What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Seriously, not controversial at all. Just ask those active on HN if they agree that being the Son means that he was born of the Father.

I wouldn’t judge most believers by the active members at this time as they differ substantially. Most understand that the Son has the nature of his Father, but this leads them into fabricated doctrines which is a…[Read more]

Not so gadam. If a bible verse can be interpreted say 3 different ways, you ignore the ways that fit with observation or compatibility with other scriptures. You have an agenda to debunk the bible, so of course it is logical that you are anything but neutral.

You may say I am the opposite and not neutral and that is true too. But I am honest…

[Read more]

Proclaimer,

You said:

After all, being the Son means that he was born of the Father and from that, you can easily derive what nature he would have. Further, it wouldn’t be controversial at all.

Seriously, not controversial at all. Just ask those active on HN if they agree that being the Son means that he was born of the Father.

Mike says the S…[Read more]

Hey Mike. So many errors in your answer. I cannot wait to address them when I have time.

Hi Proclaimer, in fact it’s the other way round the logic. I am on neutral ground and without any bias on the ancient texts than most of the religious people. And I make statements based on certain evidences from the historical documents than the biased religious conceptions.

Not so gadam. If a bible verse can be interpreted say 3 different w…[Read more]

Mike,

Regarding this post:

LU:  Then the Father (the God no one has seen of John 1:18) said to the Son (the only begotten God of John 1:18), “Let Us make man in Our image (the only begotten God who is the image of the God no one has seen, Col 1:15)…
How do you know?  Why couldn’t it have been the Son saying, “Let us make man in our image”?

A…

[Read more]

Hi Adam,

Have I asked you if you have read the Jewish Targums? Do you know about them?

Mike,

You said:

 You are free to have your beliefs about Jesus being the very God he is the servant of – but at least be fair about it.  Don’t go out of your way to purposely mistranslate scriptures to force your belief into the Bible.

Compare your bias of what I say to what I actually say:

I will correct your post to say this, look at the diffe…[Read more]

Mike,

In answer to your question, no, physically I don’t cover my head when I pray but I am not opposed to that. Spiritually, I do pray under the covering of who is my head, Jesus.

Regarding Jerusalem as being called Yahweh our Righteousness:

A great person often has a city named after them and obviously they are not the city. The city of…[Read more]

Mike,

Good conversation, Mike.

You said:

So it’s really simple.  Jesus is the son, servant, mediator, prophet, holy one, anointed one, and sacrificial lamb of God.  If “God” is “The Yahweh Unity”, then Jesus is the son, servant, mediator, prophet, holy one, anointed one, and sacrificial lamb of “The Yahweh Unity”.

Actually that and much more tha…[Read more]

Carmel, the two scriptures are not “opposite” – just completely unrelated.  Like I said, if your theory is correct, then Jeremiah lived on the “perfect earth”, prophesied about the subsequent creation of the “very good but not perfect” earth, and then lived again on that second earth.

Do you believe that?  Yes or No?

Besides, there were still m…[Read more]

LU:  Then the Father (the God no one has seen of John 1:18) said to the Son (the only begotten God of John 1:18), “Let Us make man in Our image (the only begotten God who is the image of the God no one has seen, Col 1:15)…

How do you know?  Why couldn’t it have been the Son saying, “Let us make man in our image”?

And which one of them was the…[Read more]

Hi Mike,

You: Of course not, Carmel. 

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and lo it was void, and nothing: and the heavens, and there was no light in them.

Me: So according to you the above scriptures are…[Read more]

Adam, that passage you quoted – plus Psalm 82, Luke 4:6, and the Book of Enoch sum up the entirety of the Bible from the spirit realm aspect….

Deuteronomy 32:8-9… When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the…[Read more]

Mike,

You said:

Maybe you could answer the question more specifically.  Who specifically was the speaker saying the words, and who specifically was the speaker saying those words to?

1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we e…[Read more]

Gene:  Mike……if you are going to talk about God or as you believe God’s,  then first establish what the  word actually means is vital to this descussion.   I said God is not a person at all,  but a Word that describes a “RELATIONSHIP” and can apply to “ANYTHING”.  do you agree with that, or NOT?

Hi Gene,

I use the words “god” and “gods” (NOT God’…[Read more]

Adam:  Hi Mike, thanks for this new thread on “Many Gods of the Bible”. I always wonder how the Hebrew religion developed from the Henotheism to Monotheism.

I know that the Bible is full of all kinds of different gods – just from a straightforward reading of it – and it has always baffled me why people who read the Bible think it only talks abou…[Read more]

Mike……Not knowing the exact definition of the “WORD” GOD is the most important thing , which you have ignored and acted like it not important to this topic.  But in fact if you are going to talk about God or as you believe God’s,  then first establish what the  word actually means is vital to this descussion.   I said God is not a person at a…[Read more]

Carmel: I AGREE above regarding the judgments impending to the land of Israel. 

Genesis 1:2 is a description of the state,

NOT IN WHICH GOD MADE THE EARTH, SINCE IT WAS ALREADY CREATED IN GENESIS 1:1

but to which He was pleased subsequently to reduce it.
Answer please:

DO YOU AGREE 

Of course not, Carmel.  To agree to that, I’d have to agree…[Read more]