Trinity Debate Zechariah 12:10

Subject:  Zechariah 12:10 proves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: April 22 2007
Debaters:  Is 1: 18 & t8

 


Is 1:18

Okay short and sweet this time….

In the below passage Zechariah records a quite amazing prophecy:

Zechariah 12:10
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

What’s significant (in the context of this debate submission) about the highlighted statement above is that the preceding verses (1, 4, 6 and 9) unmistakably bear out that it was a prophecy made by YHWH, and would be fulfilled by YHWH. YHWH foretold that they (the inhabitants of Jerusalem) will look upon “Me” whom they (the inhabitants of Jerusalem) pierced.

Zechariah 12:1-9
1The burden of the word of the LORD [YHWH] concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD [YHWH] who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, 2″Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. 3″It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. 4″In that day,” declares the LORD [YHWH], “I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5″Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the LORD of hosts, their God.’ 6″In that day I [YHWH] will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. 7″The LORD also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. 8″In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them. 9″And in that day I [YHWH] will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

There is no mention of a secondary identity in the Zechariah’s predictive prophecy. The “me” in “they will look on Me whom they have pierced” is YHWH. In the immediately-preceding verse YHWH affirmed “I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”, which of course only the Almighty could accomplish. With that in mind, please consider Who it was that John taught fulfilled this prophecy:

John 19:33-37
33but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” 37And again another Scripture says, “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.

According to John, Zechariah 10:12 is a predictive reference to the piercing (vs 34) incurred by Yeshua during His crucifixion (“For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture” – v 36). Let me be as clear as I can here t8: Only YHWH could fulfill this prophecy, because it was made specifically by YHWH (through Zechariah) and of YHWH. It cannot be fulfilled by proxy, the piercing was to be incurred by YHWH and it is YHWH that would be looked upon. No one else, the language in the Zechariah text is unambiguous and does not allow for it. John unequivocally tells us that Yeshua literally fulfilled the Zech 12:10 prophecy at Calvary, but crucially He fulfilled it after His body had expired (v 33). The Roman soldiers and other bystanders (the inhabitants of Jerusalem) looked upon His lifeless body, but John and Zechariah tell us that this was the body of YHWH. So, the obvious implication here is: even His dead body was considered utterly divine, it was the body of YHWH. So any argument linking Yeshua’s deity with His indwelling by the Holy Spirit is vaporised in this verse.

If YHWH makes a prophecy that only YHWH can fulfill, and Yahshua fulfills it, then He is YHWH. There is no other acceptable conclusion.

Now some questions for you t8:

Q1) Was the “me” that was foretold to be pierced and looked upon by the inhabitant of Jerusalem in Zech 12:10 a refererence to YHWH? If not, please provide lexical evidence to the contrary.

Q2) According to John’s inspired-understanding, was Yeshua in fact the “me” in the Zech 12:10 prophecy (John 19:37)? If not, please explain.

Q3) If YHWH makes a prophecy that only YHWH can fulfill, and Yeshua fulfills it, is it reasonable to conclude that Yeshua is YHWH? If not why not?

Blessings



t8

Q1) Was the “me” that was foretold to be pierced and looked upon by the inhabitant of Jerusalem in Zech 12:10 a refererence to YHWH? If not, please provide lexical evidence to the contrary.

I think the ME is YHWH. The one who is to be pierced (HIM) is Yeshua.

It says “…They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child,…”

Grammatically, the “Me” and the “him” cannot refer to the same individual can it.

It is clearly talking about 2, not 1. Otherwise it would say: “They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for ME as one mourns for an only child,”. Of course it doesn’t say that, so the “him” is obviously different to the “me”.

Q2) According to John’s inspired-understanding, was Yeshua in fact the “me” in the Zech 12:10 prophecy (John 19:37)? If not, please explain.

Is Yeshua the ME or the HIM? I say he is the HIM. If Yeshua was both, then the language would use ME or HIM, but not both.

Q3) If YHWH makes a prophecy that only YHWH can fulfill, and Yeshua fulfills it, is it reasonable to conclude that Yeshua is YHWH? If not why not?

YHWH didn’t make this prophecy about himself from what I can see. We know that YHWH is not a man and he doesn’t have bones and blood. It is rediculous to believe that God whom the universe cannot contain squeezed himself into a human body. Rather, it was the Word that became flesh and the apostles beheld his glory as the son of God. Even if YHWH did make the prophecy about himself, we know that YHWH sent his son and it was YHWH’s will that his son drink the cup that was prepared for him. So if YHWH was in Christ, then to that degree was YHWH the one being punished. But Christ did say “My God My God, why hast thou forsaken me”.

But the way it appears to me on the outset is that they would look to YHWH, because of the HIM who was pierced.

NOTE: My rebuttal is based on the English version of these verses. It is possible that the English version may not be that clear or even accurate. If this is the case, then a more accurate version of the Zechariah verse could change what I have written.

Anyway, it is interesting to note that John 19:33-37 also refers to another prophecy i.e., NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.”
When we look at that prophecy, we see clearly that the YHWH (LORD) is one and the one whom not a bone shall be broken is another.

It is obvious to all that the bolded verses below are either or both Yeshua and YHWH. But the interesting part is that we cannot confuse Yeshua with actually being YHWH.

Psalm 22:1-19
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?

2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.

4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.

5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

“He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother’s breast.

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.

So we have 3 reasons why YHWH cannot be Yeshua in Zech 12:10.

  1. Me and Him cannot be the same individual grammatically speaking.
  2. Psalm 22:1-19 the other quoted scripture by John, clearly indentifies Yeshua and YHWH as different identities.
  3. There is no contradiction in truth.
 

So an explanation that fits with John, Zechariah, and David (or Psalm writer) is that YHWH and Yeshua are 2 different identities and because of him who was pierced (Yeshua), people would look to YHWH (his God). This has come to pass as many now look to YHWH because of Yeshua’s sacrifice. See the below verse as an immediate example of fulfillment.

Acts 2:36-39
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”


Discussion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 361 through 380 (of 518 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #153172
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    n the below passage Zechariah records a quite amazing prophecy:

    Zechariah 12:10
    “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

    Trinitarian Translation Inconsistency

    Let us also review some major translations translated by Trinitarian Greek scholars:

    And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. (RSV).

    I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a first-born. (NAB).
    http://www.angelfire.com/space….10.html

    Now if Trinitarian Greek scholars themselves have seen fit to translate the passage in this manner, it is rather obvious there is a serious problem in using this passage as evidence in support of Trinitarian doctrine. Just as John understood the passage, (John 19:37) neither of the above two Trinitarian translations indicate Yahweh is the one being pierced.

    “They shall look upon him [Jesus] whom they [the Romans] pierced.” (John 19:37).

    I found this comment also interesting:
    Let us first simply consider just what the Trinitarian translation actually says. It says “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him.” It doesn't even make sense. The people are looking at the pierced person but mourning for someone else altogether.

    There are some interesting arguments on that site.

    #153406
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2009,17:24)

    Quote
    n the below passage Zechariah records a quite amazing prophecy:

    Zechariah 12:10
    “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

    Trinitarian Translation Inconsistency

    Let us also review some major translations translated by Trinitarian Greek scholars:

       And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. (RSV).

       I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a first-born. (NAB).
    http://www.angelfire.com/space….10.html

    Now if Trinitarian Greek scholars themselves have seen fit to translate the passage in this manner, it is rather obvious there is a serious problem in using this passage as evidence in support of Trinitarian doctrine. Just as John understood the passage, (John 19:37) neither of the above two Trinitarian translations indicate Yahweh is the one being pierced.

    “They shall look upon him [Jesus] whom they [the Romans] pierced.” (John 19:37).

    I found this comment also interesting:
    Let us first simply consider just what the Trinitarian translation actually says. It says “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him.” It doesn't even make sense. The people are looking at the pierced person but mourning for someone else altogether.

    There are some interesting arguments on that site.

    David,
    I am sorry to have to pop your balloon and tell you that your argument against trinitarianism above is inconclusive. You are correct that it is YHWH who is speaking and is distinguished from the one who was pierced. There is no “trinitarian” translation I am aware of that denies this. The problem comes when some trinitarians misinterpret the text. But not all trinitarians misinterpret the text as both you and your source have suggested.

    Your argument against trinitarianism above is inconclusive because of what is said in 13:7. I will give the ESV which is the closest to the original idea. It says this,

    “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,
      against the man who stands next to Me,”

            declares the LORD of hosts.
     
       “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered;
      I will turn my hand against the little ones.”

    The original indicates that the Shepherd is the man who is YHWH's EQUAL COMPANION. The ESV translates by using the colloquial expression , “the mans who STANDS NEXT to Me.” The smitten Shepherd is the Man who stands next to YHWH in an EQUAL position.

    Therefore, the distinction between YHWH and the one who is pierced in 12:10 is not a contra-distinction.

    I will give you credit for pointing out the correct rendering of 12:10 and for finally coming up with a valid point though inconclusive. This was your best attempt since I have been here.

    BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT DUDE!

    thinker

    #153407
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    I thought you only had one God?
    We know Jesus is a man who is at the right hand of God.
    But that tells nobody that there are three gods rolled into one does it?

    #153419
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 25 2009,16:27)
    Hi TT,
    I thought you only had one God?
    We know Jesus is a man who is at the right hand of God.
    But that tells nobody that there are three gods rolled into one does it?


    What about my word standing next to God in “EQUALITY” do you not understand?

    thinker

    #153428
    georg
    Participant

    Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 25 2009,21:58)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 25 2009,16:27)
    Hi TT,
    I thought you only had one God?
    We know Jesus is a man who is at the right hand of God.
    But that tells nobody that there are three gods rolled into one does it?


    What about my word standing next to God  in “EQUALITY” do you not understand?

    thinker


    What are you trying to say here? Nobody is equal to God the Father Jehovah. Not even Jesus. And the Holy Spirit is God the Fathers Spirit. I said this before, thinker. If you think that the Holy Spirit is a Person, then He is the Father of Jesus. And we know that is not so.
    I know that there is one verse or two in John that makes it sounds like it is, but there are other Scriptures that make the trinity void. The most important to me is in
    Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and in us all.
    Thinker come on and learn, I know how hard that is, I was there one time, when we left the Catholic Church. Get yourself a book named “The two Babylonians.” That is the Book that convinced me to leave.
    Peace and Love to you, Irene

    #153495
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Irene said:

    Quote
    What are you trying to say here?  Nobody is equal to God the Father Jehovah.  Not even Jesus.

    Paul said that the Son “WILL BE” subject to the Father. This means that the Son is EQUAL to the Father or else it makes no sense that He “WILL BE” subject.

    thinker

    #153516
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    The Son is given the Kingdom and Jesus gives it to his brothers too.
    Of course the one who gives is greater than the one given to[Heb7]
    Are you saying Jesus is another equal god? how many do you have?

    #153587
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 26 2009,13:04)
    Hi TT,
    The Son is given the Kingdom and Jesus gives it to his brothers too.
    Of course the one who gives is greater than the one given to[Heb7]
    Are you saying Jesus is another equal god? how many do you have?


    In a contractual relationship the one who gives is NOT greater. The worker in the vineyard is servant to the land owner. But at the end of the day it is the laborer that is greater. The land owner becomes under the laborer to pay what he owes. Christ as servant carried out the terms of the covenant of redemption. At the end of the day the Father was under Christ to carry out His end of the agreement and “give” Him the Kingdom.

    The Father gave the kingdom to Christ in the sense that the landowner gives the laborer his wages. At the end of the day it was the Son who was greater. Just as the laborer is not required to yield his wages likewise the Son is under no obligation to yield His kingdom. He yields it of His own free-will. The Son will NOT be subject to the Father until then.

    When I was 10 years old my father and I entered into an agreement. We agreed that if I wash the car he would give me a brand new baseball bat. I was under my father to wash the car and I washed the car. When I was done he looked it over and saw I missed something and so I took care of it. After completing the job to my father's satisfaction he was under me by agreement to pay up. It was not as one “greater” that my father gave me the bat?  He gave me the baseball bat as one who was under me through covenant. It was MY baseball bat. If I would have yielded the bat back to my father I would have done so of my own free volition.

    Again, Christ fulfilled the agreement. The Father did not give Him the kingdom as one greater but as one who was under a contract. Paul said that the Son will yield the kingdom. He did NOT say that He is obligated to yield it. He clearly is not obligated. If you infer obligation then you infer too much.

    The Father and the Son entered into a covenantal relationship with each other for the sake of YOUR salvation. Each met his respective terms of the contract and so each is EQUALLY Savior in His own right.

    Christ was servant by covenant and was justly rewarded for His service and is therefore worthy of your praise. Grow up so that you may comprehend these basic principles.

    thinker

    #153599
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    So the Son of God gives back the Kingdom to His father God.
    By his work the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

    #153613
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,06:24)
    Hi TT,
    So the Son of God gives back the Kingdom to His father God.
    By his work the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven.


    In the meantime the kingdom belongs to the Son and He rules it according to His own will.

    thinker

    #153614
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    God is in him and working through him.
    That is how all of God's servants should be.

    We follow him

    #153615
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,09:19)
    Hi TT,
    God is in him and working through him.
    That is how all of God's servants should be.

    We follow him


    The scriptures do not say that God is working in Him and through Him since He has been exalted. He is not subject while at the right hand of God. The Son reveals the Father to whomosoever He wills.

    Quote
    27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him (Matthew 11:27)

    Does this sound like servitude to you? None of you anti-trinitarians have been able to explain why Paul said that the Son “will be” made subject. You all just keep dancing around Paul's statement.

    thinker

    #153617
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    If you understand Jesus at all you would know he was anointed by the God Who was with him, with the Holy Spirit and power and God worked and spoke through him.
    Acts 10 38

    Anyone who walked with him and saw him also saw God in him as he explained to Thomas in Jn14.

    The Abiding faithful Spirit of God remained in the Son of God after his death and raised him and eternlly lives in him uniting him to God forever in that Spirit.

    You need to forget your intellectual theories about WHAT God is as this is the same hope you have been offered and your trinity ideas will cause you to stumble.

    #153624
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,10:06)
    Hi TT,
    If you understand Jesus at all you would know he was anointed by the God Who was with him, with the Holy Spirit and power and God worked and spoke through him.
    Acts 10 38

    Anyone who walked with him and saw him also saw God in him as he explained to Thomas in Jn14.

    The Abiding faithful Spirit of God remained in the Son of God after his death and raised him and eternlly lives in him uniting him to God forever in that Spirit.

    You need to forget your intellectual theories about WHAT God is as this is the same hope you have been offered and your trinity ideas will cause you to stumble.


    Nick,
    First, the key word is “was.” You correctly said that God “was” in Him. There is no scripture which says that God is in Him now. Produce a scripture which says that God is in Him now. He has been glorified and He is sharing the glory He had with His Father before the world began.

    Second, the Son willingly subjected Himself to the Father because He was Himself in God's form. Paul is so clear about this (Philippians 2). If Jesus was forced to be subject then it is meaningless to us. The whole thrust of Paul's argument about Christ's humility is that He made Himself nothing. The Father did not make Christ nothing. Christ made Himself nothing.

    Christ was subserviant to the Father by covenant and not as a creature. It is you who does not understand Jesus. You are disobedient Nick. The Father has committed ALL judgment to the Son so that ALL men should honor Him EVEN AS they honor the Father. Your words betray that you do not honor the Son EVEN AS the Father. You are therefore disobedient and in danger of the judgment.

    You say that I am just touting “intellectual” theories. What in hades is so “intellectual” about the principles of contract relationships I expounded. I served my father by washing his car. He rewarded me and payed me what he OWED me. I fulfilled my end of the agreement and my father fulfilled his end. You call this “intellectual” when it is basic principles of righteousness. Did you catch that Nick? What I speak are basic principles of righteousness.

    You call it “intellectual” because you are an enemy of the truth! The Father and the Son had a covenant agreement in reference to our salvation. The Son fulfilled His end of it and the Father rewarded Him according to righteousness. At the end of the day the landowner is UNDER the laborer to pay up according to the principles of righteousness. After Christ fulfilled the terms of the agreement the Father was under Him according to the basic principles of righteousness to “give” Him the kingdom.

    You attribute all that Christ did to the power of God within Him. If your understanding of this is true then why does the Father REWARD Him and not take the credit for Himself? Why does the Father exalt the name of Jesus Christ instead of exalting His own name? You make no sense.

    It is clear that you have no inkling whatsoever of the expression “God was IN Christ.” It means “God BY AGENCY of Christ.”  It means that Christ was the NECESSARY agent in the plan of redemption. If your view of “God IN Christ” was correct then the Father would be taking all the credit. But instead He exalts the name of Jesus.

    You say of those who possess the common sense you lack that they are “intellectual.” Well, I would like how you would do in business and in carrying on meaningful relationships when operating according to your philosophies.

    Heck Nick, my relationship with my father was better than Chrit's relationship with your God. My father was righteous and “gave” me what was rightfully mine after I finished the work. My father did not say, “Your works account for nothing and I give you this baseball bat because I am greater than you.”

    I speak common sense and basic principles of righteousness. But this would appear “intellectual” to one who lacks common sense.

    thinker

    #153626
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    The Spirit of eternal life never forsakes.[Heb 13.5]
    Jesus is for us the channel of the Living Spirit [Jn7] but you think that source has dried up?

    #153628
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,11:32)
    Hi TT,
    The Spirit of eternal life never forsakes.[Heb 13.5]
    Jesus is for us the channel of the Living Spirit [Jn7] but you think that source has dried up?


    ???

    #153652
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    So while God was in heaven where Jesus prayed to Him God was on earth praying… to Himself??
    Confusion reigns among the decieved but you judge us?

    #153692
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,14:26)
    Hi TT,
    So while God was in heaven where Jesus prayed to Him God was on earth praying… to Himself??
    Confusion reigns among the decieved but you judge us?


    We know your question is intended to misrepresent.

    thinker

    #153697
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi TT,
    Really?

    Is trinity a true representation of God?
    Who do you pray to?
    A trinity?

    #153925
    Tim Kraft
    Participant

    Nick: Would it really matter if I saw a burning candle and thought, fire,light,& heat. Yet when you looked a the same burning candle you only saw it as fire? You pray to God! Yet there are many aspects of God. God is not even a name. Its an all-inclusive term. I can't understand the war against father,son & holy ghost! TK

Viewing 20 posts - 361 through 380 (of 518 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account