MightySparrow:
Antichrist! Your religion has much ugly things that are stupid. Why not facing your Islam!

Is there anything logical in Islam?

Abeg, Just watch debates between Christian Prince and the finest of your Imams on YouTube. You will learn more about your useless Islam. To be daring call him for debate.

Islam is a fraud, Mohammad is a scam, Antichristian is antichrist.

AntiChristian:
Continued from Logical Fallacies Employed In Trinitarian Theology 2

Logical Identity
Logical "identity" is established by the following principle: whatever is true of A must also be true of B, and whatever is true of B must also be true of A. One point of dissimilarity disproves identity. The stakes get higher when this principle is violated in connection with the identity of God. Scripture identifies the term "God" with the term "Father." God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That means that whatever is true of God must also be true of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And whatever is true of the Father of Jesus Christ must be true of God also. Logically speaking, "God" cannot be both the Father of Jesus and Jesus himself, if language is to retain any meaning.

Straw Man
Attacking a straw man occurs when an opponent's position is misrepresented in order to make it more easily refuted. This is very hard to avoid, and points up the need for dialogue with those with whom we disagree. Even if we cannot agree, we can at least represent each other's position fairly and rebut it honestly. We have endeavored to do this throughout our book, One God & One Lord, and we invite those who disagree with us to let us know if we have misrepresented "orthodox" teaching.

Often, when Trinitarians hear our argument that Jesus is not God, they immediately respond by assuming that we are saying that Jesus is a "mere man." This is a straw man argument because it is easy to refute the claim that Jesus was merely a man like the rest of us. On the contrary, the Gospels are full of evidence of his uniqueness as the monogenes ("one of a kind," traditionally translated "only-begotten". It is not demeaning to be made a man in the same way that Adam was made a man in the original Creation. He was the crowning achievement of that Creation. The issue is whether Jesus is to be compared to a fallen man, with the implication that he is then a partaker of man's sinful nature. He had a fully human nature because God originally made man in His image. Man was made to reflect God's life and goodness, and share in His attributes. So for Jesus to be "the image of God" is to say that he is completing the destiny originally designed for Adam in the original Creation, which Adam forfeited. There is nothing "mere" about that!

Undistributed Middle
This is a "formal" fallacy that relates to the proper form of syllogistic reasoning, which we must examine before discussing the undistributed middle. An argument can be logical in its form and yet lead to a false conclusion if one or both of the premises are false. The classic Roman Catholic argument for their veneration of the Virgin Mary is a good example:

Major premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Minor premise: Jesus is God.
Conclusion: Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

Protestants accept the premises but deny the conclusion. Such reasoning is illogical. We also deny the conclusion, but we do so because the argument is based on a false premise, not because the argument itself is invalid. At least Roman Catholics are consistent and logical in asserting their conclusion.
Seeing the proper form of syllogistic logic in symbols will help us understand the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
The undistributed middle is an illogical argument because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. It is like arguing: everything worthwhile is difficult to achieve; digging a giant hole from Maine to China is difficult to achieve; therefore digging such a hole is worthwhile. This is essentially the same reasoning as is sometimes employed by Trinitarians who argue in this fashion:

Major premise: God is the Savior.
Minor premise: Jesus is the Savior.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ is God.

The reason this argument is fallacious is that just because Jesus and God share a common title, name or attribute (Savior, Lord, etc.) does not make them identical. For example, consider this argument based upon the same major premise:

Major premise: God was the Savior of Israel.
Minor premise: Men who delivered Israel from enemies were saviors.
Conclusion: Men who delivered Israel from enemies were God.

Conclusion
Jesus Christ said that the Word of God is truth. God specifically says in Scripture that He wants men to come to a knowledge of this truth. If Christians are going to do so, then there must be an appreciation of what is logical and what is not. Otherwise, nonsense masquerading as spiritual truth will go undetected and the quality of people's lives will suffer as a result of believing it.


Source-Biblical Unitarian

Janosky:

Straw man mago mago

The guy references Biblical Unitarian for the facts he presented on this thread.
Objectivity matters a lot.

Is Biblical Unitarian a Muslim website?
Focus on the message & leave the messenger alone jare.

AntiChristian:
Continued from Logical Fallacies Employed In Trinitarian Theology 2

Logical Identity
Logical "identity" is established by the following principle: whatever is true of A must also be true of B, and whatever is true of B must also be true of A. One point of dissimilarity disproves identity. The stakes get higher when this principle is violated in connection with the identity of God. Scripture identifies the term "God" with the term "Father." God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That means that whatever is true of God must also be true of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And whatever is true of the Father of Jesus Christ must be true of God also. Logically speaking, "God" cannot be both the Father of Jesus and Jesus himself, if language is to retain any meaning.

Source-Biblical Unitarian

MightySparrow:
Janosky.... I asked you to give the definition of sacrifice, you dodged, just to jump into a discussion between me and Antichristian (Antichrist) midway.
I have been saying it, you are not honest.
I am a trinitarian. No regrets. I believe in trinity. Father is God, Son is God, Holy Spirit is God.
I am a trinitarian.

Janosky:


3 doghead slave & Polytheist, Continue DECEIVING yourself.

Janosky:

MightySparrow is LYING shamelessly (proven by the screenshot) on this public forum.
Since 20th October,2021 @6:49pm,I advised you, Sparrow, to let Hebrews 13:15 reset your brain.

3 doghead slave & Polytheist, Continue DECEIVING yourself.

TenQ:

Let me respond to your Logical Identity as the rest are irrelevant.
1. Buhari is the Husband of Aisha
Buhari is the President of Nigeria
The Husband of Aisha can legally sleep with her
AND
Can the President of Nigeria legally sleep with Aisha?
No!

Therefore, Buhari cannot be both the President and the Husband of Aisha

2. An Electron is a Particle
An Electron is a Wave

An Electron produces interference
A Particle cannot produce Interference

Therefore, An Electron cannot be a Particle.

3. You are your Body
You are your Soul/Spirit (Ruh)

Your Body is Physical
Your Soul/Spirit is not Physical

Therefore, You cannot be both your Body and Soul

MightySparrow:


.yet, what is the meaning of sacrifice?

Janosky:


On point, brother man.

Shalom.

AntiChristian:


How does these explain the OP?

Janosky:

Yet , you refused to let Hebrews 13:15 reset your brain.
Yet, you MightySparrow refused to accept that you were LYING.

Hebrews 13:15, the Bible truth about sacrifice dey pain you for brain. .

MightySparrow:

You are not honest neighbour.

Emusan:


So he's a BROTHER to you

Cc:
MaxinDHouse

---

Now begin to say "on point brother man" to all these from the same Biblical Unitarian.

Emusan:


Here, the Biblical Unitarian trying to prove that the Name of God is YAHWEH which was replaced with LORD and that's what the NT authors used. Which means, Jehovah never appeared in any NT book

Emusan:

Here, Biblical Unitarian is proving that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED in literally form but just an IDEAL.

Emusan:


Which means Jesus isn't Angel Michael as your organization erroneously claimed.

Emusan:


Here, Biblical Unitarian claiming that The Holy Spirit is another designation for the True God Yahweh but the God's nature (holy spirit) is what God used to empower people. Which means, Holy Spirit isn't an ACTIVE FORCE as your organization erroneously claimed

[s]Wahala, for the follower of Biblical Unitarian and Watchtower! [/s]

Mumu LIENUS,God's nature references an abstract quality.
God's nature is NOT a person.

Janosky:

Cry me a river.
Sifia pained WAILER


3 doghead slave,do you agree with that statement?
Sifia pained WAILER.



Why would your Trinity mentors led by your 'oly ghost reject your mumu claim?

Janosky:
Cry me a river.
Sifia pained WAILER

But "Jesus, Jeremiah, Jude, James, Jonah, Joseph, Job, Joshua, Jonathan" are there in your Bible.
Shameless Hypocrite.
TUEH !!

3 doghead slave,do you agree with that statement?
Sifia pained WAILER.

Daniel 10:13 Geneva Bible since 1599 ,before the corruption of King James Bible in 1611.
Malachi 3:1/ Genesis 16:7 Amplified Bible.
Why would your Trinity mentors led by your 'oly ghost reject your mumu claim?

According to your claim " the God's nature (holy spirit ) is what God used to empower people" proven that holy spirit is God's finger, His active force..

Mumu LIENUS,God's nature references an abstract quality.
God's nature is NOT a person.

Janosky:

Continue DECEIVING yourself.
Hebrews 13:15, the Bible truth about sacrifice dey pain you for brain

MightySparrow:


Janosky, simple question: define sacrifice

Emusan:


We know who is always living in pains and lack simple comprehension.
Keep exposing your ignorance!
Who is talking about those translation names?
JaNosense is trying to shift goal post

Emusan:


Biblical Unitarian claimed YAHWEH that was changed to THE LORD is what the NT authors used which means YAHWEH/Jehovah never appeared in any NT text.

Emusan:


You see your life outside, that's what your "On point, BROTHER man" says not mine.

Can you see that you're the very hypocrite here?

Wall of senses must fall on you today
Now you disagree but you can call Biblical Unitarian "On point, BROTHER man"

Don't forget OP just copy and paste

Emusan:


Now it's Geneva Bible and Amplified Bible.
Can you see how you have lost your tiny sense that remains?

Emusan:


I'm here to show you your hypocrisy for you to agree with Biblical Unitarian on this thread simply because it's against Trinity but when the same Biblical Unitarian articles go against your fraudulent organization, you start to shift the goal post.
Oponu.....go school you no gree!
Where did I make any claim

If your brain isn't paining you, you'll see, that is from your "On point, brother man" aka Biblical Unitarian

Despite the fact that I posted the link for you to read, yet you can still display your lack of understanding.

Biblical Unitarian claimed Holy Spirit is God Yahweh Himself not an active force.

JaNosense you must agree with Biblical Unitarian by fire by force :
Can you see your empty life outside

Even Biblical Unitarian didn't say Holy Spirit is a person outside of God. In fact the article is actually against the personhood of the Holy Spirit by proving that Holy Spirit is God Yahweh Himself not another being

So according to Biblical Unitarian, Holy Spirit isn't an active force.

[s]Wahala for lying liar JaNosense like his father the Devil [/s]

Emusan claims he went to school ,but him brain no see that the same Biblical Unitarian is also against his 3 persons Trinity.

Emusan the hypocrite remove the rafter in your eyes.
Biblical Unitarian says your God/holy spirit is one person.
Emusan, your brain no dey function

Janosky:

Hébrews 13:15.
Hebrews 13:15 & Hebrews 10:10 is NOT Naira, dollars or pounds sterling your gods of men will store in secret offshore tax havens.
Mumu WAILER

Janosky:

The daftness of Emusan is very luminous.
John 17:6,26 did Jesus Christ change his Father's name to "the Lord"?
Mark 12:29-30, did Jesus or Mark change the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew scroll of Deuteronomy?
Emusan, carry your stupidity outta this thread.
SENSE wey you, Emusan no get
Hypocrite!
Geneva Bible and Amplified Bible is the published work of your fellow Trinitarians.
Your 'oly ghost taught them Jesus is Archangel Michael.
The same 'oly ghost is giving you & them conflicting revelations.
Emusan claims he went to school ,but him brain no see that the same Biblical Unitarian is also against his 3 persons Trinity.
Emusan the hypocrite remove the rafter in your eyes.
Biblical Unitarian says your God/holy spirit is one person.
Emusan, your brain no dey function

Janosky:
The daftness of Emusan is very luminous.

John 17:6,26 did Jesus Christ change his Father's name to "the Lord"?
Mark 12:29-30, did Jesus or Mark change the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew scroll of Deuteronomy?
Emusan, carry your stupidity outta this thread.

SENSE wey you, Emusan no get
Hypocrite!

Geneva Bible and Amplified Bible is the published work of your fellow Trinitarians.
Your 'oly ghost taught them Jesus is Archangel Michael.
The same 'oly ghost is giving you & them conflicting revelations.

Emusan claims he went to school ,but him brain no see that the same Biblical Unitarian is also against his 3 persons Trinity.

Emusan the hypocrite remove the rafter in your eyes.

Biblical Unitarian says your God/holy spirit is one person.

Emusan, your brain no dey function

johnw47:
Rev 3:9  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold,
I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Jesus will make those who say they are believers but are not, to bow down and worship God before the feet of believers

Emusan:


See the empty skull JaNosense

So Biblical Unitarian is wrong right?

You will see the hypocrite going mute now



Whereas your beloved Biblical Unitarian says Jesus isn't Archangel Michael

[s]Wahala for lying liar JaNosense like his father the Devil [/s]



@color
If you truly have sense and don't lack simple comprehension, you'll see that is the point I'm driving at on this thread.

#2
Biblical Unitarian is against Trinity but you supported them because of that to the extent of saying "On point, brother man" to their articles [s]but when the same Biblical Unitarian articles go against your fraudulent organization doctrines, are they "On point, brother man"? [/s]

So you can see your hypocrisy life outside...

You always confirm that you truly have no sense

Emusan:
"Here, Biblical Unitarian is proving that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED in literally form but just an IDEAL"

Emusan, in the screenshot, do your own Trinity belief agree that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED?
Emusan is the hypocrite.

#2
Is Biblical Unitarian website a person?
Why would Emusan FALSELY claim that the expression "on point brother man" is addressed to an online website?
Emusan is a Jankara market graduate without comprehension skills.
His daftness & LYING is very luminous.

Emusan:


I'm not here to use Biblical Unitarian materials against your fraudulent organization but for you to support Biblical Unitarian articles against Trinity when the same Biblical Unitarian has many articles against your doctrines, [s]isn't that the height of hypocrisy by the lying liar JaNosense like his father the Devil? [/s]

Emusan:
"Here, Biblical Unitarian is proving that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED in literally form but just an IDEAL"
Emusan LIENUS, LYING genius doing his thing

Emusan:


Yes that is what Biblical Unitarian says, but don't forget you supported its work on Trinity, so you should also support it when it says Holy Spirit isn't an active force but Jehovah Himself

Wahala for lying liar JaNosense today


[s]JaNosense even a toddler knows my point of exposing your ignorance and hypocrisy on this thread.

Since, you lack wisdom I don't expect you to behave differently. [/s]

GIBBERISH
While Emusan's screenshot says he doesn't believe Biblical Unitarian claim that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED.
Hypocrisy of Emusan LYING genius.

Janosky:

Emusan:"Here, Biblical Unitarian is proving that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED in literally form but just an IDEAL"

Emusan, in the screenshot, do your own Trinity belief agree that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED?
Emusan is the hypocrite.

#2
Is Biblical Unitarian website a person?
Why would Emusan FALSELY claim that the expression "on point brother man" is addressed to an online website?
Emusan is a Jankara market graduate without comprehension skills.
His daftness is very luminous.

"The guy references Biblical Unitarian for the facts he presented on this thread. Objectivity matters a lot."

Emusan:
"Here, Biblical Unitarian is proving that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED in literally form but just an IDEAL"
Emusan LIENUS, LYING genius doing his thing

[b]GIBBERISH
While Emusan's screenshot says he doesn't believe Biblical Unitarian claim that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED.
Hypocrisy of Emusan LYING genius.

Emusan:


Go school you no gree!

Now, see the result just because some old lying men in Brooklyn is deceiving you.

You truly lack sense JaNosense!

I'm not using Biblical Unitarian articles here or better put it [b]I'm not in SUPPORT OF ANY OF THEIR articles [/b]

You JaNosense did support Biblical Unitarian article on Trinity but now that the same Biblical Unitarian articles go against your fraudulent organization, do you still support them?

That's where your sense was diluted

#2
Is Biblical Unitarian website a person?
Why would Emusan FALSELY claim that the expression "on point brother man" is addressed to an online website?
Emusan is a Jankara market graduate without comprehension skills.
His daftness is very luminous. [/b]



Another fact that you don't have sense JaNosense!

Where did I support any Biblical Unitarian claimed

You see, when you lost your senses shame will be far away from you.

You're the one who supported and article published by Biblical Unitarian on Trinity, now the same Biblical Unitarian articles go against your fraudulent organization.



Are you still in support of them?

Hypocrite!



What is this JaNosense saying here?

So from that screenshot, you mean I supported Biblical Unitarian claimed that Jesus never PRE-EXISTED but just an idea



If you lack simple comprehension, why can't you call a primary pupil in your area to explain my post to you

Janosky:

Emusan, bigotry and prejudice have taken over your SENSE
Please, read the screenshot over and over again.
Emusan proven his luminous incompetence to carry on this conversation.