By the word, "God", you
don't mean God the Father when you say "Nothing about the name implies Jesus was
God"?? [highlight]Then
whom do you mean by the word, "God", there??[/highlight]
It gets boring explaining the same thing to you over and over.
Just answer the above highlighted question that I asked you. So far, you've not answered it. Say
whom you mean by the word, "God", there. Until you say
whom you mean by the word, "God", there, you will not have answered it. It must get boring for you to continually stonewall against answering my question.
Here is more of your mumbo jumbo:
Again, the person to whom I was speaking was a trinitarian, thus when I speak I used/use langauge that fits their understanding for the sake of the arguement.
You wrote:
So when I said "Nothing about the name [Emmanuel] implies Jesus was God" I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity.
Notice that
that nonsense you wrote has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the question I asked you, highlighted above. I did
not ask you,
"In what sense are you using the word, "God"....?"
I asked you,
"Whom do you mean by the word, "God"....?"
Or, in other words,
"To whom are you referring by the word, "God"....?"
Stop stonewalling against the question I asked you.
Again, I've already shown from the bible how God visiting or being with his people doesn't litreally mean a physical presence, rather, the visiting/being with is in regards to Gods attention and favor.
You've shown nothing from the Bible, other than that it condemns you as a Christ-hater.
Take Matthews words when he states when speaking to God "naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me"(Matthew 25:36). God never visited Matthew in prison, he did visited him in the sense of his attention and presece however, when he sent an Angel to free him for jail.
You are so dismally messed up.
Matthew 25:34, 36 KJV:
34 Then shall [highlight]the King[/highlight] say unto them on [highlight]his[/highlight] right hand, Come, ye blessed of [highlight]my[/highlight] Father....
36 ...[highlight]I[/highlight] was sick, and ye visited [highlight]me[/highlight]: [highlight]I[/highlight] was in prison, and ye came unto [highlight]me[/highlight]
The King, in verse 34, is the antecedent of the pronouns, 'I' and 'me', in verse 36. Matthew is not the antecedent of those pronouns. There is no way you are stupid enough to believe that, in verse 36, we are being told that
Matthew was sick, in prison, etc. Just like your continual, deliberate, systematic butchery of the English language throughout every, last one of your foul posts on TOL is a ploy with a wicked design of obfuscation behind it, your pretending to be so stupid, here, as to think that the 'I' and 'me' of Matthew 25:36 have Matthew, himself, as the referent, is also a deliberate ploy on your part. And, when you stop to think for even one second about it, it's a really, really stupid ploy, seeing as you've so easily been found out: since the 'I' and 'me' of Matthew 25:36 is NOT Matthew, as you so
lyingly say it is, you've just relinquished that passage in terms of a prop for your foolishness. Matthew 25:36, as you've just reconfirmed for us, doesn't help your Christ-hating stupidity one iota; the passage has zero relevance to the garbage you're handing us, here.
What an easy lie to detect is your saying that the referent of the pronouns 'I' and 'me' in Matthew 25:36 KJV is
Matthew!