Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[Tucson Jim]

Thanks, T-Jim. The review does make it sound fascinating.

I will probably pick one up when I can and give it the old comparison test.

My current KJV is so well marked, though, that it would be really tough to give it up.

BTW, the "products" sold on the "rightlydividing.org" web site help defray the cost of the "Forgotten Truths" TV programs, so noone is getting rich off those sales. Just thought you should know that.

The book you mentioned was only 8 bucks. So, you're right, no one is getting rich off this!

And a great big thanks, T-Jim, for your faithful participation on Hannity. I consider you a true friend and a wonderful brother in Christ.

I feel the same way about you Jim! I can't imagine the Trinity thread without you and your thorough posts on so many aspects of the doctrine. I have learned much from you. And I bet a lot of others here have too. :)

[Tucson Jim]

"Apocrypha" are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term "apocrypha" refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

OK, I guess "apocryphal" is the wrong word then!

Looks like I'm the one who should have looked it up!:redface:

[ralittlefield]

You realize Jim your arguement is the same as AA's read the whole text.

Yet in both your cases the books later in the bible prove the former are referring to those in the spirit realm

22*“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his waythe earliest of his achievements of long ago- just as John 1:1 says in the beginning was the word and colossian 1:15 says he is the firtborn of all creation

23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. With Micah 5:2 backing this up we John 1:3, John 8:58 John 17:5 and Colossins 1:16

30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,-Look at isaiah 42:30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, and Matthew 3:17*Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

Thanks DJim for proving my point though


If Wisdom in Prov 8 is Jesus, why is he referred to in the feminine gender?

[DispensationalJim]

Well then I believe the gospels are canon and believe them to be the most important part of the canon.

To know who and what Christ is has been revealed to us in the 4 gospels.

Sorry, I think I started this particular discussion, so now lets see what "canon" means:
=================================
From Wilipedia:
"A Biblical canon or canon of scripture
[1] is a list or set of Biblical books considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community, generally in Judaism or Christianity. The term itself was first used by Christians, but the idea is found in Hellenistic Jewish sources.
[2] The internal wording of the text can also be specified, for example: the Masoretic Text is the canonical text for Judaism, and the King James Version is the canonical text for the King-James-Only Movement, but this is not the general meaning of canon.

These lists, or canons, have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of those faiths. Believers consider these canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people."
... etc., etc...

====================================

As I tried to explain earlier, I believe the "gospels" (Matt., Mark, Luke, and John) are "technically" a part of the OT because the OT LAW is still in effect. I actually agree with Warrior (surprize!) on this.

As I see it, when Paul received his assignment from Jesus Christ (Acts 9:15;13:47;22:21;26:17; Rom. 11:13), he began preaching THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD, THE DISPENSATION OF THE AGE OF GRACE to the GENTILES.

The twelve apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.) were told by Jesus to "... Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

So, what gospel did Jesus and the twelve preach?
• Matt. 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

And what did Jesus say about the "law"?
• Matt. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

==============================

But what did Paul say about being under the law?
• Rom. 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

I hope that makes my reasoning a little more clear.

[DispensationalJim]

If Wisdom in Prov 8 is Jesus, why is he referred to in the feminine gender?

Rah, rah, ralittlefield!

[DispensationalJim]

You realize Jim your arguement is the same as AA's read the whole text.

Yet in both your cases the books later in the bible prove the former are referring to those in the spirit realm

22*“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his waythe earliest of his achievements of long ago- just as John 1:1 says in the beginning was the word and colossian 1:15 says he is the firtborn of all creation

23*From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. With Micah 5:2 backing this up we John 1:3, John 8:58 John 17:5 and Colossins 1:16

30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,-Look at isaiah 42:30*then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, and Matthew 3:17*Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

Thanks DJim for proving my point though

Nope, DRS, I do not realize anything of the sort. I've read the text of the Bible quite regularly for the last 50+ years, and I have never seen what you are trying to say.

Since you are quoting Proverbs 8 as it speaks about wisdom, let's substitute "wisdom" in the appropriate spots:
• Prov. 8:22 The LORD possessed me (wisdom) in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I (wisdom) was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. ... 30 Then I (wisdom) was by him, as one brought up with him: and I (wisdom) was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

That makes perfect sense, based on the first 3 verses of that chapter:
• Prov. 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

So, DRS, do you think wisdom is actually Jesus Christ, or is Jesus Christ actually wisdom? And repeating ralittlefield, is Jesus a "she"?

================================

So you want to tie in Prov. 8:22 with John 1 and Col. 1?
Great, let's do it again...

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

• Col. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Now, let's be logical. Since ALL THINGS were made by Jesus Christ, that would make Him **THE** ONE AND ONLY CREATOR. Right? And, since He created ALL things, then He could not have been created. Right?

That means that the term "first born" used above must mean something other than what you want it to mean. How about these next verses to give some more meaning to it:
• Rom. 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
• John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

==============================

Then, DRS, you added these wonderful Trinitarian verses to the mix:
• Mic. 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Well, thank you so much, DRS, for PROVING MY POINT!!! Yes, Jesus is the Creator who is from EVERLASTING, who created Abraham, and who created the world!! AMEN!!

==================================

Finally, DRS, you lost me on that Is. 42:30, since there is no such verse. Maybe you meant 42:13?
• Is. 42:13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

Well, DRS, I say AMEN to that! Jesus is the Lord and He definitely went forth as "A MIGHTY MAN"! So, another big thank you for taking me close to that verse.

And you referred to Matt. 3:17
• Matt. 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And I say AMEN again. That verse ties in so well with these verses:
• Psa. 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• Matt. 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
• Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• Luke 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,...

And the clincher...
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

So, thank you one more time, DRS, for reminding us all of those marvelous verses!!

And from Tuscon JIm - Ex 4:22 "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:"

[Tucson Jim]

Nope, DRS, I do not realize anything of the sort. I've read the text of the Bible quite regularly for the last 50+ years, and I have never seen what you are trying to say.

Since you are quoting Proverbs 8 as it speaks about wisdom, let's substitute "wisdom" in the appropriate spots:
• Prov. 8:22 The LORD possessed me (wisdom) in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I (wisdom) was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. ... 30 Then I (wisdom) was by him, as one brought up with him: and I (wisdom) was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

That makes perfect sense, based on the first 3 verses of that chapter:
• Prov. 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

So, DRS, do you think wisdom is actually Jesus Christ, or is Jesus Christ actually wisdom? And repeating ralittlefield, is Jesus a "she"?

================================

So you want to tie in Prov. 8:22 with John 1 and Col. 1?
Great, let's do it again...

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

• Col. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Now, let's be logical. Since ALL THINGS were made by Jesus Christ, that would make Him **THE** ONE AND ONLY CREATOR. Right? And, since He created ALL things, then He could not have been created. Right?

That means that the term "first born" used above must mean something other than what you want it to mean. How about these next verses to give some more meaning to it:
• Rom. 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
• John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

==============================

Then, DRS, you added these wonderful Trinitarian verses to the mix:
• Mic. 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Well, thank you so much, DRS, for PROVING MY POINT!!! Yes, Jesus is the Creator who is from EVERLASTING, who created Abraham, and who created the world!! AMEN!!

==================================

Finally, DRS, you lost me on that Is. 42:30, since there is no such verse. Maybe you meant 42:13?
• Is. 42:13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

Well, DRS, I say AMEN to that! Jesus is the Lord and He definitely went forth as "A MIGHTY MAN"! So, another big thank you for taking me close to that verse.

And you referred to Matt. 3:17
• Matt. 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And I say AMEN again. That verse ties in so well with these verses:
• Psa. 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• Matt. 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
• Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• Luke 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,...

And the clincher...
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

So, thank you one more time, DRS, for reminding us all of those marvelous verses!!

What can I say D-Jim, but Well Done! :clap:

Oh, regarding "firstborn" - what about Ex 4:22?

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:"

[DispensationalJim]

What can I say D-Jim, but Well Done! :clap:

Oh, regarding "firstborn" - what about Ex 4:22?

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:"

Excellent addition, T-Jim! How did I forget that one? I think I'll edit that post and add it right now! Thanks, TJ!

[DRS]

Nope, DRS, I do not realize anything of the sort. I've read the text of the Bible quite regularly for the last 50+ years, and I have never seen what you are trying to say.

Since you are quoting Proverbs 8 as it speaks about wisdom, let's substitute "wisdom" in the appropriate spots:
• Prov. 8:22 The LORD possessed me (wisdom) in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I (wisdom) was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. ... 30 Then I (wisdom) was by him, as one brought up with him: and I (wisdom) was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

That makes perfect sense, based on the first 3 verses of that chapter:
• Prov. 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

So, DRS, do you think wisdom is actually Jesus Christ, or is Jesus Christ actually wisdom? And repeating ralittlefield, is Jesus a "she"?

================================

So you want to tie in Prov. 8:22 with John 1 and Col. 1?
Great, let's do it again...

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

• Col. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Now, let's be logical. Since ALL THINGS were made by Jesus Christ, that would make Him **THE** ONE AND ONLY CREATOR. Right? And, since He created ALL things, then He could not have been created. Right?

That means that the term "first born" used above must mean something other than what you want it to mean. How about these next verses to give some more meaning to it:
• Rom. 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
• John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

==============================

Then, DRS, you added these wonderful Trinitarian verses to the mix:
• Mic. 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Well, thank you so much, DRS, for PROVING MY POINT!!! Yes, Jesus is the Creator who is from EVERLASTING, who created Abraham, and who created the world!! AMEN!!

==================================

Finally, DRS, you lost me on that Is. 42:30, since there is no such verse. Maybe you meant 42:13?
• Is. 42:13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

Well, DRS, I say AMEN to that! Jesus is the Lord and He definitely went forth as "A MIGHTY MAN"! So, another big thank you for taking me close to that verse.

And you referred to Matt. 3:17
• Matt. 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And I say AMEN again. That verse ties in so well with these verses:
• Psa. 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• Matt. 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
• Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• Luke 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,...

And the clincher...
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

So, thank you one more time, DRS, for reminding us all of those marvelous verses!!

And from Tuscon JIm - Ex 4:22 "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:"

So using your logic then you can not say to AA that Ezekiel and Isaiah have anything to do with Satan since they use other words there.

Kind of funny in deperation to prove the trinity you have defeated the use of other bible books to show that the bible does not contradict itself and you have created more contradictions in the bible, but hey this not the first thought in this thread that creates a contridiction with the bible you presented, the second chance for Israel as whole seems to present the idea of two covenant co existing.

Israel was the firstborn son but israel unlike Jesus is never called the beginning of creation

By the way who was The God the word was with and since Moses was made God to Aaron did this diminish the Almightiness of Jehovah or how about when Paul calls Satan the god of this system of things

[DispensationalJim]

So using your logic then you can not say to AA that Ezekiel and Isaiah have anything to do with Satan since they use other words there.

Kind of funny in deperation to prove the trinity you have defeated the use of other bible books to show that the bible does not contradict itself and you have created more contradictions in the bible, but hey this not the first thought in this thread that creates a contridiction with the bible you presented, the second chance for Israel as whole seems to present the idea of two covenant co existing.

Israel was the firstborn son but israel unlike Jesus is never called the beginning of creation

By the way who was The God the word was with and since Moses was made God to Aaron did this diminish the Almightiness of Jehovah or how about when Paul calls Satan the god of this system of things

First, DRS, I went back to your past post about the Ezekiel/Isaiah/Satan thing you were discussing with AA, since I just did not understand what you were trying to say. So I copied it... here it is:

============================
DRS said: "Was of the king Tyre in the garden of Eden?

The bible at times uses passages to speak to event in the heavenly realm, using the actions of humans to desrcribe to relate the attitudes or action of what happened in the spirit realm at times.

There are three occassions i can think of for this off the top of my head, the one in Ezekiel, the other in Isaiah 14 again showing the the haughty attitude of Satan reflected in a human king an of course the other one being proverbs 8:22 which shows the creation of Jesus, in all three cases the exact person is not referenced but it is made clear who is being spoken through later bible texts

People tend to only say this is not true when they disregard certain texts as inspired of God pr try to impose thoughts not found in the bible on the bible"

===========================

Please forgive me, DRS, but I still don't know what you are talking about. Could you post the verses (maybe with some context) and explain what your point is again?
__________________

And, regarding the God vs god issue, again I say, if the word "god" isn't capialized, then it isn't God! When Moses was made "a god" to Pharaoh, I'm quite sure Pharaoh knew Moses wasn't God. The same applies to Paul's reference to Satan, but you left "god" properly uncapitalized there. IMO, it just takes being consistent to be Scripturally accurate, that's all.

[DRS]

In the original language both are capitalized m in the case of Moses and when it references Satan, the bible was not written in KJV english it was written in Hebrew and Greek, and your not consitent if you say Proverbs can not be about Jesus then AA can say Isaiah and Ezekiel is not about Satan no matter what we learn later in the bible

28 And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said:

“‘“For the reason that your heart has become haughty, and you keep saying, ‘I am a god. In the seat of god I have seated myself, in the heart of the open sea,’ whereas an earthling man is what you are, and not a god, and you keep making your heart like the heart of god— 3 look! you are wiser than Daniel. There are no secrets that have proved a match for you. 4 By your wisdom and by your discernment you have made wealth for your own self, and you keep getting gold and silver in your storehouses. 5 By the abundance of your wisdom, by your sales goods, you have made your wealth abound, and your heart began to be haughty because of your wealth.”’

6 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: “For the reason that you make your heart like the heart of god, 7 therefore here I am bringing upon you strangers, the tyrants of [the] nations, and they will certainly draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom and profane your beaming splendor. 8 Down to the pit they will bring you, and you must die the death of someone slain in the heart of the open sea. 9 Will you without fail say, ‘I am god,’ before the one killing you, whereas you are a mere earthling man, and not a god, in the hand of those profaning you?”’

10 “‘The deaths of uncircumcised ones you will die by the hand of strangers, for I myself have spoken,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.”

11 And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 12 “Son of man, lift up a dirge concerning the king of Tyre, and you must say to him, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said:

“‘“You are sealing up a pattern, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 In E′den, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering, ruby, topaz and jasper; chrys′o‧lite, onyx and jade; sapphire, turquoise and emerald; and of gold was the workmanship of your settings and your sockets in you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. 14 You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. 15 You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you.

[DispensationalJim]

DRS, I would be glad to comment on the verses you quoted if you'll just kindly tell me what book and chapter they are from.

Thanks so much.

[Tucson Jim]

Israel was the firstborn son but israel unlike Jesus is never called the beginning of creation


Point is, "firstborn" does not necessarily mean a literal birth.

[DRS]

Point is, "firstborn" does not necessarily mean a literal birth.

But beginning of creation is what it is

14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,

Firstborn still means being born a starting time, the same as Jesus is only begotten

Hmm the mouth of three witnesses that show his start, good enough for God good enough for me

[DRS]

DRS, I would be glad to comment on the verses you quoted if you'll just kindly tell me what book and chapter they are from.

Thanks so much.

We were discussing Ezekiel this is from the 28th chapter the words are right there now if you want to dispute them and Isaiah and say they are not about Satan then AA is right the bible contradicts itself but if you aknowledge they are then what is stated in Proverbs couples with what is said later shows the creation of Jesus, and wisdom is just a word used to symbolize Jesus just as shining one and king of Tyre symbolize Satan

[DispensationalJim]

We were discussing Ezekiel this is from the 28th chapter the words are right there now if you want to dispute them and Isaiah and say they are not about Satan then AA is right the bible contradicts itself but if you aknowledge they are then what is stated in Proverbs couples with what is said later shows the creation of Jesus, and wisdom is just a word used to symbolize Jesus just as shining one and king of Tyre symbolize Satan

Thank you very much for the book and chapter info. Hope it wasn't too much trouble for you, since I can't use my word search unless it is King James.

I'll be back shortly to respond to your "logic".

[DRS]

Thank you very much for the book and chapter info. Hope it wasn't too much trouble for you, since I can't use my word search unless it is King James.

I'll be back shortly to respond to your "logic".

I hope your answer here does not mean you are not going to consider it and instead are going to try and justify yourself.

You have to wonder if something can be hid from understanding due to one failing to recognize one sent by Almighty God how much more could be lost in understanding for one trying to say another there is another equal to Almighty God

[DispensationalJim]

We were discussing Ezekiel this is from the 28th chapter the words are right there now if you want to dispute them and Isaiah and say they are not about Satan then AA is right the bible contradicts itself but if you aknowledge they are then what is stated in Proverbs couples with what is said later shows the creation of Jesus, and wisdom is just a word used to symbolize Jesus just as shining one and king of Tyre symbolize Satan

Since Ezekiel speaks of a "prince of Tyrus" and a "king of Tyrus" in that one chapter, and since the Bible mentions princes and kings of Tyrus 22 times and princes, princesses, and kings of the city of Tyre 37 times, I do not see how anyone can insist that Ezek. 28 is definitely speaking of satan, although I did note that some theologians I checked did consider the reference to the "king" to be "beyond a human ruler," and suggested it might be "prophectic" regarding Satan.

But to compare that passage with Prov. 8 just doesn't add up to me, especially since wisdom there is a SHE and Prov. 7 and 9 are also speaking of women.
=================================

Earlier, DRS, you wrote this to me:
"So using your logic then you can not say to AA that Ezekiel and Isaiah have anything to do with Satan since they use other words there.

Kind of funny in deperation to prove the trinity you have defeated the use of other bible books to show that the bible does not contradict itself and you have created more contradictions in the bible, but hey this not the first thought in this thread that creates a contridiction with the bible you presented, the second chance for Israel as whole seems to present the idea of two covenant co existing.

Israel was the firstborn son but israel unlike Jesus is never called the beginning of creation

By the way who was The God the word was with and since Moses was made God to Aaron did this diminish the Almightiness of Jehovah or how about when Paul calls Satan the god of this system of things"

-----------------------------------------------------

So, DRS, you feel that I am "desparate" to prove the trinity. You said it was funny, and I agree. It is funny that anyone would feel deparate to prove the Trinity to a person who believes as you do.

I have debated the claims that there are contradictions in the King James many times, and you certainly have noi shown one to me in your explanation above. Maybe if you give a more detailed explanation, if it isn't too much trouble, that is.

I often give a long explanation, and you seem to respond with a short paragraph which usually requires a translator for me to understand.

And, yes, DRS, I do believe the covenant for Israel will be completed in the Kingdom. I believe the Body of Christ is a separate group of believers under a separate "program" who will be raptured prior to the Tribulation and Kingdom for Israel.

Finally, the God who Jesus-- God the Son-- was with was GOD THE FATHER. Big surprise, huh? Moses was made "a god" (small "g") to Pharaoh. And Paul called Statan the "god" (small "g") of this world. Paul also said this:
• Eph. 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Here are some similar verses about Satan:
• Matt. 9:34 But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
• Matt. 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
• Mark 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.
• John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
• John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
• John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

So, you see, DRS, I don't need Ezekiel at all to show who Satan is, do I? But, Isaiah 14 is a different story, since it mentions Lucifer by name. That, I would acknowledge, is Satan.

But, apparently, DRS, you "desparately" need Prov. 8 to show Jesus as a "created" being, don't you? Yes, DRS, Jesus was "the beginning of creation" since He was THE CREATOR. Jesus started the creation process and He will someday finish it!

[DispensationalJim]

But beginning of creation is what it is

14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,

Firstborn still means being born a starting time, the same as Jesus is only begotten

Hmm the mouth of three witnesses that show his start, God enough for good good enough for me

Hope TJ won't mind me jumping in here. As I just said in my last post, Jesus started the creation process and someday He will finish it.

Please, DRS, you gave us yet another verse without a book or chapter. Now, I recognize that it is from The Revelation, but most of your verses are difficult to figure out since they are from your NWT.

And, finally, DRS, pleeeeeease explain what you meant to say here:
" God enough for good good enough for me"

[DRS]

Since Ezekiel speaks of a "prince of Tyrus" and a "king of Tyrus" in that one chapter, and since the Bible mentions princes and kings of Tyrus 22 times and princes, princesses, and kings of the city of Tyre 37 times, I do not see how anyone can insist that Ezek. 28 is definitely speaking of satan, although I did note that some theologians I checked did consider the reference to the "king" to be "beyond a human ruler," and suggested it might be "prophectic" regarding Satan.

But to compare that passage with Prov. 8 just doesn't add up to me, especially since wisdom there is a SHE and Prov. 7 and 9 are also speaking of women.
=================================

Earlier, DRS, you wrote this to me:
"So using your logic then you can not say to AA that Ezekiel and Isaiah have anything to do with Satan since they use other words there.

Kind of funny in deperation to prove the trinity you have defeated the use of other bible books to show that the bible does not contradict itself and you have created more contradictions in the bible, but hey this not the first thought in this thread that creates a contridiction with the bible you presented, the second chance for Israel as whole seems to present the idea of two covenant co existing.

Israel was the firstborn son but israel unlike Jesus is never called the beginning of creation

By the way who was The God the word was with and since Moses was made God to Aaron did this diminish the Almightiness of Jehovah or how about when Paul calls Satan the god of this system of things"

-----------------------------------------------------

So, DRS, you feel that I am "desparate" to prove the trinity. You said it was funny, and I agree. It is funny that anyone would feel deparate to prove the Trinity to a person who believes as you do.

I have debated the claims that there are contradictions in the King James many times, and you certainly have noi shown one to me in your explanation above. Maybe if you give a more detailed explanation, if it isn't too much trouble, that is.

I often give a long explanation, and you seem to respond with a short paragraph which usually requires a translator for me to understand.

And, yes, DRS, I do believe the covenant for Israel will be completed in the Kingdom. I believe the Body of Christ is a separate group of believers under a separate "program" who will be raptured prior to the Tribulation and Kingdom for Israel.

Finally, the God who Jesus-- God the Son-- was with was GOD THE FATHER. Big surprise, huh? Moses was made "a god" (small "g") to Pharaoh. And Paul called Statan the "god" (small "g") of this world. Paul also said this:
• Eph. 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Here are some similar verses about Satan:
• Matt. 9:34 But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
• Matt. 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
• Mark 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.
• John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
• John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
• John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

So, you see, DRS, I don't need Ezekiel at all to show who Satan is, do I? But, Isaiah 14 is a different story, since it mentions Lucifer by name. That, I would acknowledge, is Satan.

But, apparently, DRS, you "desparately" need Prov. 8 to show Jesus as a "created" being, don't you? Yes, DRS, Jesus was "the beginning of creation" since He was THE CREATOR. Jesus started the creation process and He will someday finish it!

The word for congregator in heberew is also feminine but it refers to Solomon so the gender of the word is meaningless. We already know Ezekiel is using the king of Tyre to depict Satan since the king was never in the garden of Eden.

Who was the kingdom open to first?

If there is niether Jew nor Greek then there is not two covenants.

Actually it does not say Lucifer in hebrew that was not put in until the Latin Vulgate

Hence it is translated like this in other bibles

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!-NIV

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! -ASV

Finanlly jesus is also called prince and princely, the Prince of Peace, his rule is describe as princely
Jehovah is never called a prince the bible says He Alone is Most High

If He Alone is Most High then there is no one equal to Him no one else can be called Almighty

[DRS]

Hope TJ won't mind me jumping in here. As I just said in my last post, Jesus started the creation process and someday He will finish it.

Please, DRS, you gave us yet another verse without a book or chapter. Now, I recognize that it is from The Revelation, but most of your verses are difficult to figure out since they are from your NWT.

And, finally, DRS, pleeeeeease explain what you meant to say here:
" God enough for good good enough for me"

Jesus is called first born, only begotten beginning of creation and Proverbs shows he was produced by Jehovah as the start of his way.

I edited but the law stated at the mouth of two or three witness a matter is proven, if that was sufficent for God's law then it is more than sufficent for me

[Tucson Jim]

Jesus is called first born, only begotten beginning of creation and Proverbs shows he was produced by Jehovah as the start of his way.

I edited but the law stated at the mouth of two or three witness a matter is proven, if that was sufficent for God's law then it is more than sufficent for me

So DRS, did Jesus create Himself?

[Tucson Jim]

Hope TJ won't mind me jumping in here. As I just said in my last post, Jesus started the creation process and someday He will finish it.

Please, DRS, you gave us yet another verse without a book or chapter. Now, I recognize that it is from The Revelation, but most of your verses are difficult to figure out since they are from your NWT.

And, finally, DRS, pleeeeeease explain what you meant to say here:
" God enough for good good enough for me"

Feel free to "jump in" any time D-Jim!

And yes, you are right, Jesus is the Creator of ALL THINGS and therefore cannot himself be part of the creation!

[DispensationalJim]

DRS wrote: The word for congregator in heberew is also feminine but it refers to Solomon so the gender of the word is meaningless. We already know Ezekiel is using the king of Tyre to depict Satan since the king was never in the garden of Eden.
----------------------------------------------
DJ says: OPINION, OPINION... no proof, just opinion.

=================================

DRS asks: Who was the kingdom open to first?
-----------------------------------------------------
DJ asks: Which Kingdom? The word "kingdom" is used 342 times in my King James from Gen. 10:10 (concerning the kingdom of Babel) to Rev. 17:17 (about a kingdom given to the beast). Are you saying that every time the word "kingdom" is used, it is the same one?

================================

From DRS: If there is niether Jew nor Greek then there is not two covenants.
----------------------------------------------------------
From DJ: Again, the word "covenant" is used 292 times in my King James. Are they all the same covenant? The writer of Hebrews (not Paul, IMO) would disagree.
• Heb. 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

====================================

From DRS: Actually it does not say Lucifer in hebrew that was not put in until the Latin Vulgate Hence it is translated like this in other bibles
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!-NIV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! -ASV
----------------------------------------------------
From DJ: Come on, DRS... can't you remember to add the book and chapter for us, please? I know exactly where those verses are because they are classic examples of the newer Bibles using the inferior manuscripts. The King James uses "morning star" in this verse:
• Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

So who is the "morning star" there, DRS?

And here is a verse about the "day star":
• 2Pet. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Obviously, we have a TRANSLATION problem, there, DRS, and I'm sticking with the King James. Must I explain why again to you, DRS?

I cannot read Hebrew or Greek. Can you, DRS? If you cannot, then you are taking someone's opinion about what the Hebrew and/or Greek says. How did you decide which Hebrew or Greek expert you would accept as the authority?

================================

From DRS: Finanlly jesus is also called prince and princely, the Prince of Peace, his rule is describe as princely
Jehovah is never called a prince the bible says He Alone is Most High

If He Alone is Most High then there is no one equal to Him no one else can be called Almighty.
----------------------------------------------------------
From DJ: I believe Fire Watch can respond to those claims much better than I. Maybe we can get him to jump on that one.

I do, however, see Jesus as "the Almighty" here:
• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

... since Jesus is "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" here:
• Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. ...16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

[DispensationalJim]

Jesus is called first born, only begotten beginning of creation and Proverbs shows he was produced by Jehovah as the start of his way.

I edited but the law stated at the mouth of two or three witness a matter is proven, if that was sufficent for God's law then it is more than sufficent for me

DRS, you are stating that as if it is fact, when in fact, it is OPINION. Proverbs does not show anything about Jesus in Chapter 8. It is about WISDOM! The word "wisdom" appears in the book of Proverbs over 50 times!

So, DRS, riddle me this: If "wisdom" is Jesus, who is "prudence"?
• Prov. 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

=============================

I saw the edit, DRS, after I quoted from your post, so thank you for doing that. I still would like to see you spend a bit more time editing your posts BEFORE you submit them. I proof read my posts a time or two before submitting, and almost every time, I catch a typo or two. I admit I am a horrendous typist, so it is no wonder that I find errors, but THAT IS WHY I EDIT BEFORE SUBMITTING!

[DispensationalJim]

Hello... DRS, are you still with us?

[DRS]

DRS wrote: The word for congregator in heberew is also feminine but it refers to Solomon so the gender of the word is meaningless. We already know Ezekiel is using the king of Tyre to depict Satan since the king was never in the garden of Eden.
----------------------------------------------
DJ says: OPINION, OPINION... no proof, just opinion.




No you can research the word qo‧he′leth for yourself it is rendered congregator in English, it may not be as easy to do as no one has probably written a page on the web for it to dispute it.

You know what else has gender the greek word love it is feminine too and yet God is love do you take it to mean God is female?

Unless you are eferring to the king of Tyre, then i would have to ask do you believe he was in the garden?

[DRS]

-----------------------------------------------------
DJ asks: Which Kingdom? The word "kingdom" is used 342 times in my King James from Gen. 10:10 (concerning the kingdom of Babel) to Rev. 17:17 (about a kingdom given to the beast). Are you saying that every time the word "kingdom" is used, it is the same one?

================================

From DRS: If there is niether Jew nor Greek then there is not two covenants.
----------------------------------------------------------
From DJ: Again, the word "covenant" is used 292 times in my King James. Are they all the same covenant? The writer of Hebrews (not Paul, IMO) would disagree.
• Heb. 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:




The writer of Hebrews in Galations explains

26*YOU are all, in fact, sons of God through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. 27*For all of YOU who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28*There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. 29*Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise

Jews were the firt ones and only ones for a time allowed into the covenant, now if there was two covenant why go to the Jews?

[DRS]

From DRS: Actually it does not say Lucifer in hebrew that was not put in until the Latin Vulgate Hence it is translated like this in other bibles
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!-NIV
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! -ASV
----------------------------------------------------
From DJ: Come on, DRS... can't you remember to add the book and chapter for us, please? I know exactly where those verses are because they are classic examples of the newer Bibles using the inferior manuscripts. The King James uses "morning star" in this verse:
• Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

So who is the "morning star" there, DRS?

And here is a verse about the "day star":
• 2Pet. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Obviously, we have a TRANSLATION problem, there, DRS, and I'm sticking with the King James. Must I explain why again to you, DRS?

I cannot read Hebrew or Greek. Can you, DRS? If you cannot, then you are taking someone's opinion about what the Hebrew and/or Greek says. How did you decide which Hebrew or Greek expert you would accept as the authority?

================================


Why would I quote Revelation when we were discussing a passage in isaiah which I quoted from other bible?

I can look up words and our Hebrew speaking friends here have also shown many of the glaring errors in the KJV of the bible in translation, and if you can't read hebrew then how do you know חכמה is male or female?

Isaiah 14 is what is being discussed

[DRS]

... since Jesus is "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" here:
• Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. ...16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Who gives the Revelation to Jesus

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him

12- 15 are God speaking again then Jesus speaks, this happens also with John and the angel

[DRS]

DRS, you are stating that as if it is fact, when in fact, it is OPINION. Proverbs does not show anything about Jesus in Chapter 8. It is about WISDOM! The word "wisdom" appears in the book of Proverbs over 50 times!

So, DRS, riddle me this: If "wisdom" is Jesus, who is "prudence"?
• Prov. 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

=============================

I saw the edit, DRS, after I quoted from your post, so thank you for doing that. I still would like to see you spend a bit more time editing your posts BEFORE you submit them. I proof read my posts a time or two before submitting, and almost every time, I catch a typo or two. I admit I am a horrendous typist, so it is no wonder that I find errors, but THAT IS WHY I EDIT BEFORE SUBMITTING!


The word of Tyre appears 15 times in Ezekiel yet we know in that particular passage refers to Satan

by the way the word translated as prudence is actually craft or shrewdness

[DRS]

Hello... DRS, are you still with us?

I get up at 5 am and i do not get home until 9:30 at night so excuse me if it takes a while to answer and my answers are economical

[DispensationalJim]

No you can research the word qo‧he′leth for yourself it is rendered congregator in English, it may not be as easy to do as no one has probably written a page on the web for it to dispute it.

You know what else has gender the greek word love it is feminine too and yet God is love do you take it to mean God is female?

Unless you are eferring to the king of Tyre, then i would have to ask do you believe he was in the garden?

Why would I need to research a Hebrew word? I don't read Hebrew but I do have the King James Bible, God's Word in English. There were British thelologians who were Hebrew experts back in 1600 who already did the research, so who am I to question it? And, I wonder who you are to question it, too.

I don't read Greek either, so the gender in the Greek has no relevance to me, since i have God's perfect Word in the English which was rendered quite well by the expert British theologians who translated the Greek into English for me and you back in 1600.

Please remind me, DRS, of what the king of Tyre has to do with the garden. My memory is failing me these days.

[DispensationalJim]

The writer of Hebrews in Galations explains

26*YOU are all, in fact, sons of God through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. 27*For all of YOU who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28*There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. 29*Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise

Jews were the firt ones and only ones for a time allowed into the covenant, now if there was two covenant why go to the Jews?

Paul did not write Hebrews, thank you very much. Since Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and since he alone introduced the dispensation of THE AGE OF GRACE, he wrote about SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE THROUGH FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE.

During the AGE OF GRACE, EVERYONE is a sinner (or heathen or Gentile), including the Jews, so Paul is preaching GRACE to all.

Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews was writing to HEBREWS, not Gentiles. Once the Age of Grace is completed and the Body of Christ is raptured to Heaven, the "Tribulation epistles" (Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2,& 3 John, Jude, and The Revelation) will be needed by the Hebrew believers as they go through the Tribulation (without the Body of Christ). Remember, Peter, James, and John were sent "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5-7; Gal. 2:7-9).

Again, DRS, you omitted the chapter in Galatians.

[DispensationalJim]

Why would I quote Revelation when we were discussing a passage in isaiah which I quoted from other bible?

I can look up words and our Hebrew speaking friends here have also shown many of the glaring errors in the KJV of the bible in translation, and if you can't read hebrew then how do you know חכמה is male or female?

Isaiah 14 is what is being discussed

YOu go ahead and spend all your spare time to look up words and get someone's OPINION on what they think the Bible should say. I already have the King James Bible, God's Word in English for us today.

Again, it is irrelvant to me if some Hebrew who claims to be an expert in the manuscripts says a certain word is male or female. God's Word is COMPLETE and I have a copy of it, thank you.

Please remind me of what specific verses in Isaiah 14 we were discussing. I forgot already.

[DispensationalJim]

Who gives the Revelation to Jesus

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him

12- 15 are God speaking again then Jesus speaks, this happens also with John and the angel

Another JW OPINION. How can you tell that it is God the Father speaking in 12-15, but it is Jesus interupting and speaking in verse 16? The "red letter" version of my King James has those verses (12, 13, 16) in red, which is the words of Jesus. Are you saying again that my Bible is wrong?

[Constantine the Great]

By the way who was The God the word was with ...


I love this little bit of creative translating. No, the word was not with THE GOD, the Word was with God.

[DispensationalJim]

The word of Tyre appears 15 times in Ezekiel yet we know in that particular passage refers to Satan

by the way the word translated as prudence is actually craft or shrewdness

No, "we" don't know that. "You" THINK you know that, but I don't think you know that.

So, now, DRS, you are saying that "wisdom" is Jesus, but He is living with "prudence" which means either a person named "crafty" or a person named "shrewdness"? That certainly clears things up for me!!?????

[Tucson Jim]

So DRS, did Jesus create Himself?

Still no answer DRS?

[Tucson Jim]

The word of Tyre appears 15 times in Ezekiel yet we know in that particular passage refers to Satan

by the way the word translated as prudence is actually craft or shrewdness

Missed D-Jim's point I see . . .

[DispensationalJim]

I get up at 5 am and i do not get home until 9:30 at night so excuse me if it takes a while to answer and my answers are economical

Well, thank you, DRS, for that explanation. I do appreciate your desire to respond and I can relate to your being limited on time, so I apologize if I was not showing much empathy regarding your lack of promptness in your replies.

[Tucson Jim]

Well, thank you, DRS, for that explanation. I do appreciate your desire to respond and I can relate to your being limited on time, so I apologize if I was not showing much empathy regarding your lack of promptness in your replies.

As I recall, DRS has always had limited time on here.

[drmilo]

• Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. ...16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

I'd like to jump in concerning this verse and ask a question of DRS:

Notice Rev 22:16 states "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

If Jesus is not God, how can he be BOTH the root of David and the offspring of David?

Root meaning the beginning, the start, the creator of David. Was Jesus one of David's ancestors? Did Jesus' seed give birth to the line of David? How can Jesus be the root of David?

We know his human nature is the offspring of David. But how exactly is he the root of David's line? And how exactly can he be BOTH root and offspring?

[drmilo]

No you can research the word qo‧he′leth for yourself it is rendered congregator in English, it may not be as easy to do as no one has probably written a page on the web for it to dispute it.

You know what else has gender the greek word love it is feminine too and yet God is love do you take it to mean God is female?

Unless you are eferring to the king of Tyre, then i would have to ask do you believe he was in the garden?

It is a lot different for a word to have a female gender and for a pronoun to be the female pronoun.

In Greek, I'm sure "love" (even though the word is female in gender) can be used in conjunction with both males and females. However, the word "She" not only has a female gender but is a direct reference to a female person, since a pronoun references a specific person. Female is not just the gender of the word, but the gender of the person to which that word is making reference.

You, DRS, are comparing apples with oranges in this case. "She" is a very specific pronoun that is used. It was not translated "She" because of the gender of the word, but because of the gender of the "person" (or personification in this case) that word is referencing.

[Tucson Jim]

I'd like to jump in concerning this verse and ask a question of DRS:

Notice Rev 22:16 states "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

If Jesus is not God, how can he be BOTH the root of David and the offspring of David?

Root meaning the beginning, the start, the creator of David. Was Jesus one of David's ancestors? Did Jesus' seed give birth to the line of David? How can Jesus be the root of David?

We know his human nature is the offspring of David. But how exactly is he the root of David's line? And how exactly can he be BOTH root and offspring?

Excellent point drmilo - how indeed?

Sadly, I have been on this thread so long, I know what DRS will say . . .

[Tucson Jim]

It is a lot different for a word to have a female gender and for a pronoun to be the female pronoun.

In Greek, I'm sure "love" (even though the word is female in gender) can be used in conjunction with both males and females. However, the word "She" not only has a female gender but is a direct reference to a female person, since a pronoun references a specific person. Female is not just the gender of the word, but the gender of the person to which that word is making reference.

You, DRS, are comparing apples with oranges in this case. "She" is a very specific pronoun that is used. It was not translated "She" because of the gender of the word, but because of the gender of the "person" (or personification in this case) that word is referencing.

Another good one! You are on your game tonight!!

[Tucson Jim]

And now our comparison between God and Jesus for the day:

God: Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men. 1 Kings 8:39

Jesus: And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. Rev 2:23

[DispensationalJim]

Thanks, drmilo, for jumping in and TJ for your ususal great contributions.

For DRS, if according to you Rev. 22:12 and 13 are God the Father speaking, who is speaking in verse 7? And in verses 7 and 12, when is God the Father going to "come quickly"?

• Rev. 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

The only one I know who is coming back down to earth is Jesus Christ, God the Son!
• Matt. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
• Matt. 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
• Matt. 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
• Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Doesn't this verse settle just exactly who is going to come quickly?
• Rev. 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

[barre53]

T In John 14 He was claiming to be the Holy Spirit who would come and fill believers.

Where is the text that makes the claim that Jesus was the Holy Spirit?

[Tucson Jim]

Where is the text that makes the claim that Jesus was the Holy Spirit?

Rom 8:9 seems to use the terms interchangeably.

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

[DRS]

Why would I need to research a Hebrew word? I don't read Hebrew but I do have the King James Bible, God's Word in English. There were British thelologians who were Hebrew experts back in 1600 who already did the research, so who am I to question it? And, I wonder who you are to question it, too.

I don't read Greek either, so the gender in the Greek has no relevance to me, since i have God's perfect Word in the English which was rendered quite well by the expert British theologians who translated the Greek into English for me and you back in 1600.

Please remind me, DRS, of what the king of Tyre has to do with the garden. My memory is failing me these days.

Well if you do not bother with gender then your arguement about wisdom and it's gender in hebrew are moot.

How are you suppose to show AA that there is contradictions if you have not studied yourself all these things?


Ezekiel 28:11*And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 12*“Son of man, lift up a dirge concerning the king of Tyre, and you must say to him, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said:

“‘“You are sealing up a pattern, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13*In E′den, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering, ruby, topaz and jasper; chrys′o‧lite, onyx and jade; sapphire, turquoise and emerald; and of gold was the workmanship of your settings and your sockets in you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. 14*You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. 15*You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you.

[DRS]

YOu go ahead and spend all your spare time to look up words and get someone's OPINION on what they think the Bible should say. I already have the King James Bible, God's Word in English for us today.

Again, it is irrelvant to me if some Hebrew who claims to be an expert in the manuscripts says a certain word is male or female. God's Word is COMPLETE and I have a copy of it, thank you.

Please remind me of what specific verses in Isaiah 14 we were discussing. I forgot already.

So it does not matter to you how many people show that the words in some cases are translated wrong you believe that the KJV is infallible, wow i guess the KJV is your pope

[DRS]

I love this little bit of creative translating. No, the word was not with THE GOD, the Word was with God.

Really I am looking at a greek interlinear you can down and maybe you can translate word for word

en arch hn o logos kai o logos hn pros ton qeon

Did my best but the greek characters do not seem to follow but you should get the sense of what is being said

[DRS]

Another JW OPINION. How can you tell that it is God the Father speaking in 12-15, but it is Jesus interupting and speaking in verse 16? The "red letter" version of my King James has those verses (12, 13, 16) in red, which is the words of Jesus. Are you saying again that my Bible is wrong?

Since it has been shown over and over again that the translation if faulty then yes it seems to be a faulty set of colouring

[DRS]

No, "we" don't know that. "You" THINK you know that, but I don't think you know that.

So, now, DRS, you are saying that "wisdom" is Jesus, but He is living with "prudence" which means either a person named "crafty" or a person named "shrewdness"? That certainly clears things up for me!!?????

So I guess you will go back and edit you answers to AA about Satan being in the OT since you are arguing that the OT would not use something to picture what happens in the spirit realm.

It is funny you are so desperate to try and prove something that is not even in the bible ( trinity) that you are actually making AA's arguement about the bible contradicting itself.

Think about it is more important to you that the KJV be always right and no matter what is shown to you that the Jesus is any thing but created that you are willing to stumble AA from learning, you know Jesus was pretty stern about that

Luke 17:17 Then he said to his disciples: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come! 2*It would be of more advantage to him if a millstone were suspended from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones.

[DRS]

Still no answer DRS?

Well does all mean everything?

27*For [God] “subjected all things under his feet

[DRS]

I'd like to jump in concerning this verse and ask a question of DRS:

Notice Rev 22:16 states "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

If Jesus is not God, how can he be BOTH the root of David and the offspring of David?

Root meaning the beginning, the start, the creator of David. Was Jesus one of David's ancestors? Did Jesus' seed give birth to the line of David? How can Jesus be the root of David?

We know his human nature is the offspring of David. But how exactly is he the root of David's line? And how exactly can he be BOTH root and offspring?

Jesus was already known to David before his coming to Earth as seen by Psalm 110:The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.

So Jesus had a prehuman existence, but it is because of the ransom Jesus provided that David will be made alive again, it is only because of him that there is still an offspring of David sitting on the throne where he sits at God's right hand
Jesus can be called the root because it is through him that God's promises come true about the line of David

[DRS]

It is a lot different for a word to have a female gender and for a pronoun to be the female pronoun.

In Greek, I'm sure "love" (even though the word is female in gender) can be used in conjunction with both males and females. However, the word "She" not only has a female gender but is a direct reference to a female person, since a pronoun references a specific person. Female is not just the gender of the word, but the gender of the person to which that word is making reference.

You, DRS, are comparing apples with oranges in this case. "She" is a very specific pronoun that is used. It was not translated "She" because of the gender of the word, but because of the gender of the "person" (or personification in this case) that word is referencing.

No I am not comparing apples and orange as the hebrew word being debated here goes under the same rules as the greek word love, the hebrew is not she, the hebrew word is female in gender and yes as you said can be used with both males and females

[DRS]

And now our comparison between God and Jesus for the day:

God: Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men. 1 Kings 8:39

Jesus: And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. Rev 2:23

Who gave Jesus the authority to judge

who placed all things under him

[DispensationalJim]

Well if you do not bother with gender then your arguement about wisdom and it's gender in hebrew are moot.

How are you suppose to show AA that there is contradictions if you have not studied yourself all these things?


Ezekiel 28:11*And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 12*“Son of man, lift up a dirge concerning the king of Tyre, and you must say to him, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said:

“‘“You are sealing up a pattern, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13*In E′den, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering, ruby, topaz and jasper; chrys′o‧lite, onyx and jade; sapphire, turquoise and emerald; and of gold was the workmanship of your settings and your sockets in you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. 14*You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. 15*You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you.

Gender is only significant to me when it is obvious in the King James. So when it says "she" in Prov. 8, then it means "she"- plain and simple. I am quite content with the work the King James translators did, so I feel no compunction to try to show them wrong.

I'll worry about AA's claims of contradictions when he challenges me. I see none in the passages you have shown, so maybe AA will explain it to me later.

[DRS]

Thanks, drmilo, for jumping in and TJ for your ususal great contributions.

For DRS, if according to you Rev. 22:12 and 13 are God the Father speaking, who is speaking in verse 7? And in verses 7 and 12, when is God the Father going to "come quickly"?

• Rev. 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

The only one I know who is coming back down to earth is Jesus Christ, God the Son!
• Matt. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
• Matt. 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
• Matt. 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
• Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Doesn't this verse settle just exactly who is going to come quickly?
• Rev. 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Jehovah comes just as He did in the OT when He said He would, through those He chooses to use or raise up He says this in Isaiah 26:21*For, look! Jehovah is coming forth from his place to call to account the error of the inhabitant of the land against him, and the land will certainly expose her bloodshed and will no longer cover over her killed ones

Was it He or Babylon that destroyed Israel?

Or was it Babylon excuting His judgement

[DRS]

Gender is only significant to me when it is obvious in the King James. So when it says "she" in Prov. 8, then it means "she"- plain and simple. I am quite content with the work the King James translators did, so I feel no compunction to try to show them wrong.

I'll worry about AA's claims of contradictions when he challenges me. I see none in the passages you have shown, so maybe AA will explain it to me later.

It does not say she in that passage

22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Do you mind if i ask how old you are Jim?

if you are not wanting to discuss that is okay

[DRS]

Good night

[Constantine the Great]

Really I am looking at a greek interlinear you can down and maybe you can translate word for word

en arch hn o logos kai o logos hn pros ton qeon

Did my best but the greek characters do not seem to follow but you should get the sense of what is being said

We've been down this road before DRS. That would be like adding the article "the" in front of a name; like saying the Word was with The Nick. Makes sense? No, not really. It's downright ignorant translating.

[DispensationalJim]

So I guess you will go back and edit you answers to AA about Satan being in the OT since you are arguing that the OT would not use something to picture what happens in the spirit realm.

It is funny you are so desperate to try and prove something that is not even in the bible ( trinity) that you are actually making AA's arguement about the bible contradicting itself.

Think about it is more important to you that the KJV be always right and no matter what is shown to you that the Jesus is any thing but created that you are willing to stumble AA from learning, you know Jesus was pretty stern about that

Luke 17:17 Then he said to his disciples: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come! 2*It would be of more advantage to him if a millstone were suspended from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones.

Maybe you should show me what verses I used to show that Satan was in the OT. I don't remember for sure, but I am fairly certain I did not use that Ezekiel passage, but I most certainly used this:
Is. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

That's enough for me. Every preacher I know acknowledges those verses to be speaking of Satan.

I've shown AA that Jesus is in the OT many times, so I'll let AA tell me if I am causing him a problem with my viewpoints.

[DispensationalJim]

Since it has been shown over and over again that the translation if faulty then yes it seems to be a faulty set of colouring

Many have given their opinions against the King James, but it almost always goes back to WHICH MANUSCRIPTS SHOULD BE USED, and I'm convinced that the King James translators use of the Textus receptus was correct. I have not seen one claim of faulty translation in the KJ that cannot be explained with dispensational understanding, etc.

[DispensationalJim]

It does not say she in that passage

22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Do you mind if i ask how old you are Jim?

if you are not wanting to discuss that is okay

My KIng James describes "wisdom" as "she" several times in almost every chapter of Proverbs.
• Prov. 1:20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: 21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, SAYING,
• Prov. 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
• Prov. 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: 2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table. 3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city, 4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
etc., etc....

=============================

I have mentioned my age on here several times. I will be 70 in a few weeks. I have been studying the Bible since I was saved in 1956.

[DispensationalJim]

Carol and I are off on a short vacation to California, so you all behave...

[Tucson Jim]

Well does all mean everything?

27*For [God] “subjected all things under his feet

Yes, there is no doubt that "all" means "all".

So, again, did Jesus create Himself?

[Tucson Jim]

Who gave Jesus the authority to judge

who placed all things under him

Who is EXACTLY like God the Father?

[Tucson Jim]

Jehovah comes just as He did in the OT when He said He would, through those He chooses to use or raise up He says this in Isaiah 26:21*For, look! Jehovah is coming forth from his place to call to account the error of the inhabitant of the land against him, and the land will certainly expose her bloodshed and will no longer cover over her killed ones

Was it He or Babylon that destroyed Israel?

Or was it Babylon excuting His judgement


Nice rationalization.

Jesus is coming with His angels. Thus He is obviously the one speaking.

[Tucson Jim]

It does not say she in that passage

I think D-Jim is referring to the beginning of the chapter:

1"Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

[Tucson Jim]

We've been down this road before DRS. That would be like adding the article "the" in front of a name; like saying the Word was with The Nick. Makes sense? No, not really. It's downright ignorant translating.

I thought you explained this before CTG . . .:confused:

[Tucson Jim]

Maybe you should show me what verses I used to show that Satan was in the OT. I don't remember for sure, but I am fairly certain I did not use that Ezekiel passage, but I most certainly used this:
Is. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

That's enough for me. Every preacher I know acknowledges those verses to be speaking of Satan.

I've shown AA that Jesus is in the OT many times, so I'll let AA tell me if I am causing him a problem with my viewpoints.

Indeed, AA is not shy about expressing his views! I'm sure he will tell you if there is a problem . . .

And yes, Is. 14 is a classic passage about Satan, taught in every church I've been to.

[Tucson Jim]

Many have given their opinions against the King James, but it almost always goes back to WHICH MANUSCRIPTS SHOULD BE USED, and I'm convinced that the King James translators use of the Textus receptus was correct. I have not seen one claim of faulty translation in the KJ that cannot be explained with dispensational understanding, etc.

Yes, and don't forget, that little dig about the "coloring" came from someone who think the NWT is a good translation!

[Tucson Jim]

Carol and I are off on a short vacation to California, so you all behave...

You know we won't! But I hope you have a great time Jim!

[barre53]

Rom 8:9 seems to use the terms interchangeably.

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

No disrespect intended, but to use this verse to show that Jesus is the Spirit is quite a stretch. The verse says that if we do not have the Spirit of Christ, i.e. the Holy Spirit, then we are none of his. That's like saying that if I do not have a birth certificate showing a direct connectiion to the Mayflower, I do not belong to the Mayflower Society. That does not make the birth certificate equal to me, nor is the Spirit - to Christ. I also wondered about John 14, the text that was given to support the argument in the post I replied to.

[Angryamerican]

So using your logic then you can not say to AA that Ezekiel and Isaiah have anything to do with Satan since they use other words there.

Kind of funny in deperation to prove the trinity you have defeated the use of other bible books to show that the bible does not contradict itself and you have created more contradictions in the bible, but hey this not the first thought in this thread that creates a contridiction with the bible you presented, the second chance for Israel as whole seems to present the idea of two covenant co existing.

Israel was the firstborn son but israel unlike Jesus is never called the beginning of creation

By the way who was The God the word was with and since Moses was made God to Aaron did this diminish the Almightiness of Jehovah or how about when Paul calls Satan the god of this system of things

Yes and Israel is considered the son of God not Jesus and we don't know who Jesus is until the NT. So tell me again that the nt does not contradict or replace the ot in which the nt would make Gods word invalid.

If the NT and the OT was the word of God they can't contradict each other,

Tell me why God does not warn Israel that the messiah would be put to death and would need a second coming to fulfill all prophecy concerning the true messiah ?

How come the OT does not teach us that God has an only begotten son ?

How come we never hear of this son that would one day be king ?

How come God forgave sin through prayer and repentance without blood atonement ?

If Jesus is who you say he is who was he before he came to the earth ? And please don't suggest michael the arch angel because after reading all that you presented about that, That is only speculation on your part.

How has anything changed DRS since Jesus supposedly came to the earth man still sins and grows old and dies ?

[Angryamerican]

Maybe you should show me what verses I used to show that Satan was in the OT. I don't remember for sure, but I am fairly certain I did not use that Ezekiel passage, but I most certainly used this:
Is. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

That's enough for me. Every preacher I know acknowledges those verses to be speaking of Satan.

I've shown AA that Jesus is in the OT many times, so I'll let AA tell me if I am causing him a problem with my viewpoints.

Notice only your version of the OT ties that verse to satan . You have no proof who that is or what it means.

Isa 14:12

(ASV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!

(GNT-WH+)

(HOT) איך נפלת משׁמים הילל בן־שׁחר נגדעת לארץ חולשׁ על־גוים׃

(HOT+) איךH349 נפלתH5307 משׁמיםH8064 היללH1966 בןH1121 שׁחרH7837 נגדעתH1438 לארץH776 חולשׁH2522 עלH5921 גוים׃H1471

(JPS) How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

(KJV+) HowH349 art thou fallenH5307 from heaven,H4480 H8064 O Lucifer,H1966 sonH1121 of the morning!H7837 how art thou cut downH1438 to the ground,H776 which didst weakenH2522 H5921 the nations!H1471

(MKJV) How you are fallen from the heavens, O shining star, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!

(RV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst lay low the nations!

So if you would be so kind as you are always please explain what the morning star is or means ?

Rev 2:26 And he who overcomes and keeps My works to the end, to him I will give power over the nations.
Rev 2:27 And he will rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of a potter they will be broken to pieces, even as I received from My Father.
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the Morning Star.
Rev 2:29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

[DRS]

Yes and Israel is considered the son of God not Jesus and we don't know who Jesus is until the NT. So tell me again that the nt does not contradict or replace the ot in which the nt would make Gods word invalid.

If the NT and the OT was the word of God they can't contradict each other,

Tell me why God does not warn Israel that the messiah would be put to death and would need a second coming to fulfill all prophecy concerning the true messiah ?

How come the OT does not teach us that God has an only begotten son ?

How come we never hear of this son that would one day be king ?

How come God forgave sin through prayer and repentance without blood atonement ?

If Jesus is who you say he is who was he before he came to the earth ? And please don't suggest michael the arch angel because after reading all that you presented about that, That is only speculation on your part.

How has anything changed DRS since Jesus supposedly came to the earth man still sins and grows old and dies ?


I got to run will be back tonight, there are three interesting things that come from the book of Daniel.

1. the time for messiah to appear

2. he is seen in heaven brought before the Ancient of days

3 a timetable for when the kingdom was to be set up and it had to happen during the feet of clay, Jesus came during the time of iron as prophecied by the time table, i will explain more later if you wish

[DRS]

Yes, there is no doubt that "all" means "all".

So, again, did Jesus create Himself?

guess you should have read the rest of that verse before answering

27*For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28*But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

so all does not always mean all

[DRS]

We've been down this road before DRS. That would be like adding the article "the" in front of a name; like saying the Word was with The Nick. Makes sense? No, not really. It's downright ignorant translating.

God is not a name, by putting a definite article the writer distinguishes between the two

[drmilo]

guess you should have read the rest of that verse before answering

27*For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28*But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

so all does not always mean all

Only if you read this under the assumption that Jesus is not God.

If you read this with the understanding that Jesus is God, then all means all.

[Angryamerican]

I got to run will be back tonight, there are three interesting things that come from the book of Daniel.

1. the time for messiah to appear

2. he is seen in heaven brought before the Ancient of days

3 a timetable for when the kingdom was to be set up and it had to happen during the feet of clay, Jesus came during the time of iron as prophecied by the time table, i will explain more later if you wish

OK i'm all for taking a look at what you have to say.

[DRS]

My KIng James describes "wisdom" as "she" several times in almost every chapter of Proverbs.
• Prov. 1:20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: 21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, SAYING,
• Prov. 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
• Prov. 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: 2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table. 3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city, 4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
etc., etc....

=============================

I have mentioned my age on here several times. I will be 70 in a few weeks. I have been studying the Bible since I was saved in 1956.


so you can justify the use of just a passage in both Isaiah and Ezekiel for Satan but you want to use a new rule for Proverbs that says you have to use the entire book why is that?

[DRS]

Who is EXACTLY like God the Father?

It does not say he is exactly like Jehovah is says he is a reflection.

It is often said sons are mirror images of their fathers, this does not make them their father

[DRS]

Only if you read this under the assumption that Jesus is not God.

If you read this with the understanding that Jesus is God, then all means all.

But it is clear from this the two are seperate all things are made subject to Jesus except God when the time comes all things are subjected again to God, there will be a time when there will not need to be the arrangement we have now, as mankind will be restored to prefall status

[DRS]

OK i'm all for taking a look at what you have to say.

Okay Daniel gave the time for messiah to appear

Daniel 9:24*“There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25*And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes‧si′ah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times.

26*“And after the sixty-two weeks Mes‧si′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.

“And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations.

27*“And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.

“And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate.”

The 62 weeks plus 7 weeks takes us from 455 to 29 CE when Jesus presented himself for baptism

weeks of years meaning 69 times 7

At the half week he is cut off, killed three and a half year into his ministry, but the covenant is kept in force for one week, this means God kept His promise to Abraham about his seed being kings and priests while Jesus was on Earth preaching and until 36 Ce (one week 7 years) only Jews were accepted by God into the new covenant

That is the time period for what was to happen as laid out in Daniel

[DRS]

Next we see Daniel's vision where someone like a son of man appears before God

7: 13*“I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14*And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.

If the end of this sounds familar, it reminds me of the passage from Isaiah 9:7*To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.


Now you and i both know from the account in Exodus no mere human can be brought before God, if Moses could not see the face of jehovah and live how could any human?

[DRS]

Daniel 2 shows us that there were going to several kingdom or world powers but they would be crushed in the end which is good news for us cause we are living in that time, each part of this image represents a world power

31 “You, O king, happened to be beholding, and, look! a certain immense image. That image, which was large and the brightness of which was extraordinary, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was dreadful. 32 As regards that image, its head was of good gold, its breasts and its arms were of silver, its belly and its thighs were of copper, 33 its legs were of iron, its feet were partly of iron and partly of molded clay. 34 You kept on looking until a stone was cut out not by hands, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and of molded clay and crushed them. 35 At that time the iron, the molded clay, the copper, the silver and the gold were, all together, crushed and became like the chaff from the summer threshing floor, and the wind carried them away so that no trace at all was found of them. And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 “This is the dream, and its interpretation we shall say before the king. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, you to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, and the strength and the dignity, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling, the beasts of the field and the winged creatures of the heavens, and whom he has made ruler over all of them, you yourself are the head of gold.

39 “And after you there will rise another kingdom inferior to you; and another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.

40 “And as for the fourth kingdom, it will prove to be strong like iron. Forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so, like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these.

41 “And whereas you beheld the feet and the toes to be partly of molded clay of a potter and partly of iron, the kingdom itself will prove to be divided, but somewhat of the hardness of iron will prove to be in it, forasmuch as you beheld the iron mixed with moist clay. 42 And as for the toes of the feet being partly of iron and partly of molded clay, the kingdom will partly prove to be strong and will partly prove to be fragile. 43 Whereas you beheld iron mixed with moist clay, they will come to be mixed with the offspring of mankind; but they will not prove to be sticking together, this one to that one, just as iron is not mixing with molded clay.

44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; 45 forasmuch as you beheld that out of the mountain a stone was cut not by hands, and [that] it crushed the iron, the copper, the molded clay, the silver and the gold. The grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this. And the dream is reliable, and the interpretation of it is trustworthy.”

Gold was Babylon

Silver was the Medo-Persian who over threw the the Babylonians and had a hand in the the word going forth to restore the temple

Copper was the Greek who defeated the persians under Alexander's leadership

Iron was the Roman

we notice though that crushing was not take place until the final part of the days, when Jesus first appeared at the time foretold the Roman empire was still gaining power so the time for the crushing had not yet come

[Angryamerican]

Daniel 2 shows us that there were going to several kingdom or world powers but they would be crushed in the end which is good news for us cause we are living in that time, each part of this image represents a world power

31 “You, O king, happened to be beholding, and, look! a certain immense image. That image, which was large and the brightness of which was extraordinary, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was dreadful. 32 As regards that image, its head was of good gold, its breasts and its arms were of silver, its belly and its thighs were of copper, 33 its legs were of iron, its feet were partly of iron and partly of molded clay. 34 You kept on looking until a stone was cut out not by hands, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and of molded clay and crushed them. 35 At that time the iron, the molded clay, the copper, the silver and the gold were, all together, crushed and became like the chaff from the summer threshing floor, and the wind carried them away so that no trace at all was found of them. And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 “This is the dream, and its interpretation we shall say before the king. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, you to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, and the strength and the dignity, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling, the beasts of the field and the winged creatures of the heavens, and whom he has made ruler over all of them, you yourself are the head of gold.

39 “And after you there will rise another kingdom inferior to you; and another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.

40 “And as for the fourth kingdom, it will prove to be strong like iron. Forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so, like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these.

41 “And whereas you beheld the feet and the toes to be partly of molded clay of a potter and partly of iron, the kingdom itself will prove to be divided, but somewhat of the hardness of iron will prove to be in it, forasmuch as you beheld the iron mixed with moist clay. 42 And as for the toes of the feet being partly of iron and partly of molded clay, the kingdom will partly prove to be strong and will partly prove to be fragile. 43 Whereas you beheld iron mixed with moist clay, they will come to be mixed with the offspring of mankind; but they will not prove to be sticking together, this one to that one, just as iron is not mixing with molded clay.

44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; 45 forasmuch as you beheld that out of the mountain a stone was cut not by hands, and [that] it crushed the iron, the copper, the molded clay, the silver and the gold. The grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this. And the dream is reliable, and the interpretation of it is trustworthy.”

Gold was Babylon

Silver was the Medo-Persian who over threw the the Babylonians and had a hand in the the word going forth to restore the temple

Copper was the Greek who defeated the persians under Alexander's leadership

Iron was the Roman

we notice though that crushing was not take place until the final part of the days, when Jesus first appeared at the time foretold the Roman empire was still gaining power so the time for the crushing had not yet come

Daniel i have read this all before and this is subject to interpretation . It would have been helpful for a name to be present it's not so we are left with speculation. But we know Jesus did not fulfill all prophecy. We know Jesus was put to death before all prophecy was fulfilled. We have no prophecy mentioning a second coming. I think the jews would have known the messiah would be put to death and would need a second coming to fulfill all prophecy.

There would be no end to his kingdom but what kingdom?Jesus as we know it ,had no kingdom. I asked you to show me that God has an only begotten son in the OT ? I asked you to provide proof of who the son of God was before he came to the earth ? Sorry the only support you have that Jesus is the son of God or that he was the messiah is the NT.

I have shown where God has forgiven sin through prayer and repentance and without blood atonement. So why would God have to sacrifice himself or his son to forgive man of their sins ? Show me how God can go back on his word to the Jews ? Just my opinion but the the NT and the OT contradict each other. Really not trying to offend anyone here just giving my opinions and backing it up with scripture.

[Tucson Jim]

No disrespect intended, but to use this verse to show that Jesus is the Spirit is quite a stretch. The verse says that if we do not have the Spirit of Christ, i.e. the Holy Spirit, then we are none of his.

I must be misunderstanding you. Did you not also just use the terms "Spirit of Christ" and "Holy Spirit" interchangeably when you said "Spirit of Christ, i.e. Holy Spirit"?? What am I missing?

That's like saying that if I do not have a birth certificate showing a direct connectiion to the Mayflower, I do not belong to the Mayflower Society. That does not make the birth certificate equal to me, nor is the Spirit - to Christ. I also wondered about John 14, the text that was given to support the argument in the post I replied to.

The Spirit is certainly "equal" to Christ. But I don't believe they are the same Person.

[Tucson Jim]

guess you should have read the rest of that verse before answering

27*For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28*But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

so all does not always mean all

All things certainly does mean all things. God is not a "thing". Guess you should have read the Bible before answering . . .

[Tucson Jim]

So one more time, did Jesus create Himself? I wonder why you are scared to answer this simple question . . .

[Tucson Jim]

It does not say he is exactly like Jehovah is says he is a reflection.

It is often said sons are mirror images of their fathers, this does not make them their father

I guess you never read this:

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." Heb 1:3

This is unprecedented , in view of the fact that God said:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," Isa 46:9

So,

1. there is no one like God

but

2. Jesus is exactly like God.

What could that mean???

[Tucson Jim]

But it is clear from this the two are seperate all things are made subject to Jesus except God when the time comes all things are subjected again to God,

Yes, the Father and Son are separate Persons, but one God. Now you've got it!

[drmilo]

But it is clear from this the two are seperate all things are made subject to Jesus except God when the time comes all things are subjected again to God, there will be a time when there will not need to be the arrangement we have now, as mankind will be restored to prefall status

The Trinity does not believe that the Father and the Son are the same person, just that they are the same God. Everything is subjected to the Son, excepting the Father, because both the Father and the Son are God. And the Son is subjected to the Father just as all sons are subjected to their fathers.

[DRS]

Daniel i have read this all before and this is subject to interpretation . It would have been helpful for a name to be present it's not so we are left with speculation. But we know Jesus did not fulfill all prophecy. We know Jesus was put to death before all prophecy was fulfilled. We have no prophecy mentioning a second coming. I think the jews would have known the messiah would be put to death and would need a second coming to fulfill all prophecy.

There would be no end to his kingdom but what kingdom?Jesus as we know it ,had no kingdom. I asked you to show me that God has an only begotten son in the OT ? I asked you to provide proof of who the son of God was before he came to the earth ? Sorry the only support you have that Jesus is the son of God or that he was the messiah is the NT.

I have shown where God has forgiven sin through prayer and repentance and without blood atonement. So why would God have to sacrifice himself or his son to forgive man of their sins ? Show me how God can go back on his word to the Jews ? Just my opinion but the the NT and the OT contradict each other. Really not trying to offend anyone here just giving my opinions and backing it up with scripture.

Just because all the jews did not recognize Jesus as the messiah does not make him any lessen the anointed of God.

Not all Jews recognized Moses's authority

Not all Jews understood the prophecy of Jeremiah yet Daniel did

9 In the first year of Da‧ri′us the son of A‧has‧u‧e′rus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal‧de′ans; 2*in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years

God does not forgive Adamic sin through prayer

And if blood was not required to be saved then explain putting blood on the door post to escape Egypt and the guilt and sin offerings made in the temple

God never went back in His word to the Jews in fact He kept His word to them including this

Deut 28:15*“And it must occur that if you will not listen to the voice of Jehovah your God by taking care to do all his commandments and his statutes that I am commanding you today, all these maledictions must also come upon you and overtake you

This part here was fulfilled in 70 ce

64*“And Jehovah will certainly scatter you among all the peoples from the one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, and there you will have to serve other gods whom you have not known, neither you nor your forefathers, wood and stone. 65*And among those nations you will have no ease, nor will there prove to be any resting-place for the sole of your foot; and Jehovah will indeed give you there a trembling heart and a failing of the eyes and despair of soul. 66*And you will certainly be in the greatest peril for your life and be in dread night and day, and you will not be sure of your life. 67*In the morning you will say, ‘If it only were evening!’ and in the evening you will say, ‘If it only were morning!’ because of the dread of your heart with which you will be in dread and because of the sight of your eyes that you will see. 68*And Jehovah will certainly bring you back to Egypt by ships by the way about which I have said to you, ‘You will never see it again,’ and YOU will have to sell yourselves there to your enemies as slave men and maidservants, but there will be no buyer.”

Show me how the the NT has God going back on His word

[DRS]

All things certainly does mean all things. God is not a "thing". Guess you should have read the Bible before answering . . .

Well if that was this case then Paul would not have needed to exapnd on it would he

[DRS]

Yes, the Father and Son are separate Persons, but one God. Now you've got it!

Only Jehovah is Most High God alone, the God of the bible is one person


it seems you have a god similar to that of the hindus

The Hindu trinity is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva, the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit. This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.

http://www.hindunet.org/god/trinity/index.htm

[DRS]

The Trinity does not believe that the Father and the Son are the same person, just that they are the same God. Everything is subjected to the Son, excepting the Father, because both the Father and the Son are God. And the Son is subjected to the Father just as all sons are subjected to their fathers.

The Jesus is not Almighty God if he is subject to another

[Angryamerican]

Just because all the jews did not recognize Jesus as the messiah does not make him any lessen the anointed of God.

Not all Jews recognized Moses's authority

Not all Jews understood the prophecy of Jeremiah yet Daniel did

9 In the first year of Da‧ri′us the son of A‧has‧u‧e′rus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal‧de′ans; 2*in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years

God does not forgive Adamic sin through prayer

And if blood was not required to be saved then explain putting blood on the door post to escape Egypt and the guilt and sin offerings made in the temple

God never went back in His word to the Jews in fact He kept His word to them including this

Deut 28:15*“And it must occur that if you will not listen to the voice of Jehovah your God by taking care to do all his commandments and his statutes that I am commanding you today, all these maledictions must also come upon you and overtake you

This part here was fulfilled in 70 ce

64*“And Jehovah will certainly scatter you among all the peoples from the one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, and there you will have to serve other gods whom you have not known, neither you nor your forefathers, wood and stone. 65*And among those nations you will have no ease, nor will there prove to be any resting-place for the sole of your foot; and Jehovah will indeed give you there a trembling heart and a failing of the eyes and despair of soul. 66*And you will certainly be in the greatest peril for your life and be in dread night and day, and you will not be sure of your life. 67*In the morning you will say, ‘If it only were evening!’ and in the evening you will say, ‘If it only were morning!’ because of the dread of your heart with which you will be in dread and because of the sight of your eyes that you will see. 68*And Jehovah will certainly bring you back to Egypt by ships by the way about which I have said to you, ‘You will never see it again,’ and YOU will have to sell yourselves there to your enemies as slave men and maidservants, but there will be no buyer.”

Show me how the the NT has God going back on His word

That is spin daniel never said God went back on his word but i am saying i have a problem believing The nt is Gods word.

All of the prophecies were identifying of the true messiah. When some are not fulfilled that casts doubt AGREE ?

[DRS]

No because, it does not belong to man to know the timetable for God

What you seem to have a problem reconciling is what the Jews want the messiah to be verses what God has planned

The people complained about Moses so it only stands to follow they would do the same about Jesus

[Tucson Jim]

Well if that was this case then Paul would not have needed to exapnd on it would he

I think he needed to expand on it . . . well . . . see some people are kind of dense . . . :shhh:

[Tucson Jim]

Only Jehovah is Most High God alone, the God of the bible is one person


it seems you have a god similar to that of the hindus

The Hindu trinity is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva, the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit. This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.

http://www.hindunet.org/god/trinity/index.htm

:)) What a joke.

Only someone who truly has no grasp on the Trinity would make such a ridiculous comparison.

[Tucson Jim]

The Jesus is not Almighty God if he is subject to another

In your opinion, according to your limited understanding and preconceptions. Jesus being subject to the Father has nothing to do with His Divine nature.

Nothing at all.

[Angryamerican]

No because, it does not belong to man to know the timetable for God

What you seem to have a problem reconciling is what the Jews want the messiah to be verses what God has planned

The people complained about Moses so it only stands to follow they would do the same about Jesus

What was the purpose of the prophecies ?

[Tucson Jim]

No because, it does not belong to man to know the timetable for God

What you seem to have a problem reconciling is what the Jews want the messiah to be verses what God has planned

The people complained about Moses so it only stands to follow they would do the same about Jesus

Wow - I actually agree with you DRS!

[Angryamerican]

In your opinion, according to your limited understanding and preconceptions. Jesus being subject to the Father has nothing to do with His Divine nature.

Nothing at all.

I have to agree with daniel on this jim ,one can't be equal with another that he is in subjection to.

[Angryamerican]

Wow - I actually agree with you DRS!

So you bought in to the spin as well :))

We are talking about prophecy and the purpose of prophecy no one said anything about timetable.

But i do understand you have to have that view or otherwise you would have to admit you are wrong. ;)

[Angryamerican]

In your opinion, according to your limited understanding and preconceptions. Jesus being subject to the Father has nothing to do with His Divine nature.

Nothing at all.

Can you explain this verse Jim it seems to contradict your view ?

Heb 2:16 For truly He did not take the nature of angels, but He took hold of the seed of Abraham.

[Tucson Jim]

I have to agree with daniel on this jim ,one can't be equal with another that he is in subjection to.

Unless "one" is a Triune Being - like God!

[Tucson Jim]

So you bought in to the spin as well :))

We are talking about prophecy and the purpose of prophecy no one said anything about timetable.

But i do understand you have to have that view or otherwise you would have to admit you are wrong. ;)

Please spare me the condescension.

I don't "have" to have any view.

I have the view because I believe it's the truth.

Just like you . . .

[Tucson Jim]

Can you explain this verse Jim it seems to contradict your view ?

Heb 2:16 For truly He did not take the nature of angels, but He took hold of the seed of Abraham.

How does this contradict my view?

[DRS]

I think he needed to expand on it . . . well . . . see some people are kind of dense . . . :shhh:

Yes because if he does not then some people will believe all means all things including Almighty God

[DRS]

:)) What a joke.

Only someone who truly has no grasp on the Trinity would make such a ridiculous comparison.

How many gods are there in the trinity

[DRS]

What was the purpose of the prophecies ?

The prophecies would have brought hope to those suffering wondering was this going to be all there was, it let them know God had a plan to fix things

sonny even when Jesus was raised some though he would bring the kingdom then, but we know there were still prophecies left to be fulfilled from Daniel when Jesus was raised

6*When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7*He said to them: “It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction;

[DRS]

Unless "one" is a Triune Being - like God!

ALmmighty God is in subjection to Almighty God

The anointed of Almighty God is Almighty God?

[Tucson Jim]

Yes because if he does not then some people will believe all means all things including Almighty God

No matter how many ways you try to spin this, God is not a "thing", like I said in my first response to you.

So yes, all does mean all.

[Tucson Jim]

How many gods are there in the trinity

None.

However, there is ONE GOD.

[Tucson Jim]

ALmmighty God is in subjection to Almighty God

The anointed of Almighty God is Almighty God?

Finally! I knew you could get it! :clap:

[drmilo]

I have to agree with daniel on this jim ,one can't be equal with another that he is in subjection to.

Our Declaration of Independence says that "we hold these TRUTHS to be self evident: That all men are created EQUAL ...."

If all men are created equal, but some people hold positions of power that give them authority over other people -- that, in essence, put those without power in subjection to those with power -- are those people not equal? If not, what about the self-evident truth that we hold all people to be created equal?

Given what I have illustrated, wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between being of equal nature (created equal, in our case) and equal in authority?

Jesus and the Father are equal in nature -- because they are two persons of the same being -- but the Father clearly holds more authority than Jesus.

[drmilo]

Can you explain this verse Jim it seems to contradict your view ?

Heb 2:16 For truly He did not take the nature of angels, but He took hold of the seed of Abraham.

How does this contradict? It describes the incarnation!

God did not become an angel. God became a man. That's what that verse is saying.

[drmilo]

Not to derail the thread with bad news -- I had started a thread called "Prayers Needed" that I can't seem to find right now (not that I'm in any frame of mind to try...)

My sister, who was diagnosed with lymphoma a few months ago, passed away on friday, June 27. She was 44. The lymphoma, it seems, was very agressive. The chemo treatments succeeded in erradicating it from her blood, but it had passed, also, into her spinal fluid. While they were tryiing to treat it there, it progressed into her brain. When this happened, they put her on radiation therapy. Sadly, it didn't work, and she passed on Friday.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is the thread I most frequent, and I don't have the energy right now to go searching for the other thread I started on this topic.

[DRS]

None.

However, there is ONE GOD.

So if Jehovah alone is Most High then no one on else could be espicially one who is anointed of God and a servant of God

[DRS]

Not to derail the thread with bad news -- I had started a thread called "Prayers Needed" that I can't seem to find right now (not that I'm in any frame of mind to try...)

My sister, who was diagnosed with lymphoma a few months ago, passed away on friday, June 27. She was 44. The lymphoma, it seems, was very agressive. The chemo treatments succeeded in erradicating it from her blood, but it had passed, also, into her spinal fluid. While they were tryiing to treat it there, it progressed into her brain. When this happened, they put her on radiation therapy. Sadly, it didn't work, and she passed on Friday.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is the thread I most frequent, and I don't have the energy right now to go searching for the other thread I started on this topic.

I am very sorry to hear tht, and sorry for the loss to you and the entire family

[DRS]

How does this contradict? It describes the incarnation!

God did not become an angel. God became a man. That's what that verse is saying.

14*Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things, that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil; 15*and [that] he might emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery all through their lives. 16*For he is really not assisting angels at all, but he is assisting Abraham’s seed. 17*Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 18*For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test

actually it discusses the fact he came to Earth to die as a human and not for the angels. it creates more of a problem for the universalists, but notice he is the high priest to God, it does not say he is the high priest to himself

[DRS]

Our Declaration of Independence says that "we hold these TRUTHS to be self evident: That all men are created EQUAL ...."

If all men are created equal, but some people hold positions of power that give them authority over other people -- that, in essence, put those without power in subjection to those with power -- are those people not equal? If not, what about the self-evident truth that we hold all people to be created equal?

Given what I have illustrated, wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between being of equal nature (created equal, in our case) and equal in authority?

Jesus and the Father are equal in nature -- because they are two persons of the same being -- but the Father clearly holds more authority than Jesus.

First off Jehovah is never ever spoken with any sort of title that denotes a starting point, never called the first born, beginning of creation or begotten, He is called Most High Alone

No man can see God and live

No man has ever seen God, Moses just got a glimpsse of rear or glory and that needed protection from, when Moses would come from the mountain his face would glow and emit rays, nothing like this is ever recorded happening around Jesus, people could always see Jesus in fact Stephen sees him at the right hand of God

[God is My Rock]

Our Declaration of Independence says that "we hold these TRUTHS to be self evident: That all men are created EQUAL ...."

If all men are created equal, but some people hold positions of power that give them authority over other people -- that, in essence, put those without power in subjection to those with power -- are those people not equal? If not, what about the self-evident truth that we hold all people to be created equal?

Given what I have illustrated, wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between being of equal nature (created equal, in our case) and equal in authority?

Jesus and the Father are equal in nature -- because they are two persons of the same being -- but the Father clearly holds more authority than Jesus.

Long time no talk :)

You have used this argument in the past, and I still respectfully disagree.

First the declaration only refers to the assumed dignity of man. It does not imply anything about equality concerning talents, ability, power, resources, etc...

It is not a blanket equality, very specific.

Second how can someone said to be "GOD" not have the complete and full authority and power of GOD?

There is no mention of Jesus ever posessing equal power or authority with our Father. There is one and only one whose authority and power must be obeyed by all, (including Jesus), and that is our Father in heaven.

Jesus is God's son, equal in unity of purpose, but begotten of God.

[Haplo]

One thousand two hundred and thirteen pages of "is too" "is not". Wow!!

[Warrior4God]

Not to derail the thread with bad news -- I had started a thread called "Prayers Needed" that I can't seem to find right now (not that I'm in any frame of mind to try...)

My sister, who was diagnosed with lymphoma a few months ago, passed away on friday, June 27. She was 44. The lymphoma, it seems, was very agressive. The chemo treatments succeeded in erradicating it from her blood, but it had passed, also, into her spinal fluid. While they were tryiing to treat it there, it progressed into her brain. When this happened, they put her on radiation therapy. Sadly, it didn't work, and she passed on Friday.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is the thread I most frequent, and I don't have the energy right now to go searching for the other thread I started on this topic.

I pray that God will strengthen you and your family and that the hope is foremost in your mind.

[Warrior4God]

Long time no talk :)

You have used this argument in the past, and I still respectfully disagree.

First the declaration only refers to the assumed dignity of man. It does not imply anything about equality concerning talents, ability, power, resources, etc...

It is not a blanket equality, very specific.

Second how can someone said to be "GOD" not have the complete and full authority and power of GOD?

There is no mention of Jesus ever posessing equal power or authority with our Father. There is one and only one whose authority and power must be obeyed by all, (including Jesus), and that is our Father in heaven.

Jesus is God's son, equal in unity of purpose, but begotten of God.

The God of logic that gave us logic to understand who God is and his authority has shown his authority over Jesus from the day he was born and will have authority forever.

Jesus never made himself equal to God and never claimed equality.

Why?

Jesus was logical.

[CatholicDefender]

Is that kinda like the serpent being satan to ?

Yep! The Dragon, the serpent are both symbols of the Devil! Unlike Ozzie, I'll not tattoo that on my chest!

[Haplo]

Yep! The Dragon, the serpent are both symbols of the Devil! Unlike Ozzie, I'll not tattoo that on my chest!Of the subject I know but I just thought of the old American flag of the coiled snake and the words "don't tread on me". Why would a Christian nation use a symbol of the Devil to represent its self?

[ralittlefield]

Not to derail the thread with bad news -- I had started a thread called "Prayers Needed" that I can't seem to find right now (not that I'm in any frame of mind to try...)

My sister, who was diagnosed with lymphoma a few months ago, passed away on friday, June 27. She was 44. The lymphoma, it seems, was very agressive. The chemo treatments succeeded in erradicating it from her blood, but it had passed, also, into her spinal fluid. While they were tryiing to treat it there, it progressed into her brain. When this happened, they put her on radiation therapy. Sadly, it didn't work, and she passed on Friday.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is the thread I most frequent, and I don't have the energy right now to go searching for the other thread I started on this topic.

I am so sorry to hear that. Please be assured that you and your family have my prayers.

[Warrior4God]

wonder why some good questions go unanswered

Just curious.

[Angryamerican]

How does this contradict my view?

You said Jesus has the divine nature of God ?

[Angryamerican]

How does this contradict? It describes the incarnation!

God did not become an angel. God became a man. That's what that verse is saying.

It says he took on the nature of men and you guys were trying to say Jesus was divine and he had the divine nature of God.

[Angryamerican]

Not to derail the thread with bad news -- I had started a thread called "Prayers Needed" that I can't seem to find right now (not that I'm in any frame of mind to try...)

My sister, who was diagnosed with lymphoma a few months ago, passed away on friday, June 27. She was 44. The lymphoma, it seems, was very agressive. The chemo treatments succeeded in erradicating it from her blood, but it had passed, also, into her spinal fluid. While they were tryiing to treat it there, it progressed into her brain. When this happened, they put her on radiation therapy. Sadly, it didn't work, and she passed on Friday.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is the thread I most frequent, and I don't have the energy right now to go searching for the other thread I started on this topic.

I am very sorry to hear this.

[37818]

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?

<snip> <go to op for text>

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.Comments?

The Trinity teaching is an explanation of the Godhead. But there are other explanations also.

Tritheism - that there are three Gods.
Modalism - that there are three manifistation of the One God - not three persons.
Unitarianism - that there is One God - the Son of God is not God or a god.

The Trinity explanation is that there is only One true God. And that this One God is three Persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Arianism - holds that there is One God - and the Son of God - begotten of the Father before all time was - hence made because he is the Son begotten.

There are these five views of God here, all claim to be Christian. Only one or none of these claims can be correct.

The Trinity is an explanation.
Arianism is an explanation.
Unitarianism is an explanation.
Tritheism is an explanation.
Modalism is an explation.

Unitarianism denies the deity of Christ and his pre-existence.

Arianism denies the deity of Christ and teaches his pre-existence by which everything else was made.

Modalist deny that there are three persons in the Godhead. Teaching that God is One Person revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Tritheist deny there is realy only one God - and teach that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarians teach that there is only One true God the Father, and the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit of God. That these three Persons are three persons and are the One God.

Now all five views have their understanding of holy scriptures which in their view supports their interpretations.

[Warrior4God]

The Trinity is an explanation.
Arianism is an explanation.
Unitarianism is an explanation.
Tritheism is an explanation.
Modalism is an explation.



Out of these five the only one IMO that can be substantiated by the OT is Unitarian.

There are far too many verses used from the OT that have been shown to be mistranslated and misunderstood.

In fact there is not one that has not been shown so.


As I look back and do my best to be unbiased I would say that the Unitarian view has been shown to be more logical and scriptural.

Ya'll know me, the unbiased Warrior lol.

[Angryamerican]

The Trinity is an explanation.
Arianism is an explanation.
Unitarianism is an explanation.
Tritheism is an explanation.
Modalism is an explation.



Out of these five the only one IMO that can be substantiated by the OT is Unitarian.

There are far too many verses used from the OT that have been shown to be mistranslated and misunderstood.

In fact there is not one that has not been shown so.


As I look back and do my best to be unbiased I would say that the Unitarian view has been shown to be more logical and scriptural.

Ya'll know me, the unbiased Warrior lol.

Now if only the OT mentioned that God had an only begotten son :think::lol: Sorry could not resist ol biased one :lol:

[DRS]

Now if only the OT mentioned that God had an only begotten son :think::lol: Sorry could not resist ol biased one :lol:

Do you think God views the bible OT and NT

It seems to the bible is one continous book, that contains things only understandable after studying it in it's entirety.

One can refer to books before Matthew to get a better understaing of God, Jesus and the holy spirit and the use of the word god.

By reading Matthew through Revelation many prophecies become better understood.

At the end of the day you need the entire bible in order to understand the bible

No wonder Paul could say the Word of God is alive and exerts power

[37818]

The Trinity is an explanation.
Arianism is an explanation.
Unitarianism is an explanation.
Tritheism is an explanation.
Modalism is an explation.



Out of these five the only one IMO that can be substantiated by the OT is Unitarian.

There are far too many verses used from the OT that have been shown to be mistranslated and misunderstood.

In fact there is not one that has not been shown so.


As I look back and do my best to be unbiased I would say that the Unitarian view has been shown to be more logical and scriptural.

Ya'll know me, the unbiased Warrior lol.

Hi Warrior4God,

Who is God to you? Do you know Him personally?

The Psalmist wrote, "God looked forth from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any man of understanding, that did seek after God. Every one of them is unclean, they are together become impure; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." - Psalm 53:3,4. JPS.


Best regards,
37818

[37818]

Now if only the OT mentioned that God had an only begotten son :think::lol: Sorry could not resist ol biased one :lol:

In the Proverb it is asked, " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" - Proverbs 30:4.

The Psalmist wrote, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." -- Psalm 2:7.

Christians understand this to speak of the bodily resurrection of God's Son (see Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.")
)

[Angryamerican]

In the Proverb it is asked, " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" - Proverbs 30:4.

The Psalmist wrote, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." -- Psalm 2:7.

Christians understand this to speak of the bodily resurrection of God's Son (see Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.")
)

Who is the psalmist ?

Sorry this is not saying what you are insinuating.

Pro 30:4 Who has gone up to Heaven and has come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in His garments? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar.
Pro 30:7 I have asked two things from You; do not deny them before I die;
Pro 30:8 remove far from me vanity and a lying word; give me neither poverty or riches; tear for me my portion of bread,
Pro 30:9 lest I be full and deceive, and say, Who is Jehovah? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and violate the name of my God.

[DRS]

The writer of Psalm 2 is David it is a messianic Psalm

[ralittlefield]

Who is the psalmist ?

Sorry this is not saying what you are insinuating.

Pro 30:4 Who has gone up to Heaven and has come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in His garments? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar.
Pro 30:7 I have asked two things from You; do not deny them before I die;
Pro 30:8 remove far from me vanity and a lying word; give me neither poverty or riches; tear for me my portion of bread,
Pro 30:9 lest I be full and deceive, and say, Who is Jehovah? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and violate the name of my God.

What do you mean?

It seems to me that Acts 13 clearly IS saying that Psalms 2 refers to Jesus.

[Angryamerican]

What do you mean?

It seems to me that Acts 13 clearly IS saying that Psalms 2 refers to Jesus.

The only thing that proves anything about Christ being the messiah is the nt.

Now try to prove he is by the ot

[Warrior4God]

Hi Warrior4God,

Who is God to you? Do you know Him personally?

The Psalmist wrote, "God looked forth from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any man of understanding, that did seek after God. Every one of them is unclean, they are together become impure; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." - Psalm 53:3,4. JPS.


Best regards,
37818

Hi and yes I believe I do know God intimately as he talks to me and I talk to him and he has personally gave me hope through Christ Jesus.

[Warrior4God]

In response to AA....................If you don't believe the OT made known that Christ would come then there is nothing I can do to change your mind about it even when after the fall of Adam it was made known and continued through the OT.


In Genesis he is the seed of the woman (3:15 - KJV).
In Exodus he is the Passover Lamb (12:11).
In Leviticus he is the High Priest (21:10).
In Numbers he is the one lifted on a pole who gives healing (21:9).
In Deuteronomy he is the prophet from among his brothers (18:15).
In Joshua he is the captain of the Lord’s host (5:14 - KJV).
In Judges he is the stone that crushes the heads of his enemies (9:53 - KJV).
In Ruth he is the kinsman-redeemer (3:9).
In 1 Samuel he is the ark and mercy seat before whom pagan gods bow (5:3).
In 2 Samuel he is the King—declared by prophets and anointed with oil (5:3).
In 1 Kings he is the true Temple where people meet God (8:11).
In 2 Kings he is the great miracle worker (2:9).
In 1 Chronicles he is the descendant of Adam who will rule forever (1:1).
In 2 Chronicles he is the child-king hidden and protected from his enemies (22:11).
In Ezra he is the teacher well-versed in the Law of Moses (7:10).
In Nehemiah he is the one who remembers us with favor (5:19).
In Esther he is the gold scepter of mercy in the hand of God the King (5:2).
In Job he is the daysman, the mediator between God and man, whom Job longed for (9:33).
In Psalms he is the stone the builders rejected (118:22).
In Proverbs he is the Word fitly spoken (25:11 - KJV).
In Ecclesiastes he is that which gives life meaning (2:25).
In Song of Solomon he is the lover and our beloved (2:16 - KJV).
In Isaiah he is the son of the virgin (7:14).
In Jeremiah he is the source of living waters (2:13).
In Lamentations he is the hope whose compassions are new every morning (3:23).
In Ezekiel he is the one who gives life to dry bones (37:11).
In Daniel he is the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven (7:13).
In Hosea he is the faithful husband who buys back his unfaithful wife (3:2).
In Joel he is the one who pours out the Lord’s spirit on all people (2:28).
In Amos he is God’s plumbline, making the straight and crooked obvious (7:8).
In Obadiah he is the deliverance on Mt. Zion (v. 17).
In Jonah he is the sign—three days and nights in the heart of the earth (1:17).
In Micah he is the peace that causes all nations to beat their swords into plowblades (4:3).
In Nahum he is God’s refuge to the good and God’s vengeance to the wicked (1:7).
In Habakkuk he is the righteous one who lived by faith (2:4).
In Zephaniah he is the one who will restore the fortunes of Judah (3:20).
In Haggai he is the desired of all nations (2:7).
In Zechariah he is the smitten shepherd (13:7 - KJV).
In Malachi he is the “sun of righteousness” risen with healing in his wings (4:2). [1]


Who do you say that he is?

And he is so much more:
Like Abel’s sacrifice, he is the sacrifice that is pleasing to God.
Like Noah’s ark, he is the shelter from God’s wrath.
Like Moses’ staff, he is the one who makes a way for us in impossible situations.
Like manna, he is the bread from heaven.
Like Joshua’s pile of rocks, he is the faithful witness.
Like Shamgar’s ox goad, he is our victory against certain death. Like Gideon’s fleece, he is God’s sure sign that gives hope to the hopeless.
Like Samson’s jawbone, he is of little value to the worldly but is the key to victory in life.
Like Joab’s trumpet, he is sounding a clear call to gather his faithful army.
Like Elijah’s mantle, he is both a shelter from the storms of the world and the power of God in the hands of a faithful believer.
Like the “fourth man” in Daniel, he is our protection from fiery extinction.


Who do you say that he is?

The godly characteristics of all Old Testament heroes are embodied in Christ, the ultimate hero:
Like Noah, he prepared his life before the storm.
Like Abraham, he obeyed God and went where God led him.
Like Isaac, he willingly accepted the bride provided by his Father.
Like Jacob, he learned obedience through the things that he suffered.
Like Joseph, he kept his heart from bitterness although he was mistreated by those around him.
Like Moses, he was meek before God.
Like Joshua, he was a fearless leader.
Like Othniel, he forsook worldly wealth to deliver God’s people.
Like Ehud, he ignored the fact that the world thought him cursed.
Like Deborah, he did not mind breaking cultural stereotypes.
Like Gideon, he tore down altars of false religion.
Like Jephthah, he had family problems but overcame them.
Like Samson, he was aggressive and sought an occasion against the enemy.
Like Samuel, he kept himself pure when the priests around him were corrupt.
Like David, he started with a small, untrained group but trained them faithfully.
Like Solomon, he grew in wisdom until it was vast.
Like Elijah, he combined his words with power.
Like Job, he was a righteous sufferer.
Like Esther, he concealed his true identity until the proper time.
Like Isaiah, he continually set before the people the future hope.
Like Jeremiah, he was passionate, even weeping for his people.
Like Daniel, he prayed fervently to God.


Who do you say that he is?

Jesus Christ is the “golden thread” that holds together the Royal Tapestry of truth. He is the star out of Jacob. He is the “great light” foretold by Isaiah. He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. He is the one who unites the priesthood with the kingship. He is the king coming with salvation, and the king who comes in the name of the Lord.

The Messiah is pictured in so many ways in the Old Testament that it would be a daunting task indeed to list them. Some of the references to him are very clear and straightforward, while others are veiled to a greater or lesser extent. A brief overview of Genesis alone shows that there are many clear prophecies and foreshadowings of the coming Messiah:

He is the Last Adam, foreshadowed by the first Adam (1:27).
He is the seed of the woman (3:15).
He is the one who will shed his blood to cover the sins of man (3:21).
He is an ark, and those who take refuge in him will not perish in the Judgment (Chapters 6-8).
He is the Shemite with whom God is most blessed (9:26).
He is the “seed” of Abraham who will bless all the nations (12:3).
He is the promised child, as Isaac was (18:10).
He will destroy the wicked with fire (19:24).
He is the lamb Yahweh will provide for sacrifice (22:8).
He is the son willing unto death (22:9).
He walks with us to make our journey a success (24:40).
He is the seed of Isaac who will bless all nations (26:4).
He is the one whom the nations will serve and before whom the people will bow (27:29).
He is the stairway to God (28:12). He is the seed of Jacob who will bless all nations (28:14).
He is “Judah,” the praise of the Lord (29:35).
He is the faithful witness who witnesses our actions, both good and bad (31:44-52).
He wrestles with us, shows up our weaknesses, and works to make us into his image (32:24-30).
He is the one the nations will obey (49:10).
He, like Joseph, was the favorite son, betrayed by his brethren, tempted with evil, but finally elevated to the right hand of the ruler. Although others meant harm, God turned their actions into good that many might be saved (50:20).


Who do you say that he is?

The overview of the Messiah in Genesis that we just read is by no means exhaustive. A similar overview can be done for each book in the Old Testament because Jesus Christ, the Messiah of God, is its grand subject. Noah’s ark, Moses’ staff, etc., were all literal, physical things. Nevertheless, behind the literal meanings we can also see some of what God is communicating to us about Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.


I wish you would read more at this site AA link (http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=49)

[ralittlefield]

The only thing that proves anything about Christ being the messiah is the nt.

Now try to prove he is by the ot

Isaiah 53 is proof enough for me.

[Tucson Jim]

Our Declaration of Independence says that "we hold these TRUTHS to be self evident: That all men are created EQUAL ...."

If all men are created equal, but some people hold positions of power that give them authority over other people -- that, in essence, put those without power in subjection to those with power -- are those people not equal? If not, what about the self-evident truth that we hold all people to be created equal?

Given what I have illustrated, wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between being of equal nature (created equal, in our case) and equal in authority?

Jesus and the Father are equal in nature -- because they are two persons of the same being -- but the Father clearly holds more authority than Jesus.

:clap:

You also explained this quite nicely in another post:

"The problem, as I see it, is the definition we are working under for the word "equal."

Warrior is using the more liberal definition of the word "equal" -- that is two beings, people, persons, etc ... that are equal must be exactly alike in every way regarding power, authority, etc... This is a proper defintion when speaking in the language of math or science. Two oxygen molecules are equal to each other; two numbers regardless of form, are equal to each other if they have the exact same value -- 2 is equal to 4/2 is equal to 2 x 10^0 etc....

But is this the proper definition of equal when regarding people?

Our Declaration of Independence uses the word equal in it: "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..." Does this word mean that all men were created exactly alike? That because all men are equal, they do not have differences among them? That no man has more power, authority, talent etc than any other man? The fact that these same men set up a system of government and placed men in positions of power and authority over other men seems to me to say that this is not what is meant by the word "equal" in this context. Clearly not all men are equal by using the definition that Warrior is using -- clearly all men are not created exactly alike. Some people are smarter than others; some people are born leaders, while others are born followers; some people can write, others can paint, others can act, others are good with numbers, others with math, others with science. Clearly, the definition of "equal" in the way Warrior is using the word does not fit in this context. So what does it mean? It means that all men are created with the same nature, and because we all have the same nature, we are all entitled to the protection of rights that each of us enjoys by virtue of our humanity. With this definition of the word, clearly some people can hold and wield authority, be placed in positions of power above other people, and also be subjected to other people. They are still equal, however, when putting it in the context of the Declaration of Independence's definition of the word equal.

Similarly, Jesus can be subjected to the Father, hold different functions given to him by the Father, and still be equal to the Father in their nature as God.
"

[Tucson Jim]

Not to derail the thread with bad news -- I had started a thread called "Prayers Needed" that I can't seem to find right now (not that I'm in any frame of mind to try...)

My sister, who was diagnosed with lymphoma a few months ago, passed away on friday, June 27. She was 44. The lymphoma, it seems, was very agressive. The chemo treatments succeeded in erradicating it from her blood, but it had passed, also, into her spinal fluid. While they were tryiing to treat it there, it progressed into her brain. When this happened, they put her on radiation therapy. Sadly, it didn't work, and she passed on Friday.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but this is the thread I most frequent, and I don't have the energy right now to go searching for the other thread I started on this topic.

Drmilo, I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. I will keep you and your family in my prayers.

[Tucson Jim]

So if Jehovah alone is Most High then no one on else could be espicially one who is anointed of God and a servant of God

Only if you assume God has a unitarian nature.

[Tucson Jim]

14*Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things, that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil; 15*and [that] he might emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery all through their lives. 16*For he is really not assisting angels at all, but he is assisting Abraham’s seed. 17*Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 18*For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test

actually it discusses the fact he came to Earth to die as a human and not for the angels. it creates more of a problem for the universalists, but notice he is the high priest to God, it does not say he is the high priest to himself

You ought to know better.

Trinitarians have told you a thousand times, we are not saying Jesus IS the Father.

For you to say "it does not say he is the high priest to himself" is disingenuous at best DRS.

Purposely mischaracterizing the views of others is a little desperate, don't you think?

Shame on you. :naughty:

[Tucson Jim]

First off Jehovah is never ever spoken with any sort of title that denotes a starting point, never called the first born, beginning of creation or begotten, He is called Most High Alone

No man can see God and live

No man has ever seen God, Moses just got a glimpsse of rear or glory and that needed protection from, when Moses would come from the mountain his face would glow and emit rays, nothing like this is ever recorded happening around Jesus, people could always see Jesus in fact Stephen sees him at the right hand of God


Whooooosssshhhh . . .

[the sound of you missing the point entirely]

[Tucson Jim]

The God of logic that gave us logic to understand who God is and his authority has shown his authority over Jesus from the day he was born and will have authority forever.

Jesus never made himself equal to God and never claimed equality.

Why?

Jesus was logical.

Discovering the nature of an omnipotent Being who exists in realms beyond our ability to "study" Him has nothing to do with "logic", and everything to do with "revelation".

[Tucson Jim]

wonder why some good questions go unanswered

Just curious.

Whacha talkin' about?

[Tucson Jim]

You said Jesus has the divine nature of God ?

He does . . . AND He took on the nature of man, according to the Bible.

[Tucson Jim]

It says he took on the nature of men and you guys were trying to say Jesus was divine and he had the divine nature of God.

We believe He has both, as you ought to know very well by now.

[Tucson Jim]

The Trinity is an explanation.
Arianism is an explanation.
Unitarianism is an explanation.
Tritheism is an explanation.
Modalism is an explation.



Out of these five the only one IMO that can be substantiated by the OT is Unitarian.

There are far too many verses used from the OT that have been shown to be mistranslated and misunderstood.

In fact there is not one that has not been shown so.


As I look back and do my best to be unbiased I would say that the Unitarian view has been shown to be more logical and scriptural.

Ya'll know me, the unbiased Warrior lol.

:lol:

[Tucson Jim]

Do you think God views the bible OT and NT

It seems to the bible is one continous book, that contains things only understandable after studying it in it's entirety.

One can refer to books before Matthew to get a better understaing of God, Jesus and the holy spirit and the use of the word god.

By reading Matthew through Revelation many prophecies become better understood.

At the end of the day you need the entire bible in order to understand the bible

No wonder Paul could say the Word of God is alive and exerts power

Totally agree!

[DRS]

Only if you assume God has a unitarian nature.

Do not have to assume anything

4*“Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah

[Tucson Jim]

Do not have to assume anything

4*“Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah

I believe God is One also.

Like I said, you assume His nature is unitarian.

[DRS]

The only thing that proves anything about Christ being the messiah is the nt.

Now try to prove he is by the ot

Question for you Sonny how do you think Jesus and those who listened to the one sent by God proved he was the promised one?

Besides the miracles

[DRS]

I believe God is One also.

Like I said, you assume His nature is unitarian.

It says Jehovah is one coupled with Psalm 83 where it says Jehovah alone is most high seems to make it pretty clear

[DRS]

You ought to know better.

Trinitarians have told you a thousand times, we are not saying Jesus IS the Father.

For you to say "it does not say he is the high priest to himself" is disingenuous at best DRS.

Purposely mischaracterizing the views of others is a little desperate, don't you think?

Shame on you. :naughty:

You say Jesus is Almighty God do you not?

Jesus serves as priest to God does he not?

[Tucson Jim]

It says Jehovah is one coupled with Psalm 83 where it says Jehovah alone is most high seems to make it pretty clear

It is "clear" to you based upon your assumption of a unitarian nature.

[DRS]

It is "clear" to you based upon your assumption of a unitarian nature.

Does it say Jehovah you God is three person who make one person?

[Tucson Jim]

You say Jesus is Almighty God do you not?

Of course, and as you well know, we believe that within the nature of the Almighty God are 3 persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So Jesus is not the Father, though He shares the nature of God with the Father.

Knowing what you know, being on this thread for as long as you have, to say "high priest to himself" is disingenouous at best.

You know better DRS.

You know that's not what we believe.

[DRS]

Of course, and as you well know, we believe that within the nature of the Almighty God are 3 persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So Jesus is not the Father, though He shares the nature of God with the Father.

Knowing what you know, being on this thread for as long as you have, to say "high priest to himself" is disingenouous at best.

You know better DRS.

You know that's not what we believe.

Jesus is not Jehovah is what you are saying right?

[Tucson Jim]

Does it say Jehovah you God is three person who make one person?

Now you're being facetious. We have never said three person make one person.

The Bible says the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God.

So, yes, I count 3 Persons, who make up one God.

Three Persons, one Being.

As you know . . .

[Tucson Jim]

Jesus is not Jehovah is what you are saying right?

Have you really been in this thread this long, and still don't have a clue what Trinitarians believe?

Or are you just jerkin' my chain?

[DRS]

Of course, and as you well know, we believe that within the nature of the Almighty God are 3 persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So Jesus is not the Father, though He shares the nature of God with the Father.

Knowing what you know, being on this thread for as long as you have, to say "high priest to himself" is disingenouous at best.

You know better DRS.

You know that's not what we believe.

The bible says no man has seen God so how can Jesus share that nature if he was seen?

[DRS]

Now you're being facetious. We have never said three person make one person.

The Bible says the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God.

So, yes, I count 3 Persons, who make up one God.

Three Persons, one Being.

As you know . . .

The bible also calls Moses God and the Elohim(God) is used in connection with others

[Tucson Jim]

The bible says no man has seen God so how can Jesus share that nature if he was seen?

Nice deflection . . .

[Tucson Jim]

The bible also calls Moses God and the Elohim(God) is used in connection with others

Been through that a thousand times . . .

[DRS]

Nice deflection . . .

It is not a deflection it is straight from the bible.

How many people in the bible are called Most High?

[DRS]

Been through that a thousand times . . .

It does not say a Elohim in hebrew it just says Elohim

So it seems that the term God is used multiple times in connection with others besides Jehovah

[Tucson Jim]

It is not a deflection it is straight from the bible.

How many people in the bible are called Most High?

It's a deflection from the point that you mischaracterized what we believe. Either that, or after months on the thread, and over 1600 posts, you still do not have a clue what Trinitarians believe.

Either scenario is not pretty . . .

[Tucson Jim]

It does not say a Elohim in hebrew it just says Elohim

So it seems that the term God is used multiple times in connection with others besides Jehovah

A trivial point we have covered hundreds of times in this thread alone.

[Angryamerican]

Nice deflection . . .

No not really, Either Jesus is God or not ? Has God been seen by man?

[Angryamerican]

It is not a deflection it is straight from the bible.

How many people in the bible are called Most High?

Never Jesus or the Holy spirit nor any man.

[37818]

It is interesting to note that non-trinitarians can not get the trinitarain understandings correct. Yet, trinitarians can correctly present, trithism, modalism, Arianism, unitarianism, correctly.

Then non-trinitarain views involve some key denials:

Arianism denies the Son of God is uncreated and co-eternal with the Father.

Modalism denies that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead are three Persons.

Tritheism denies that there is only One God.

Unitarianism denies the Trinity teaching, denying the deity of the Son of God.

The trinity teaching holds that there is only One God. And that the Persons: Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are the One God.

[Angryamerican]

In response to AA....................If you don't believe the OT made known that Christ would come then there is nothing I can do to change your mind about it even when after the fall of Adam it was made known and continued through the OT.


In Genesis he is the seed of the woman (3:15 - KJV).
In Exodus he is the Passover Lamb (12:11).
In Leviticus he is the High Priest (21:10).
In Numbers he is the one lifted on a pole who gives healing (21:9).
In Deuteronomy he is the prophet from among his brothers (18:15).
In Joshua he is the captain of the Lord’s host (5:14 - KJV).
In Judges he is the stone that crushes the heads of his enemies (9:53 - KJV).
In Ruth he is the kinsman-redeemer (3:9).
In 1 Samuel he is the ark and mercy seat before whom pagan gods bow (5:3).
In 2 Samuel he is the King—declared by prophets and anointed with oil (5:3).
In 1 Kings he is the true Temple where people meet God (8:11).
In 2 Kings he is the great miracle worker (2:9).
In 1 Chronicles he is the descendant of Adam who will rule forever (1:1).
In 2 Chronicles he is the child-king hidden and protected from his enemies (22:11).
In Ezra he is the teacher well-versed in the Law of Moses (7:10).
In Nehemiah he is the one who remembers us with favor (5:19).
In Esther he is the gold scepter of mercy in the hand of God the King (5:2).
In Job he is the daysman, the mediator between God and man, whom Job longed for (9:33).
In Psalms he is the stone the builders rejected (118:22).
In Proverbs he is the Word fitly spoken (25:11 - KJV).
In Ecclesiastes he is that which gives life meaning (2:25).
In Song of Solomon he is the lover and our beloved (2:16 - KJV).
In Isaiah he is the son of the virgin (7:14).
In Jeremiah he is the source of living waters (2:13).
In Lamentations he is the hope whose compassions are new every morning (3:23).
In Ezekiel he is the one who gives life to dry bones (37:11).
In Daniel he is the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven (7:13).
In Hosea he is the faithful husband who buys back his unfaithful wife (3:2).
In Joel he is the one who pours out the Lord’s spirit on all people (2:28).
In Amos he is God’s plumbline, making the straight and crooked obvious (7:8).
In Obadiah he is the deliverance on Mt. Zion (v. 17).
In Jonah he is the sign—three days and nights in the heart of the earth (1:17).
In Micah he is the peace that causes all nations to beat their swords into plowblades (4:3).
In Nahum he is God’s refuge to the good and God’s vengeance to the wicked (1:7).
In Habakkuk he is the righteous one who lived by faith (2:4).
In Zephaniah he is the one who will restore the fortunes of Judah (3:20).
In Haggai he is the desired of all nations (2:7).
In Zechariah he is the smitten shepherd (13:7 - KJV).
In Malachi he is the “sun of righteousness” risen with healing in his wings (4:2). [1]


Who do you say that he is?

And he is so much more:
Like Abel’s sacrifice, he is the sacrifice that is pleasing to God.
Like Noah’s ark, he is the shelter from God’s wrath.
Like Moses’ staff, he is the one who makes a way for us in impossible situations.
Like manna, he is the bread from heaven.
Like Joshua’s pile of rocks, he is the faithful witness.
Like Shamgar’s ox goad, he is our victory against certain death. Like Gideon’s fleece, he is God’s sure sign that gives hope to the hopeless.
Like Samson’s jawbone, he is of little value to the worldly but is the key to victory in life.
Like Joab’s trumpet, he is sounding a clear call to gather his faithful army.
Like Elijah’s mantle, he is both a shelter from the storms of the world and the power of God in the hands of a faithful believer.
Like the “fourth man” in Daniel, he is our protection from fiery extinction.


Who do you say that he is?

The godly characteristics of all Old Testament heroes are embodied in Christ, the ultimate hero:
Like Noah, he prepared his life before the storm.
Like Abraham, he obeyed God and went where God led him.
Like Isaac, he willingly accepted the bride provided by his Father.
Like Jacob, he learned obedience through the things that he suffered.
Like Joseph, he kept his heart from bitterness although he was mistreated by those around him.
Like Moses, he was meek before God.
Like Joshua, he was a fearless leader.
Like Othniel, he forsook worldly wealth to deliver God’s people.
Like Ehud, he ignored the fact that the world thought him cursed.
Like Deborah, he did not mind breaking cultural stereotypes.
Like Gideon, he tore down altars of false religion.
Like Jephthah, he had family problems but overcame them.
Like Samson, he was aggressive and sought an occasion against the enemy.
Like Samuel, he kept himself pure when the priests around him were corrupt.
Like David, he started with a small, untrained group but trained them faithfully.
Like Solomon, he grew in wisdom until it was vast.
Like Elijah, he combined his words with power.
Like Job, he was a righteous sufferer.
Like Esther, he concealed his true identity until the proper time.
Like Isaiah, he continually set before the people the future hope.
Like Jeremiah, he was passionate, even weeping for his people.
Like Daniel, he prayed fervently to God.


Who do you say that he is?

Jesus Christ is the “golden thread” that holds together the Royal Tapestry of truth. He is the star out of Jacob. He is the “great light” foretold by Isaiah. He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. He is the one who unites the priesthood with the kingship. He is the king coming with salvation, and the king who comes in the name of the Lord.

The Messiah is pictured in so many ways in the Old Testament that it would be a daunting task indeed to list them. Some of the references to him are very clear and straightforward, while others are veiled to a greater or lesser extent. A brief overview of Genesis alone shows that there are many clear prophecies and foreshadowings of the coming Messiah:

He is the Last Adam, foreshadowed by the first Adam (1:27).
He is the seed of the woman (3:15).
He is the one who will shed his blood to cover the sins of man (3:21).
He is an ark, and those who take refuge in him will not perish in the Judgment (Chapters 6-8).
He is the Shemite with whom God is most blessed (9:26).
He is the “seed” of Abraham who will bless all the nations (12:3).
He is the promised child, as Isaac was (18:10).
He will destroy the wicked with fire (19:24).
He is the lamb Yahweh will provide for sacrifice (22:8).
He is the son willing unto death (22:9).
He walks with us to make our journey a success (24:40).
He is the seed of Isaac who will bless all nations (26:4).
He is the one whom the nations will serve and before whom the people will bow (27:29).
He is the stairway to God (28:12). He is the seed of Jacob who will bless all nations (28:14).
He is “Judah,” the praise of the Lord (29:35).
He is the faithful witness who witnesses our actions, both good and bad (31:44-52).
He wrestles with us, shows up our weaknesses, and works to make us into his image (32:24-30).
He is the one the nations will obey (49:10).
He, like Joseph, was the favorite son, betrayed by his brethren, tempted with evil, but finally elevated to the right hand of the ruler. Although others meant harm, God turned their actions into good that many might be saved (50:20).


Who do you say that he is?

The overview of the Messiah in Genesis that we just read is by no means exhaustive. A similar overview can be done for each book in the Old Testament because Jesus Christ, the Messiah of God, is its grand subject. Noah’s ark, Moses’ staff, etc., were all literal, physical things. Nevertheless, behind the literal meanings we can also see some of what God is communicating to us about Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.


I wish you would read more at this site AA link (http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=49)

I sure will warrior thanks.

[Tucson Jim]

No not really, Either Jesus is God or not ? Has God been seen by man?

Yes, it was, in fact, a deflection from our discussion.

[Tucson Jim]

It is interesting to note that non-trinitarians can not get the trinitarain understandings correct. Yet, trinitarians can correctly present, trithism, modalism, Arianism, unitarianism, correctly.

Then non-trinitarain views involve some key denials:

Arianism denies the Son of God is uncreated and co-eternal with the Father.

Modalism denies the the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead are three Persons.

Tritheism denies that there is only One God.

Unitarianism denies the Trinity teaching, denying the deity of the Son of God.

The trinity teaching holds that there is only One God. And that the Persons: Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are the One God.

All true. Excellent points!

And welcome to the Trinity thread!

[Angryamerican]

Yes, it was, in fact, a deflection from our discussion.

Was God ever seen by man ?

[37818]

Was God ever seen by man ?Yes.

According to the John the Apostle, only by seeing the Son of God (John 1:18. KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV.)

Jesus is quoted to have side, ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ." - John 14:9. (see Genesis 12:7; John 8:56.)

[Angryamerican]

According to the John the Apostle, only by seeing the Son of God (John 1:18. KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV.)

Jesus is quoted to have side, ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ." - John 14:9. (see Genesis 12:7; John 8:56.)

Looks like we have a problem. If you believe Jesus is God then surely the nt writers would know Jesus to be God ? But yet they write this.

1Jn 4:12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

We also know in the ot that man can't see God and live.

[37818]

Looks like we have a problem. If you believe Jesus is God then surely the nt writers would know Jesus to be God ? But yet they write this.

1Jn 4:12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

We also know in the ot that man can't see God and live.This is evidence you did not read what I cited or wrote. And if you did you did not understand it. Sorry.

So do you know God dwells in you? And if you were to explain to another how to have God dwelling in one's self, what would you explain?

Moses saw God and lived! "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." -- Exodus 33:11. And according to John 1:18 this was the Son of God.

[Tucson Jim]

Was God ever seen by man ?

Come on AA - we have done this dance so many times.

Can you not even acknowledge that you butted in on a conversation you apparently did not even read?

Here let me help:

"Yes Jim, you're right, by reading over your conversation with DRS, I see how you were discussing DRS' mischaracterization of Trinitarian belief when he started asking you questions about the Trinity we have covered many times, an obvious deflection.

But hey, on another topic entirely, has anyone seen God at any time?"

[Tucson Jim]

This is evidence you did not read what I cited or wrote. And if you did you did not understand it. Sorry.

So do you know God dwells in you? And if you were to explain to another how to have God dwelling in one's self, what would you explain?

Moses saw God and lived! "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." -- Exodus 33:11. And according to John 1:18 this was the Son of God.

Good point! In the same vein, we have: "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen 32:30

Or how about Isa 6: 1,5?

"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."

[37818]

Good point! In the same vein, we have: "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen 32:30

Or how about Isa 6: 1,5?

"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."

Yes.

The Apostle John wrote this of Jesus of thoses passages, " He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." -- John 12:39, 40.(Isaiah 6:5, 9-10.)

[Fire Watch]

It is interesting to note that non-trinitarians can not get the trinitarain understandings correct. Yet, trinitarians can correctly present, trithism, modalism, Arianism, unitarianism, correctly.

All true. Excellent points!

Not quite. I'm not a trinitarian in any sense, yet I bet I could defend the trinity better than 95% of those that adhere to the trinitarian Christology/Theology Proper.

[Angryamerican]

This is evidence you did not read what I cited or wrote. And if you did you did not understand it. Sorry.

So do you know God dwells in you? And if you were to explain to another how to have God dwelling in one's self, what would you explain?

Moses saw God and lived! "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." -- Exodus 33:11. And according to John 1:18 this was the Son of God.

So now you are trying to say Gods word contradicts itself ?

[Angryamerican]

Come on AA - we have done this dance so many times.

Can you not even acknowledge that you butted in on a conversation you apparently did not even read?

Here let me help:

"Yes Jim, you're right, by reading over your conversation with DRS, I see how you were discussing DRS' mischaracterization of Trinitarian belief when he started asking you questions about the Trinity we have covered many times, an obvious deflection.

But hey, on another topic entirely, has anyone seen God at any time?"

By your answer i see that question hits a nerve i'm sorry.

But it is a a perfectly logical question that is easy to answer by scripture but yet you didn't take it well probably because it will cast doubt if you answer it.

[Tucson Jim]

Not quite. I'm not a trinitarian in any sense, yet I bet I could defend the trinity better than 95% of those that adhere to the trinitarian Christology/Theology Proper.

True - You have already demonstrated more understanding of the Trinity than 99% of Trinitarians I know.

I guess I wasn't thinking about you . . . :)

[Tucson Jim]

By your answer i see that question hits a nerve i'm sorry.

But it is a a perfectly logical question that is easy to answer by scripture but yet you didn't take it well probably because it will cast doubt if you answer it.

:)) You've got bluster, I'll give you that.

The only problem is that we have already answered this point numerous times for you.

Yet you keep asking it.

Hoping for a different answer?

[Tucson Jim]

So now you are trying to say Gods word contradicts itself ?

I think maybe he's trying to say that your understanding of God's word needs a little work . . . :cool:

[drmilo]

The bible says no man has seen God so how can Jesus share that nature if he was seen?

How can Jesus have seen God if he's just a man -- and the Bible does say that Jesus has seen God.

[drmilo]

It does not say a Elohim in hebrew it just says Elohim

So it seems that the term God is used multiple times in connection with others besides Jehovah

A single word can be used in metaphorical context and hold different meaning that in literal contexts. It is clear from the context how the word is used. When used in connection with Jesus, the word God or elohim or theos is not being used in metaphorical context.

[37818]

Not quite. I'm not a trinitarian in any sense, yet I bet I could defend the trinity better than 95% of those that adhere to the trinitarian Christology/Theology Proper.

Cool,

Outline the Trinity without using the term Trinity.

Thanks,
37818

[drmilo]

Never Jesus or the Holy spirit nor any man.

The Bible says Jesus has seen God. Are you then, now, going to admit that Jesus is more than a man?

[Fire Watch]

Cool,

Outline the Trinity without using the term Trinity.

Thanks,
37818
Nah, I have nothing to prove. I have 372 posts in this thread. You're free to peruse them at your leisure.

[37818]

So now you are trying to say Gods word contradicts itself ?
From my pespective, an incorrect understanding of God's word will lead to a contradictory reading of it.

Unless one understands the Son of God to be the God who appears in the OT, yes, then the Bible indeed contradicts itself. (OT, NT.)

The Son of God is the God of Genesis 1:1, see John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, 17.

[Angryamerican]

:)) You've got bluster, I'll give you that.

The only problem is that we have already answered this point numerous times for you.

Yet you keep asking it.

Hoping for a different answer?

I just don't think my logical question has ever gotten a logical answer. No offense but i just don't get it ,that you can believe Jesus is God and then writers of the nt say no one has ever seen God at any time .

[Angryamerican]

I think maybe he's trying to say that your understanding of God's word needs a little work . . . :cool:

I think i am ok but notice he tries to post scripture that contradicts the scripture i post. ;)

[37818]

Nah, I have nothing to prove. I have 372 posts in this thread. You're free to peruse them at your leisure.

OK.
372 posts. http://forums.hannity.com/images/smilies/hannity/eusa_think.gif
If I see something of interest, I will cite it. And then we can see where it goes from there.

[Angryamerican]

How can Jesus have seen God if he's just a man -- and the Bible does say that Jesus has seen God.

So Jesus is still a man ? Hmm interesting. Don't the word of God say angels are greater then man if Jesus is still a man he isn't greater then the angels ?

[Angryamerican]

The Bible says Jesus has seen God. Are you then, now, going to admit that Jesus is more than a man?

If Jesus came from heaven he was not always a man was he ? Is Jesus still a man ?

[Angryamerican]

From my pespective, an incorrect understanding of God's word will lead to a contradictory reading of it.

Unless one understands the Son of God to be the God who appears in the OT, yes, then the Bible indeed contradicts itself. (OT, NT.)

The Son of God is the God of Genesis 1:1, see John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, 17.

Sorry i have been all through i do not nor believed Jesus to be God sorry.

[drmilo]

So Jesus is still a man ? Hmm interesting.

Did the point fly over your head, AA?

The bible says that "no man can see God and live"
Jesus, according to you, is just a man.
The Bible says that Jesus saw God, and lived.
Therefore, your understanding of Jesus being "just a man" must be faulty.
If no man can see God and live, Jesus either did not see God or Jesus himself is more than a man.

Trinitarians believe that when the Bible says no man has seen God and lived, the word "God" is referring to "God the Father" the Person of the Godhead with the most authority. The word "God" is often used in the Bible as a synonym with "the Father" as Jesus uses the word God to mean "the Father." Jesus has seen God, and lived, therefore Jesus is more than a man. The Bible describes Jesus as the Son of God. The Jews understood the term "Son of God" to be a statement of equality with God. Jesus has seen God and lived. Therefore he is more than a man. He is God -- the second person of the Trinity.

[drmilo]

If Jesus came from heaven he was not always a man was he ? Is Jesus still a man ?

Jesus is both God and man.

[Tucson Jim]

OK.
372 posts. http://forums.hannity.com/images/smilies/hannity/eusa_think.gif
If I see something of interest, I will cite it. And then we can see where it goes from there.

FYI Fire Watch has been a trooper in this thread in demonstrating from Scripture that Jesus Christ is God. I personally have saved a number of his posts because I feel they are thorough and scripturally based.

Of course, we disagree on the nature of God and on the interpretation of some scripture, but the principal attack against the Trinity in this thread has been from those of the Arian/Unitarian persuasion. Fire Watch has been truly outstanding in countering those views.

As a result of Fire Watch and his excellent defense of the Deity of Christ, I do not believe Trinitarians and Oneness are that far apart regarding the nature of God. (Fire Watch may disagree!). I for one am very thankful for his participation in this thread.

[37818]

So Jesus is still a man ? Hmm interesting. Don't the word of God say angels are greater then man if Jesus is still a man he isn't greater then the angels ?

There is the explanation called the Trinity. And then there is the dual nature of Son of God. How He is both 100% man and at the same time 100% God.

John 1:1 explains something. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Two natures are even here, before He became a man (John 1:14.) The Word pre-existed. The word was "with God" making the Word someone else than God. And the Word "was God" showing the Word was the very same God He was also with. Two natures. One being God and the other NOT being God but "with God." This is important. God does not change (Malach 3:6) saying "I am the LORD, I change not." And since all appearences of God in the OT was really the Son, this was the Son of God as God saying this. This is important. God does not change. But also having a nature co-eternal with God - that nature with God can change. And did (John 1:3) by being the Creator(Colossians 1:16, 17.) By becoming human (John 1:14) By dying and rasing from the dead bodily and ascending to God to be our human medator (1 Timothy 2:5, 6.)

So right now Jesus Christ as an immortal man medates between His saved ones and God (1 Timothy 2:5.)

The writer to the Hebrews wrote, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." He was always God and has always been with God co-eternal not as God.

In the resurrection men who are saved will become like Jesus to be immortal (1 John 3:2) and being immoral like Jesus above the Angels of God. (1 Corinthians 6:3, "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?")

[Tucson Jim]

There is the explanation called the Trinity. And then there is the dual nature of Son of God. How He is both 100% man and at the same time 100% God.

John 1:1 explains something. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Two natures are even here, before He became a man (John 1:14.) The Word pre-existed. The word was "with God" making the Word someone else than God. And the Word "was God" showing the Word was the very same God He was also with. Two natures. One being God and the other NOT being God but "with God." This is important. God does not change (Malach 3:6) saying "I am the LORD, I change not." And since all appearences of God in the OT was really the Son, this was the Son of God as God saying this. This is important. God does not change. But also having a nature co-eternal with God - that nature with God can change. And did (John 1:3) by being the Creator(Colossians 1:16, 17.) By becoming human (John 1:14) By dying and rasing from the dead bodily and ascending to God to be our human medator (1 Timothy 2:5, 6.)

So right now Jesus Christ as an immortal man medates between His saved ones and God (1 Timothy 2:5.)

The writer to the Hebrews wrote, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." He was always God and has always been with God co-eternal not as God.

In the resurrection men who are saved will become like Jesus to be immortal (1 John 3:2) and being immoral like Jesus above the Angels of God. (1 Corinthians 6:3, "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?")

I don't think you meant to say "immoral like Jesus" in the last paragraph!

[37818]

FYI Fire Watch has been a trooper in this thread in demonstrating from Scripture that Jesus Christ is God. I personally have saved a number of his posts because I feel they are thorough and scripturally based.

Of course, we disagree on the nature of God and on the interpretation of some scripture, but the principal attack against the Trinity in this thread has been from those of the Arian/Unitarian persuasion. Fire Watch has been truly outstanding in countering those views.

As a result of Fire Watch and his excellent defense of the Deity of Christ, I do not believe Trinitarians and Oneness are that far apart regarding the nature of God. (Fire Watch may disagree!). I for one am very thankful for his participation in this thread.

Question: What is Fire Watch's view on the Godhead?

Jesus taught, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." - Mark 13:32.

[37818]

I don't think you meant to say "immoral like Jesus" in the last paragraph!

Jesus in His resurrected body is an immortal man. When Jesus as this immortal man returns we will be "like him" (1 John 3:2.) He is the firstborn of many brethern (Romans 8:29.) What did you think I had meant? (1 Corinthians 15:20-28.)

[Tucson Jim]

Question: What is Fire Watch's view on the Godhead?

Jesus taught, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." - Mark 13:32.

I think I better let him answer that. But here is the website of his church.

http://www.upci.org/

[Tucson Jim]

Jesus in His resurrected body is an immortal man. When Jesus as this immortal man returns we will be "like him" (1 John 3:2.) He is the firstborn of many brethern (Romans 8:29.) What did you think I had meant? (1 Corinthians 15:20-28.)

I agree with you. I was just pointing out the ironic misspelling! ("immoral" instead of "immortal")

[Angryamerican]

Did the point fly over your head, AA?

The bible says that "no man can see God and live"
Jesus, according to you, is just a man.
The Bible says that Jesus saw God, and lived.
Therefore, your understanding of Jesus being "just a man" must be faulty.
If no man can see God and live, Jesus either did not see God or Jesus himself is more than a man.

Trinitarians believe that when the Bible says no man has seen God and lived, the word "God" is referring to "God the Father" the Person of the Godhead with the most authority. The word "God" is often used in the Bible as a synonym with "the Father" as Jesus uses the word God to mean "the Father." Jesus has seen God, and lived, therefore Jesus is more than a man. The Bible describes Jesus as the Son of God. The Jews understood the term "Son of God" to be a statement of equality with God. Jesus has seen God and lived. Therefore he is more than a man. He is God -- the second person of the Trinity.

No Jesus to me is not a man any longer he is now what he was before he came to the earth.

But i have my doubts of the nt and the Jesus story all together.

[Angryamerican]

Jesus is both God and man.

No i do not believe that, the scriptures say that Jehovah is one Jehovah and there is no other.

[37818]

Sorry i have been all through i do not nor believed Jesus to be God sorry.

So am I correct to understand that you don't believe in any kind of Savor? That Jesus was a sinner just like the rest of us? (Romans 3:10.)

Jesus when called "good master" asks "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." -- Luke 18:19. All men are sinners, Jesus was truly a man. And unless He was God too, he was is a sinner.(Psalm 53:2-3. 1 Kings 8:46, "for there is no man that sinneth not.")

[Tucson Jim]

No Jesus to me is not a man any longer he is now what he was before he came to the earth.

But i have my doubts of the nt and the Jesus story all together.

Which makes discussing this with you difficult, since our only evidence for Jesus' humanity and divinity comes from scripture.

[Tucson Jim]

No i do not believe that, the scriptures say that Jehovah is one Jehovah and there is no other.

Jesus is not an "other" God.

[Angryamerican]

So am I correct to understand that you don't believe in any kind of Savor? That Jesus was a sinner just like the rest of us? (Romans 3:10.)

Jesus when called "good master" asks "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." -- Luke 18:19. All men are sinners, Jesus was truly a man. And unless He was God too, he was is a sinner.(Psalm 53:2-3. 1 Kings 8:46, "for there is no man that sinneth not.")

My view is more inline with judaism . I'm starting to believe the true messiah hasn't came yet. Mainly due to unfulfilled prophecy by Jesus. And the contradictions i have read and studied between the nt and ot.

[37818]

No i do not believe that, the scriptures say that Jehovah is one Jehovah and there is no other.

Of course. There is only one Existence (Jehovah.)

Isaiah quoted God to say, ". . . that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10, 11.

Respectfully,
37818

[Fire Watch]

Question: What is Fire Watch's view on the Godhead? I am a Oneness believer. There is one indivisible God with no distinction of persons. Jesus Christ is the fulness of the Godhead incarnate. He is God the Father - the Jehovah of the Old Testament - robed in flesh. All of God is in Jesus Christ, and we find all we need in Him. The only God we will ever see in heaven is Jesus Christ. We know there is one indivisible God (Deuteronomy 6:4). God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and therefore invisible to man (John 1:18; I Timothy 6:16). He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent (Psalm 139; Revelation 19:6). In the Old Testament, God manifested Himself many times in visible ways (Genesis 18:1; Exodus 33:22-23). These temporary, visible manifestations are called theophanies. In the New Testament, God manifested Himself in human flesh as Jesus Christ, the Son of God (John 1:1, 14; I Timothy 3:16). Jesus Christ is the Son of God - God in flesh (Matthew 1:21-23). He has a dual nature - human and divine, or flesh and Spirit. In other words, two complete natures are united inseparably in the person of Jesus Christ. In His human nature Jesus is the son of Mary. In His divine nature Jesus is the one God Himself (II Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 2:9; I Timothy 3:16). Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30; 14:6-11), Jehovah (Jeremiah 23:6), the Word (John 1:14), and the Holy Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 3:16-17).

Jesus taught, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." - Mark 13:32.

God made a decision before the foundation of the world that He'd renounce the exercise of His divine powers, attributes, and prerogatives, for the purpose of living within the limitations a human being must live in. God didnt put aside His divine attributes..but made them latent within Himself. Although they were existent in Him in their fullness, He willingly restrained their exercisement. By taking on human nature, he accepted certain limitations upon the functioning of his divine attributes. These limitations werent the result of a loss of divine attributes but of the addition of human attributes. In this state, Jesus lived His life and performed ministry as a man, dependent upon His Father for everything He did. Because of His predestined choice to limit His existence to a man anointed by the Holy Ghost while living in this world. Jesus didnt take advantage of His powers because His human will was completely submitted to the will of God, so that Jesus always did those things that pleased His Father (John 8:29). What pleased the Father was that Jesus wouldnt rely upon His identity as God.

God added another identity to Himself when He became a man. God has always been deity..but in the process of His plan to redeem man he added humanity to his deity. His deity wasnt compromised by adding this role to His identity..but nevertheless, His role as exclusive deity and Spirit was changed. God didnt gave up His eternal, unlimited deity when becoming the Son,..just as a father doesnt give up His identity as a son when he becomes a father. There isnt a change in his essential person..but theres a change in his life as he now experiences the role he once only knew by concept. The role of father went from being a priori (prior to and independent of experience) to a posteriori (proceeding from and dependent upon experienced reality). That which was once an abstract concept became an objectively understood reality, empirical (knowledge gained by experience) in nature.

[Angryamerican]

Which makes discussing this with you difficult, since our only evidence for Jesus' humanity and divinity comes from scripture.

Yes i agree. Yes nt scripture.

[37818]

My view is more inline with judaism . I'm starting to believe the true messiah hasn't came yet. Mainly due to unfulfilled prophecy by Jesus. And the contradictions i have read and studied between the nt and ot.


Well the following comments may seem off topic. But they are directly related to the Trinity teaching in that the following is to show that either Jesus of Nazareth is either the Messiah or the God of Judaism has failed Judaism.

The Law says, "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen." -- Deuteronomy 27:26.

In 70 AD the temple was destroyed, and the people of Israel have not kept that part of the Law since.

Of course if Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah that use of the temple effectively ended by Him suffering and dying on the cross (Mark 15:38.)

Daniel the prophet wrote, ". . . shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . ." -- Daniel 9:26. Which in 70 AD the temple was destroyed.

Do you have a better explanation?

Respectfully,
37818.

[Angryamerican]

Well the following comments may seem off topic. But they are directly related to the Trinity teaching in that the following is to show that either Jesus of Nazareth is either the Messiah or the God of Judaism has failed Judaism.

The Law says, "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen." -- Deuteronomy 27:26.

In 70 AD the temple was destroyed, and the people of Israel have not kept that part of the Law since.

Of course if Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah that use of the temple effectively ended by Him suffering and dying on the cross (Mark 15:38.)

Daniel the prophet wrote, ". . . shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . ." -- Daniel 9:26. Which in 70 AD the temple was destroyed.

Do you have a better explanation?

Respectfully,
37818.

I guess i will if the temple gets rebuilt.

[37818]

Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30; 14:6-11)

The Son would be "called" the "the everlasting Father." -- Isaiah 9:6. But is explicitly the Son. And He is our sole access to the Father. Which effectively makes Him the God the Father to us. Jesus taught, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." -- John 5:23. So unless one honors the Person of the Son of God as the Person of God the Father one does not honor God. The language Jesus spoke of Himself and His Father is that of different persons There is a difference between personhood and Godhood. I fail to see the denial of personhood in the Godhead as being needed. And if the personhood in the Godhead is true, then to deny it is to deny God. (In the Trinitiarn view.)


God made a decision before the foundation of the world that He'd renounce the exercise of His divine powers, attributes, and prerogatives, for the purpose of living within the limitations a human being must live in. God didnt put aside His divine attributes..but made them latent within Himself. Although they were existent in Him in their fullness, He willingly restrained their exercisement. By taking on human nature, he accepted certain limitations upon the functioning of his divine attributes. These limitations werent the result of a loss of divine attributes but of the addition of human attributes. In this state, Jesus lived His life and performed ministry as a man, dependent upon His Father for everything He did. Because of His predestined choice to limit His existence to a man anointed by the Holy Ghost while living in this world. Jesus didnt take advantage of His powers because His human will was completely submitted to the will of God, so that Jesus always did those things that pleased His Father (John 8:29). What pleased the Father was that Jesus wouldnt rely upon His identity as God.

God added another identity to Himself when He became a man. God has always been deity..but in the process of His plan to redeem man he added humanity to his deity. His deity wasnt compromised by adding this role to His identity..but nevertheless, His role as exclusive deity and Spirit was changed. God didnt gave up His eternal, unlimited deity when becoming the Son,..just as a father doesnt give up His identity as a son when he becomes a father. There isnt a change in his essential person..but theres a change in his life as he now experiences the role he once only knew by concept. The role of father went from being a priori (prior to and independent of experience) to a posteriori (proceeding from and dependent upon experienced reality). That which was once an abstract concept became an objectively understood reality, empirical (knowledge gained by experience) in nature.

Jesus taught, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." -- John 10:27-30. The language again is that for different persons.

Respectfully,
37818

[37818]

I guess i will if the temple gets rebuilt.

OK.
But in my view the temple will be rebuilt before Christ returns.

[Fire Watch]

The language Jesus spoke of Himself and His Father is that of different persons There is a difference between personhood and Godhood.
I dont believe so. The Scripture never distinguishes between the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father, but all distinctions are between God as He exists omnipresent and transcendent, and God as He exists as a genuine human being. The distinction is not in the Godhead, but in the humanity of Jesus Christ. There is a three-fold revelation of God to man, but not a tripersonality in the Godhead.

As I've explained numerous times before in this and other threads..

Oneness believers and Trinitarians are similar in that 1. both believe in one God; 2. both believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are God; 3. both confess that the Scripture makes a distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit; 4. both believe that the Son of God died on the cross, and not the Father; both believe that Jesus was praying to the Father, and not to Himself.

Oneness believers and Trinitarians differ in that 1. T believe that the one God consists of three eternal persons while O believes that the one God is one person; 2. T believe that the second person of the Trinity became incarnated while O believes that the Father, who is one person, became incarnated as the Son of God; 3. T believe that the Son is eternal while O believes that the Son did not exist until the incarnation, because the term refers to God as He exists as a man, and not as He exists in His essential deity; 4. T sees the Biblical distinctions between the Father and the Son to be a distinction in both personality and flesh while O believes that all distinctions are a result of the relationship of the Spirit of God to the incarnate God-man.

As it pertains to Christology, then, the difference between Trinitarians and Oneness believers is that they say it was the second person of the Trinity, not the Father, who became man, while we maintain that the one God, known as the Father, became man. Jesus' testimony that the Father was in Him (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21), and that those who saw Him saw the Father (John 14:7-11). Jesus is the express image of the Father's person (Hebrew 1:3). Trinitarians have a hard time explaining these verses because they maintain that the second person became flesh. If that is the case, and the Father is not embodied, why did Jesus always say the Father was in Him, and never say the second person was in Him?

This is the only real difference between our Christologies..other than this difference, I am in complete agreement with the Chalcedonian definition

"En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos,"

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" (John 1:1).

First I'd like to point out what John doesnt say. Notice that John doesnt say that, "In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was also God." Had John been a Trinitarian we'd expect him to say something to this effect to be consistent with Trinitarian doctrine. To find a Trinity in his words we are forced to redefine the word "God" in the middle of a verse. John would be saying that the word was with God the Father but that the word was God the Son. But that isnt what he said. The same God whom John identifies the word as being with is the one whom he states that the word is (the word was with God and the word was God).

Jesus did preexist the incarnation as it pertains to His deity, for Jesus' deity is none other than that of Yahweh Himself, the omnipresent self-existing Spirit. John in John 1 called this preexistence of Jesus the Word as you've mentioned. The same Word that existed at the creation of the worlds was the Word that became flesh (Jesus Christ). John identifies the Word as being God Himself, not some other God or person.

Speaking in natural terms, a person's word cannot be separated from their person. Their words dont have an identity separate from their person, but are expressions of their person. Likewise, Jesus (as the Word) is spoken of as being with God, but not in the sense as though He was separate from Him. God's word cannot be separated from Him any more than our word can be separated from us. The Word is the expression of God's person. John didnt stop at the identification of the Word as being with God, but when on to point out that the Word was in fact God Himself.

I have also heard it claimed that the Greek word pros (with) means "in a face to face relationship" in this passage. Now pros can mean "in a face to face relationship," but this would only hold true in our passage if its first demonstrated that the word is another person than theos (God). If, however, the word doesnt refer to a person in this phrase then it would still mean "with" but not "in a face to face relationship." That it doesnt refer to a person can be seen in the parallel account by the same author in 1 John. In a very similar statement, John says "What was from the beginning . . . concerning the Word of Life . . . which was with (pros) the Father and was manifested to us" (1 John1:1,2). God’s life was with him, but not "in a face to face relationship" with him. God’s life is not a separate person from himself and neither is his word.

I believe that the word of God is simply a reference to the expression of God. In Revelation 19:13 (John writing again), Jesus is called "the Word of God." The book of Hebrews tells us that, "God . . . has spoken to us in his Son" (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus is himself the content of what God has spoken. He is the visible "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). The word translated "declared" in this last verse is exegeomai, from which we get the word exegete. Jesus has "made known," "explained," "described" or "revealed" God. To use common terms, he’s the spittin’ image of his daddy. No one can see God, but you can see his glory. Jesus is "the brightness of his glory" (Heb. 1:3).

Again, I fail to find where the Scripture ever distinguishes between the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father, but all distinctions are between God as He exists omnipresent and transcendent, and God as He exists as a genuine human being. The distinction isnt in the Godhead, but in the humanity of Jesus Christ.

[37818]

I dont believe so. The Scripture never distinguishes between the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father, but all distinctions are between God as He exists omnipresent and transcendent, and God as He exists as a genuine human being. The distinction is not in the Godhead, but in the humanity of Jesus Christ. There is a three-fold revelation of God to man, but not a tripersonality in the Godhead.

As I've explained numerous times before in this and other threads..

There IS NO DISTICTION between the deity of the Son of God and God the Father. They are One Jehovah. The same God.

The eternal Sonship. Just like the term Trinity one will not find the term "Eternal Son" in regards to the only-begotten Son of God is not to be found. The Son of God is never called in holy scripture "God the Son." Yet we have the Son being "called" "the everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6.) This statment of calling the Son "the everlasting Father" establishes the "eternal Sonship."

John 1:1 teaches "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The "Word" pre-existed. The "Word" was "with God" and the "Word" "was God." The Word had two natures one being "with God" which makes the Word NOT God. And the Word "was God." And the "Word" is identified as the Creator (John 1:3) "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Which shows the "Word" is not a creation but the Creator (Genesis 1:1.)

Was there ever a first creation? Or was there always a co-eternal non-created non-deity? ". . . the Word was with God, . . ." A non-deity status. Yet at the same time "was God." There is only one eternal God.

In Malachi 3:6 we read, "For I am the LORD, I change not; . . ." Now if there was no creation and then a creation - the LORD changed from not yet being a Creator to being a Creator. And we are here, there is a creation. And this creation is not eternal. Has a beginning and has an end. So unless there is something that was of the LORD which was temporal in nature non-deity yet co-eternal - there could be no change to be any creation. ". . . the Word was with God, . . ."

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16, 17.

The "Word" could change, become the Creator, become a man (John 1:14.) Live, die, resurrect. Yet not be a change in that He had always two natures. As it is written in Hebrews, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." -- Hebrews 13:5.

The Apostle Paul wrote, " For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." -- 1 Timothy 2:5, 6.

And we know God is not a man, God says, ". . . for I am God, and not man;. . ." -- Hosea 11:9.

Jesus taught that "God is a Spirit." -- John 4:24.

This shows the explict truth that Jesus and God are not the same person. Yet Jesus is God with His Father. The Son of God has had eternally two natures. And it is this non-deity nature of His which allowed Him as God to change - be a Creator, become a man, live, die and be resurrected from the dead. And yet always be what He was. And it was because God changes not, the "Word" becoming man would not cause him to be no longer God, since He as God cannot change. He cannot cease to be God.

And after the judgement in the New Heaven and Earth, ". . . when all things shall be subdued unto him [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [the Father] that put all things under him [the Son], that God may be all in all."


Respectfully,
37818

[Fire Watch]

This shows the explict truth that Jesus and God are not the same person. Yet Jesus is God with His Father. The Son of God has had eternally two natures.
Again, you're a little late to the party, as this has already been gone over indepth..

I do not believe that Jesus, as God had a beginning. The body he inhabited did. I do not believe that Jesus is the second person of a trinity, but simply Yahweh incarnate. I do not believe in a trinity of persons in the Godhead. God is simply God all by himself, one God, one personage.

One of the ways in which Trinitarians (I am NOT a trinitarian, so my views disagree) have argued for the existence of a second, eternal person in the Godhead known as "Son" can be illustrated by the following syllogism:

P1 God is eternally "Father"
P2 One cannot be a Father without having a Son
_________________________________________
C1 God must have an eternal Son

The conclusion of a syllogism is true insofar as the premises of the syllogism are true. If one of the premises are false, however, the conclusion will also be false. I would argue that the conclusion Trinitarians have made concerning the Son is false, because P1 is a false premise, based on bad hermeneutics.To argue that God is eternally "Father" reads NT designations for God back into the OT, which is methodologically improper, and theologically disastrous.

God is not eternally "Father" anymore than He is eternally "Son." God came to be known as "Father" in the incarnation. This is not to say that God is never called "Father," or likened to a father in the OT, but it is to say that "Father" was never God's name. God's name is clearly "YHWH," to which He is referred over 6800 times. God even declared, "I am YHHW..." (Isaiah 45:18). If God has always been "Father," and that is His name, we should expect Him to be called "Father" all throughout the OT, not "YHWH."

God became the Father, however, only by relationship to the man that He truly became. For God to become "Father" did not require any metaphysical change. "Father" simply refers to YHWH's continued manner of existence apart from the incarnation as He has always existed. YHWH comes to be known as "Father" only after the incarnation, not because of a metaphysical change in His being, but because of His paternal relationship to Jesus Christ.

So while it could be said that YHWH became "Father" and "Son" simultaneously, this does not imply that the "becoming" was of the same nature. The incarnational becoming (John 1:14) is a metaphysical becoming, while God's existence as "Father" is a relational becoming.

God did not just come to live in flesh as a man, but the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14). God incorporated human nature into His eternal being. In the incarnation humanity has been permanently incorporated into the Godhead. God is now a man in addition to being God. At the virgin conception God acquired an identity He would retain for the rest of eternity. His human existence is both authentic and permanent. Jesus' humanity is not something that can be discarded or dissolved back into the Godhead, but He will always and forever exist in heaven as a glorified man, albeit God at the same time.



If the incarnation is real, and God truly became a man, we must confess a continuation of Christ's humanity because genuine human beings do not simply cease to exist. Every genuine human being who has ever existed will live for eternity in one of two places: heaven, hell. If Jesus is truly man He cannot just pass out of existence.

It doesnt take 3 personages to = YHWH. Rather, the 1 YHWH has revealed himself 3 different ways.

[Fire Watch]

OK, I've played defense enough..my turn to have the ball ;).

* Jesus said that ONLY His Father knew the day of the second coming, not the Son (Mark 13:32). What about the Spirit? Apparently he doesnt know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the Father knows that the Spirit doesnt? If so..in what sense can the persons of the Trinity be co-equal and of the same essence?

* If the Son and Spirit are coequal..why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit (Luke 12:10)?

* Why does the Son not have any power other than that which the Father gives Him if the Son is co-equal with the Father..and the Son continues to exist beyond the incarnation as the second omnipotent person in the Godhead (John 5:19, 30; 6:38)?

* Why, if Jesus was conceived by the person of the Holy Spirit is God the Father considered His father instead of the Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35)? Isnt the one who conceived you your father? If the Spirit did the conception..then He alone should be the Father. If its argued that the Father and Spirit conceived, then why does the Scripture not say that? It only says the Spirit conceived, and it only says that God the Father is Jesus' father. If it was the Spirit that overshadowed Mary to conceive in her womb, why wouldn't it be the Holy Spirit who was incarnated? If Jesus is the second person incarnate (God the Son) as Trinitarians claim, why wasnt it God the Son who conceived in Mary's womb, Himself becoming incarnate? Isnt the second person the logos who became flesh (John 1:1, 14)?

* How could only the second person of the Trinity become a man, and not the other two persons in light of the Trinitarian doctrine of the perichoresis of persons? How can the Father and Spirit only indwell Jesus..while the eternal Son is actually Jesus' essential deity? How can one separate the persons like that without confessing three gods.. only one of which became incarnated, and the other two just tag along?


* If it was the eternal Son who became a man, and not the Father or Spirit, then why did Jesus not say this? Paul said Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus said that those who saw Him saw the Father (obviously not the essence of the Father, for no man can see God's essence no matter if He is one or three persons). Never does He state that they were seeing the image of the incarnated eternal Son.. If Jesus is the 'second person' made flesh, then why didn't He ever say "he who has seen me has seen the Son"? Why not "he who has seen me has seen the Holy Spirit"? Why is it only the Father? If Jesus' deity is the eternal Son, in contradistinction to the Father and Spirit, why would Jesus say that they have seen the Father by seeing Him, rather than seeing the Son? Jesus indicated that to see Him was to see the person who sent Him [Father] (John 12:45).

* The Spirit is mentioned 240 times in the OT, and never once was it understood to refer to a distinct person from God..but rather to refer to a distinct aspect of God's person, or the nature of God Himself. "Spirit of the LORD" appears twenty-six times and never once indicates a distinct person from the LORD. Why is this if the Spirit is a distinct person from YHWH?

* How can it be that we can know the Father by knowing Jesus, but we cant know Jesus (2nd person) by knowing the Father if indeed theres a perichoresis of persons? (John 8:19; 14:7; II John) And why is it that the Spirit is not known by knowing Jesus?

[37818]

Again, you're a little late to the party, as this has already been gone over indepth..


It doesnt take 3 personages to = YHWH. Rather, the 1 YHWH has revealed himself 3 different ways.

Fine, I understand that is how you understand the Godhead.

I was not able to find where you addressed the "Word with God" and "The same was in the beginning with God." This aspect of the Word makes it/Him destinct from God, while being God too. You have not addressed this facet.

And how your singular person God lied when He said "For I am the LORD, I change not." -- Malachi 3:6. You see as soon as He created He changed from not yet being a creator. As soon as He became a man (John 1:14) that was a change. While He may not have ceased being God, He change by being something He was not Where He said, "I am God, and not man." -- Hosea 11:9.

Your singlar God decieves playing a Man praying to Himself.

It is not at issue whether an all powerful being can do such things. But really?

Your arguments makes Arianism seem right. Did you know Moses was really God to Pharaoh? (Exodus 7:1.) God didn't make Moses to become a God. Rather had Moses represent Him to Pharaoh. Even as the Word reprents God to creation. And the Word becoming a man (John 1:14) to represent God to men (John 14:6.) Remember God says there is no God formed after Himself (Isaiah 43:10.)

Address this.

[Fire Watch]

And how your singular person God lied when He said "For I am the LORD, I change not." -- Malachi 3:6. You see as soon as He created He changed from not yet being a creator. As soon as He became a man (John 1:14) that was a change. While He may not have ceased being God, He change by being something He was not Where He said, "I am God, and not man." -- Hosea 11:9.

Your singlar God decieves playing a Man praying to Himself.
Typically when one resorts to such silliness, the discussion is over, the victor being the one maligned.

Your understanding of my beliefs is sorely lacking, and you're making yourself look ridiculous.

Do you not believe Jesus was God? Do you not also believe that Jesus, being 100% God, was also 100% man? Communication requires the presence of at least two minds, not necessarily two persons. The rule is that theres one mind per person, and thus it follows that genuine communication requires two persons. If, however, one person could possess two distinct minds, communication would be possible within that one person between his two minds. According to Oneness theology this is exactly the case with the Father and Son. With the incarnation the one person of God came to possess two functioning minds-not two divine minds, but one human and one divine. In His non-incarnate mode of existence He functions according to His divine mind/consciousness, and in His human mode of existence He functions according to His human mind/consciousness. Psychologically speaking we might say the Father and Son function as two persons because of the real psychological distinction between God's divine and human modes of consciousness, even though one person gives both minds their ontological grounding.

If the communication between Father and Son cannot be explained in terms of two divine minds, then how can it be explained? We're forced to employ the same explanation for Christ's prayers: the existence of a genuine human consciousness. Christ's prayers issued forth, not from His divine person, but from His human mind/consciousness. The communication between Father and Son didnt take place between two divine minds/consciousnesses, but between one divine mind/consciousness and one human mind/consciousness. If only one divine mind is necessary to explain the communication between Father and Son, then the Oneness explanation of Christ's prayers is wholly adequate to explain the Biblical data as well as the maxim of communication.

Remember God says there is no God formed after Himself (Isaiah 43:10.)

Address this.

There wasnt another God formed. God himself became flesh. We have three manifestations of God in his dealings with mankind from the beginning of time until the end. Just as a man is a Son, a Husband, and a Father in his lifetime, so the Creator has manifested Himself in three different manifestations (1) The Father of Creation, (2) The Son of Redemption, and (3) The Regenerating Force in the church... But when we see God at the Rapture of the Church, we will see Jesus Christ, the only visible manifestation of the invisible God of the Old Testament...

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.When Jesus was manifested in the flesh, it wasnt a second person of the Godhead come down to earth. God didnt so love the world that he said, "Come Son, I love them down there so much, you go down and die for them!" Such a concept is totally absurd. John 3:16 takes on significance, for in reality it can simply read:For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten - (BODY) - that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God didnt give the blood of his son, but rather he gave his own blood exactly as Paul wrote in Acts 20:28 "...GOD, WHICH HE HATH PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD"

If God sent a son, the second person in the godhead, to die on the cross, then He instituted child sacrifice. This is in total disharmony with anything Biblical concerning the nature of God. God didnt send his son, a second person in the godhead to die for mankind, He came Himself in the body of Jesus Christ. The body of Jesus Christ is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see... because God is a Spirit. The incarnation provided a 'body' for that Spirit to visibly dwell in - ie., Emmanuel, God with us in the Flesh... Colossians 2:9 states it so perfectly: "For in Him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

[Fire Watch]

I was not able to find where you addressed the "Word with God" and "The same was in the beginning with God." This aspect of the Word makes it/Him destinct from God, while being God too. You have not addressed this facet.
Actually, it does not, and I did address it just 4 posts back.


"En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos,"

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" (John 1:1).

First I'd like to point out what John doesnt say. Notice that John doesnt say that, "In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was also God." Had John been a Trinitarian we'd expect him to say something to this effect to be consistent with Trinitarian doctrine. To find a Trinity in his words we are forced to redefine the word "God" in the middle of a verse. John would be saying that the word was with God the Father but that the word was God the Son. But that isnt what he said. The same God whom John identifies the word as being with is the one whom he states that the word is (the word was with God and the word was God).

Jesus did preexist the incarnation as it pertains to His deity, for Jesus' deity is none other than that of Yahweh Himself, the omnipresent self-existing Spirit. John in John 1 called this preexistence of Jesus the Word as you've mentioned. The same Word that existed at the creation of the worlds was the Word that became flesh (Jesus Christ). John identifies the Word as being God Himself, not some other God or person.

Speaking in natural terms, a person's word cannot be separated from their person. Their words dont have an identity separate from their person, but are expressions of their person. Likewise, Jesus (as the Word) is spoken of as being with God, but not in the sense as though He was separate from Him. God's word cannot be separated from Him any more than our word can be separated from us. The Word is the expression of God's person. John didnt stop at the identification of the Word as being with God, but when on to point out that the Word was in fact God Himself.

I have also heard it claimed that the Greek word pros (with) means "in a face to face relationship" in this passage. Now pros can mean "in a face to face relationship," but this would only hold true in our passage if its first demonstrated that the word is another person than theos (God). If, however, the word doesnt refer to a person in this phrase then it would still mean "with" but not "in a face to face relationship." That it doesnt refer to a person can be seen in the parallel account by the same author in 1 John. In a very similar statement, John says "What was from the beginning . . . concerning the Word of Life . . . which was with (pros) the Father and was manifested to us" (1 John1:1,2). God’s life was with him, but not "in a face to face relationship" with him. God’s life is not a separate person from himself and neither is his word.

I believe that the word of God is simply a reference to the expression of God. In Revelation 19:13 (John writing again), Jesus is called "the Word of God." The book of Hebrews tells us that, "God . . . has spoken to us in his Son" (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus is himself the content of what God has spoken. He is the visible "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). The word translated "declared" in this last verse is exegeomai, from which we get the word exegete. Jesus has "made known," "explained," "described" or "revealed" God. To use common terms, he’s the spittin’ image of his daddy. No one can see God, but you can see his glory. Jesus is "the brightness of his glory" (Heb. 1:3).

Again, I fail to find where the Scripture ever distinguishes between the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father, but all distinctions are between God as He exists omnipresent and transcendent, and God as He exists as a genuine human being. The distinction isnt in the Godhead, but in the humanity of Jesus Christ.

[37818]

OK, I've played defense enough..my turn to have the ball ;).

* Jesus said that ONLY His Father knew the day of the second coming, not the Son (Mark 13:32). What about the Spirit? Apparently he doesnt know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the Father knows that the Spirit doesnt? If so..in what sense can the persons of the Trinity be co-equal and of the same essence?Co-equal in deity. Not co-equal as Persons. there is the supbordination of persons in the Godhead. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Spirit. You confuse deity with persons. Not the same class. The Son was sent by the Father. (John 17:3; John 13:16; John 14:28.)


* If the Son and Spirit are coequal..why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit (Luke 12:10)?Again you confuse deity with subordination of persons. God is a Spirit. To blasphem against the Spirit is to blasphem against the very essence of God. Which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all consist. They are co-equal as God. They are not the same Persons. They are the same God and the same essence. The same essence being that of the Person of the Holy Spirit God is that Spirit (John 4:24.)


* Why does the Son not have any power other than that which the Father gives Him if the Son is co-equal with the Father..and the Son continues to exist beyond the incarnation as the second omnipotent person in the Godhead (John 5:19, 30; 6:38)? Again you confuse equality of being God with subordation of Persons. One God, three Persons. The co-equality as God. They are the one and the same God. Not the same Persons. Add to the fact that Jesus was fully a man and fully God being the Son of God. And the human limitations Jesus took on as being fully man. He didn't cease to be God. But took on the human limitations. And was sent by the Father. And being sent placing Himself under further subordination as the Son being sent. Which these limitation only make sense under the concept of God being Persons.


* Why, if Jesus was conceived by the person of the Holy Spirit is God the Father considered His father instead of the Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35)? Isnt the one who conceived you your father? If the Spirit did the conception..then He alone should be the Father. If its argued that the Father and Spirit conceived, then why does the Scripture not say that? It only says the Spirit conceived, and it only says that God the Father is Jesus' father. If it was the Spirit that overshadowed Mary to conceive in her womb, why wouldn't it be the Holy Spirit who was incarnated? If Jesus is the second person incarnate (God the Son) as Trinitarians claim, why wasnt it God the Son who conceived in Mary's womb, Himself becoming incarnate? Isnt the second person the logos who became flesh (John 1:1, 14)?You again confuse the roles of the Persons of the Godhead. God is a Spirit. The Son is the Son of God. The roles being the subordination of the Persons in the Godhead.


* How could only the second person of the Trinity become a man, and not the other two persons in light of the Trinitarian doctrine of the perichoresis of persons? How can the Father and Spirit only indwell Jesus..while the eternal Son is actually Jesus' essential deity? How can one separate the persons like that without confessing three gods.. only one of which became incarnated, and the other two just tag along? John 1:1 explains that the Word was the one "with God." And it was this Word which became flesh (John 1:14.) The Word is the Son of God with the eternal dual natures. Both being God and with God. Having both the temporal nature and the divine nature. So could be the Creator (John 1:3.)


* If it was the eternal Son who became a man, and not the Father or Spirit, then why did Jesus not say this? Paul said Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus said that those who saw Him saw the Father (obviously not the essence of the Father, for no man can see God's essence no matter if He is one or three persons). Never does He state that they were seeing the image of the incarnated eternal Son.. If Jesus is the 'second person' made flesh, then why didn't He ever say "he who has seen me has seen the Son"? Why not "he who has seen me has seen the Holy Spirit"? Why is it only the Father? If Jesus' deity is the eternal Son, in contradistinction to the Father and Spirit, why would Jesus say that they have seen the Father by seeing Him, rather than seeing the Son? Jesus indicated that to see Him was to see the person who sent Him [Father] (John 12:45).There is only One God. You confuse Personage with Deity!


* The Spirit is mentioned 240 times in the OT, and never once was it understood to refer to a distinct person from God..but rather to refer to a distinct aspect of God's person, or the nature of God Himself. "Spirit of the LORD" appears twenty-six times and never once indicates a distinct person from the LORD. Why is this if the Spirit is a distinct person from YHWH?Again you confuse that the Holy Spirit and God the Father are the same God and the same essence. It comes down the problem of denial of the Persons in the Godhead. And not really understanding that they are that One God. The Holy Spirit is God, and the Spirit of the LORD, and the Spirit of Christ. There is not differnence accept when it involves the subordination of Peronss in the Godhead. Because as God there are no differences. Only as Persons where revealed s such.


* How can it be that we can know the Father by knowing Jesus, but we cant know Jesus (2nd person) by knowing the Father if indeed theres a perichoresis of persons? (John 8:19; 14:7; II John) And why is it that the Spirit is not known by knowing Jesus?God is in the presence of everyone. But can only be known through the Son. And only through the Spirit. You cannot know one without the others. The Father must draw one to Jesus. But one cannot come to the Father except through Jesus. And when one is born of God. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer. (John 6:44,45; Romans 10:17; John 14:6; John 1:12, 13; 1 John 5:9-12; Romans 8:9; 2 Corinthians 13:5.)

[37818]

Actually, it does not, and I did address it just 4 posts back.

I read that. It does not address "with God." Other than pointing out that the Word "was God." You fail to see "with God" as it to be distinct from God. Which in fact you flatly denied. The fact that the Word "was God" is not in disput. Unless one takes an Arianism argument that the Word only represented God. (John 14:6; Exodus 7:1; Isaiah 43:10.) And is how God resprents Himself through out the OT. Like a secretary signs a letter for the boss.

Respectfully,
37818

[37818]

Typically when one resorts to such silliness, the discussion is over, the victor being the one maligned.

Your understanding of my beliefs is sorely lacking, and you're making yourself look ridiculous.

Do you not believe Jesus was God? Do you not also believe that Jesus, being 100% God, was also 100% man? Communication requires the presence of at least two minds, not necessarily two persons. The rule is that theres one mind per person, and thus it follows that genuine communication requires two persons. If, however, one person could possess two distinct minds, communication would be possible within that one person between his two minds. According to Oneness theology this is exactly the case with the Father and Son. With the incarnation the one person of God came to possess two functioning minds-not two divine minds, but one human and one divine. In His non-incarnate mode of existence He functions according to His divine mind/consciousness, and in His human mode of existence He functions according to His human mind/consciousness. Psychologically speaking we might say the Father and Son function as two persons because of the real psychological distinction between God's divine and human modes of consciousness, even though one person gives both minds their ontological grounding.

<snip>
I apologize for the apparent "sillyness." But I was being short. When too much is thrown my way. I bail. Not because I want to. But I get pressed for time. You are very sharp.

The real problem is one of language. The language of the texts are that of persons. That is the simple answer against your view. And from the view point that you are correct and Trintiatians are wrong. That is their problem. All the good explanations you give them will not make the belief in the Persons in the Godhead to go away. It just will not. I can't be convinced because the language issue. It is that simple. It would be easer for me to take up the belief in Arianism than to believe in Modalism. But pragmatically Arianism fails. Because to the requirement to come to God through the Son (John 14:6.) While Arianism may admit that Jesus is the only way to come to the Father. They fail to see that pragmaticaly that makes Him really God. Not just for salvation but to all creation.

I'm not quiting. I just need to take smaller bites.

Best regards,
37818.

[Angryamerican]

The Son would be "called" the "the everlasting Father." -- Isaiah 9:6. But is explicitly the Son. And He is our sole access to the Father. Which effectively makes Him the God the Father to us. Jesus taught, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." -- John 5:23. So unless one honors the Person of the Son of God as the Person of God the Father one does not honor God. The language Jesus spoke of Himself and His Father is that of different persons There is a difference between personhood and Godhood. I fail to see the denial of personhood in the Godhead as being needed. And if the personhood in the Godhead is true, then to deny it is to deny God. (In the Trinitiarn view.)



Jesus taught, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." -- John 10:27-30. The language again is that for different persons.

Respectfully,
37818

Really what about all of the jews ?

[Fire Watch]

The real problem is one of language. The language of the texts are that of persons.
Let's talk language for a moment then.

Shema Israel YHWH elohanu YHWH echad, "Hear O Israel, Yaweh is our God. Yaweh is one" (Deut. 6:4).

There is only one God. This is the emphatic teaching of the Old Testament. The Jews were the people who knew their God if anyone did (John 4:22), and they had no concept of persons within the Godhead. In the book of Isaiah God makes some very strong statements which I believe dont allow for a Trinitarian understanding. In Isaiah 44:6&8 God makes the statement, "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me . . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Could scripture be any plainer than this? He didnt say "we are the first and we are the last". In verse 24 he states, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone." If language means anything then "by Myself" and "alone" mean that there was no other person present. If God isnt claiming that he is absolutely one here, then what stronger language would one suggest to convey this? Why would God be so emphatic about oneness, if in reality he were three persons? Wouldnt these statements be misleading? In the next chapter he states, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. . . . That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa. 45:5-7)..(again, he didnt say "besides US there is no God"). Once again, if God were really three persons, could he use such emphatic language as this? If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would it be honest for him to say, "There is no one besides Me?" Would he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead? In 46:9 God says, "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." In this statement, there is one person speaking (notice the singular pronouns) and that singular person says that there is no one like him...he never said "us".

Surprise surprise, from earlier in the thread..

The author of Hebrews said that Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person" (1:3). The English phrase translated "express image" is from the Greek word charakter. It is this word from which we get our English word "character." This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It means "to impress upon, or stamp." It denotes an engravement from a tool, which impresses an image into that which is being engraved. This impression, then, is a characteristic of the instrument used to do produce it. What is produced corresponds precisely with the instrument.

Jesus' being the image of God is not the same thing as our being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6; I Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10). God's image in us is one of moral, mental, and spiritual capabilities, rather than a representation of His essence. Only Jesus holds that role. Whereas Jesus was God made flesh, we are merely the dust of the earth made flesh (Genesis 2:7). Our very being is different from Jesus' being, and therefore the image of God in which we were made must of necessity be different from the image of God found in Jesus Christ.

In another place, Paul said, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9) The New International Version translates this verse as, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." "Dwelleth" is the translation from the Greek word katoikeo, meaning "to permanently settle down in a dwelling." "Fullness" is from the Greek word pleroma indicating that which "is filled up." It is the fullness of the Godhead that dwells in Jesus, but what is the Godhead? The word is translated from theotes, meaning "divine essence, or the very person of God." Considering the Greek behind this verse, then, Paul said that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Jesus' body.



There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.

Revelation 1:1 tells us the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Greek for revelation is apokalupsis, from which we get the word apocalypse. It literally means an unveiling or an uncovering. Certainly the book is a prophecy of things to come, but one of the main reasons for this prophecy is to reveal Christ - to show who He really is.

The Book of Revelation presents Jesus both in His humanity and in His deity. He is the Lamb slain for our sins but He is also the Almighty God on the throne

Revelation 1

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Who is verse 8 referring to? Let's read on...

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

So there's someone behind John speaking...let's see who it is....

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...

Apparantly it's the same person that was speaking in verse 8, because in the above passage, he also claims to be the first and the last...there can only be ONE first and last....let's see who was speaking...

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Hmmm.....who is the son of man...is it Jehovah?????

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

Above in verse 17 he again claims to be the first and the last...there can be only 1 first and last....WHO IS SPEAKING?

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Who was it?? Who was the one that lives, yet was dead...and is alive for evermore? JESUS!

That is the simple answer against your view.

Simple doesnt always mean correct.

[DRS]

How can Jesus have seen God if he's just a man -- and the Bible does say that Jesus has seen God.

Jesus had a prehuman existence in heaven, spirit creatures can be in the prescence of the Almighty

[DRS]

It is interesting to note that non-trinitarians can not get the trinitarain understandings correct. Yet, trinitarians can correctly present, trithism, modalism, Arianism, unitarianism, correctly.

Then non-trinitarain views involve some key denials:

Arianism denies the Son of God is uncreated and co-eternal with the Father.

Modalism denies that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead are three Persons.

Tritheism denies that there is only One God.

Unitarianism denies the Trinity teaching, denying the deity of the Son of God.

The trinity teaching holds that there is only One God. And that the Persons: Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are the One God.

3 persons do not make one person

Since Jesus is called only begotten, first born and beginning of creation as well as his creation is laid out is described in Proverbs 8 22-30 it kind of leaves him less than Almighty

If the Holy Spirit was a person he would have a name as all important people in the bible do, but since the word for this denotes an impersonal force it is something that is part of God

[DRS]

A single word can be used in metaphorical context and hold different meaning that in literal contexts. It is clear from the context how the word is used. When used in connection with Jesus, the word God or elohim or theos is not being used in metaphorical context.

Says who?

I would say that since it uses the term theos in John 1 with the term ho theos it is showing clear Jesus is not the God of the bible