>>17929626
>They have bodies and they speak.
And? They are not the eternal attribute of speech just an instance that was spoken in time. Jesus is according to you the word of God as in part of him, not just a word that was spoken. I see you are dishonest again and you do not want to answer me. We don't believe the John 1:1 "and the Word was God" so my words are not me. This is your theology not ours.
>keeps spewing straw man by saying I believe the same thing without explaining how
Boring, repeated unjustified claims will be ignored.
>Is that Jesus is uncreated
No, he is literally like Adam. He isn't even a word that was incarnated (your nonsense theology again) just the result of the divine command to be created.
>you don't even disagree with me about anything about Jesus
How the fuck did you get that? Your usage is not biblical and therefore not correct, your usage is what the tradition you reject came up with to worship a man
>the label is the only difference
Absolutely not, you again are just ignoring the meaning of words and imposing your pagan understanding.
>It doesn't say "because" anywhere there
You are being dense on purpose, the same thing is explained here (pic). And Psalm 119:160 says all his words are true. If he had the possibility to lie then this verse is invalidated
>There's no recognized logical fallacy called a "word concept fallacy"
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/exegesis/rob-bell-illustrates-the-word-concept-fallacy/
>rather than looking at what I was saying.
You are refusing to engage, the way you implied he is one with God is just not biblical and therefore your point is invalid. See pic here: >>17927375
>You said "torn out". But even on Earth he remained in the Father.
Yes because he was separated from the Father. That's exactly what it means to be torn. If I tear a piece of paper from the other they are now separate. Anyway I have to go now, if the thread is still up I will continue to refute you