1/

Is anyone here familiar with Greg Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic? If so, do you agree with it or are you disturbed by it. Here is Part 1 of a refutation of his thesis:

https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/whats-wrong-with-greg-boyds-cruciform-hermeneutic-part-1/

alabuck,

Yes, Jesus commended the humility of children as being worthy of imitation, but the analogy can not be pushed too far. Jesus certainly wasn't commending the the gullibility of children, who tend to believe whatever they are taught, which is why they believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and other fantasies. Imagine an ancient Israelite father teaching his young son that to worship Baal along with Yahweh is necessary; the child would have likely believed what his father told him, yet it would be wrong. We must not use Jesus teaching in those passages as an endorsement of credulity.

"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults." 1 Cor. 14:20

"When I was a child I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Cor 13:11

The Pharisees were the ones big on tradition and arrogant in their knowledge of the tradition.

Christian tradition is simply the interpretations of scripture which were given by some specific individual or group at some point in history and has become entrenched in the thinking of Christians and has been given the status of orthodoxy. But every tradition must be examined by subsequent generations, not merely blindly accepted. People like you, who are so wedded to the traditions, typically demonize anyone who dares to question the traditions. There were people who attacked our Lord Jesus in this same manner, because he challenged their long standing traditions- they are usually called by Jesus blind guides of the blind and hypocrites. Like these tradition mongers of the past you label all challenges to your cherished traditions as evil and demonic. For you the passage you cited really reads like this:

"Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the tradition." How sad for you!

alabuck,

Thanks for taking time to read the article and to respond. Needless to say, i strongly disagree with your interpretation (which is just the standard christian interpretation) of the passages you cited. I have alternative interpretations to just about all of those passages somewhere on my blog and explanations for those interpretations and if you are interested I can give you the specific links to the articles that will provide them. Let me know, and if not I understand.

Man's traditions must be held up to the truth of God's word that they might be judged true or false. In this study I examine the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin and find it wanting. I offer an alternative proposal for understanding this concept.

https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2021/07/23/the-doctrine-of-original-sin-truth-or-myth/