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 - 441 through 460 (of 518 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #248979
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (david @ June 18 2011,14:16)
    1. Later, in the same verse, we are told it is “him.”
    2. John clearly understood it to be “him.”
    3. Other manuscripts translate it as “him.”


    Good post David.

    #249004
    david
    Participant

    I remember a long time ago thinking this was a quite strong trinitarian argument, one of the strongest ones in fact. (zech 12:10)

    Is 1:18's Argument seemed quite solid. I guess that was because it was based on a false premise, and not having spent any time considering the verse, upon reading his post, there was no obvious defense (without research) other than the fact that later in the verse it says “him” rather than me, which of course seemed odd to all of us. That should have been our first clue that something was wrong.

    #249014
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (david @ June 19 2011,14:41)
    I remember a long time ago thinking this was a quite strong trinitarian argument, one of the strongest ones in fact. (zech 12:10)


    Perhaps a thread could be started with select membership where we quote the verses that we think are the strongest verses that Trinitarians use to support their doctrine.

    #249015
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Probably doesn't relate to what you are saying david, but I would like to add this to the topic.

    Quotes in the New Testament are often that, quotes. They speak a part and then you recite the rest of scripture that the quote was taken from.

    e.g., when Jesus said “My God my God, was hast thou forsaken me”, it would have made the hearers who were familiar with scripture think of the Psalm that starts off with that line and then goes into the prophetic verses that speak of the messiah being crucified and casting of lots, wild dogs surround me, not a bone broken etc. Perhaps the reason why we hear, “truly he was the son of God”.

    I was once told that this practice was a Jewish custom and its purpose was to memorize scripture. I quote the first part and you recite the rest. I have however never verified if this was indeed a Jewish custom. Perhaps someone here knows about this.

    Another occurrence was Jesus saying “ye are gods”. Notice that he never quoted the next part of the scripture that said, “you are all sons of the Most High God”. Yet his message relies on the next part because he goes onto say something like, why accuse me of being God when I actually said that I was the son of God. So he either said it and it wasn't recorded that he said that part too in the NT, or he relied on their knowledge of scripture by quoting the first part only and expecting them to know the rest and even sat his message on the rest of that verse/text.

    My point is this. When we see a quote, it is only part of the text and hence we truly need to know the rest in order to understand it's meaning, whereas the quote in the NT may not be enough to understand the message.

    If I said to you for example, “In the beginning God”, you could probably recite the rest. But what if I said, “The Word and God were with each other”. Then you could still probably think of John 1:1. But what if 2000 years later someone quoted my words and made the argument in the 21st century, John 1:1b was literally worded as God and the Word were together, rather the Word was With God.

    Of course, my point may have no correlation to this topic at all, but I think what I am going to say next is probably true.

    The source should be more reliable than a quote from the source unless the translation of the source became corrupted and the quote wasn't corrupt.

    #249017
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ June 19 2011,20:30)
    when Jesus said “My God my God, was hast thou forsaken me”, it would have made the hearers who were familiar with scripture think of the Psalm that starts off with that line and then goes into the prophetic verses that speak of the messiah being crucified and casting of lots, wild dogs surround me, not a bone broken etc. Perhaps the reason why we hear, “truly he was the son of God”.

    I was once told that this practice was a Jewish custom and its purpose was to memorize scripture. I quote the first part and you recite the rest. I have however never verified if this was indeed a Jewish custom. Perhaps someone here knows about this.


    Hi T8,

    That's the exact reason why Jesus spoke Psalm 22:1,
    it was to draw the readers attention to all of Psalm 22!
    The bible was not numbered into chapters until 1228 A.D.

    God bless  
    Ed J
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #249034
    Istari
    Participant

    EDJ and t8 are both correct.

    And it is the same as I do: how many have demand that I quote chapter and verse for them when expressing a view on a scriptural matter: why, because they do not know the Scriptures enough to track it's source.
    Did not even Jesus say, 'It is written…'? Did he quote chapter and verse – yet they knew – or went away to search it out?

    Do likewise…!

    #249040
    Ed J
    Participant

    To All,

    I did read the entire bible a number of times,
    so if you need help finding a verse: “JustAsk“.

    God bless  
    Ed J
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #249066
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (Istari @ June 20 2011,06:23)
    EDJ and t8 are both correct.

    And it is the same as I do: how many have demand that I quote chapter and verse for them when expressing a view on a scriptural matter: why, because they do not know the Scriptures enough to track it's source.
    Did not even Jesus say, 'It is written…'? Did he quote chapter and verse – yet they knew – or went away to search it out?

    Do likewise…!


    istari

    :D :D :D

    did not Jesus latter explain to his disciples ?

    and is that what you do to?

    or you use confusion?

    Pierre

    #249087
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Istari @ June 19 2011,06:23)
    EDJ and t8 are both correct.

    And it is the same as I do: how many have demand that I quote chapter and verse for them when expressing a view on a scriptural matter: why, because they do not know the Scriptures enough to track it's source.
    Did not even Jesus say, 'It is written…'? Did he quote chapter and verse – yet they knew – or went away to search it out?

    Do likewise…!


    There are two main differences, Istari. One, you often quote words that you remember being in scripture, when in fact they are not.

    And two, if you ARE going to quote scripture, then it is YOU who must be prepared to tell an unknowing one exactly what scripture you gleened that quote from.

    I'm quite sure that when Jesus quoted scripture, he was well aware of where that scripture was just in case someone DID ask.

    #249165
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    uotes in the New Testament are often that, quotes. They speak a part and then you recite the rest of scripture that the quote was taken from.

    e.g., when Jesus said “My God my God, was hast thou forsaken me”, it would have made the hearers who were familiar with scripture think of the Psalm that starts off with that line and then goes into the prophetic verses that speak of the messiah being crucified and casting of lots, wild dogs surround me, not a bone broken etc. Perhaps the reason why we hear, “truly he was the son of God”.

    Although this is a completely separate topic, I found it quite interesting and would like to study it further. Someone should start this topic and provide more examples.

    #249166
    david
    Participant

    My last post on page 44. I would really like a response to it.

    #249413
    david
    Participant

    I declare this argument dead.

    #249417

    Quote (david @ June 18 2011,15:16)
    SO, is it “me” or is it “him”?


    Hi David

    Take your pick. I believe it is “me” because the prologue of John starts with “the Word was with God and the Word was God” and near the end of Johns testimony we see Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God without rebuke or correction by John or Jesus, then John said concerning Jesus that the world could not contain the books of the things that Jesus did.

    Anyone that is honest should see that John is not speaking of 3/12 years of ministry, but John is speaking of Jesus works from before the foundation of the world. This means that the Patriarchs saw his works also, in fact they claim to have seen YHWH face to face in the form of a man and we know they did not see the Father.

    John attributes everything coming from Jesus to all creation and clearly states that “not one thing came into being without Jesus”.  John 1:1-3

    There goes the “Jesus” is just a puppet or a funnel that the Father works through” argument.

    Col 1:17 tells us “Jesus” is before all things, and by him all things consist.   :)

    So no David this topic is not dead since Moses, and others claimed to talk to YHWH face to face and again we know they did not see the Father. :p

    WJ

    #249422
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    So no David this topic is not dead since Moses, and others claimed to talk to YHWH face to face and again we know they did not see the Father.

    Perhaps this topic is dead and perhaps it isn't. But the above (other possible trinitarian evidence) has nothing to do with whether this possible evidence (of Zech 12:10) is actually evidence in itself. All you are doing here is opening another argument and discussion, which I would be happy to discuss in the appropriate threads. But the claim was made that this Zech 12:10 is evidence for the trinity.

    (I will comment on what you actually said about Zech 12:10, but I am just working on posting a new thread now.)

    #249424
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    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?

    I find it in line with reality that the false doctrine of the Trinity relies heavily on grammatically incorrect English.

    Another example is three persons being God, and yet THEY are not THEY, but for some strange illogical reason are HIM.

    Bad bad English.

    Yet scriptures that talk about God as HIM and also as being the only true God, who also happened to send HIS son into the world, are not only correct, but are all grammatically correct too. So true doctrine is also true grammatically and this particular false doctrine relies heavily on incorrect grammar.

    In fact these are so blatantly wrong grammatically, that it is amazing that people have not scrutinized this earlier. But I guess that is the power of tradition. It makes no sense, but people follow it religiously regardless. And for those who dig deep and find the inconsistencies, then proponents of this false doctrine resort to the argument, that God is beyond our understanding so of course these things are illogical to us.

    #249426
    david
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2011,08:25)

    Quote (david @ June 18 2011,15:16)
    SO, is it “me” or is it “him”?


    Hi David

    Take your pick. I believe it is “me” because the prologue of John starts with “the Word was with God and the Word was God” and near the end of Johns testimony we see Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God without rebuke or correction by John or Jesus, then John said concerning Jesus that the world could not contain the books of the things that Jesus did.

    Anyone that is honest should see that John is not speaking of 3/12 years of ministry, but John is speaking of Jesus works from before the foundation of the world. This means that the Patriarchs saw his works also, in fact they claim to have seen YHWH face to face in the form of a man and we know they did not see the Father.

    John attributes everything coming from Jesus to all creation and clearly states that “not one thing came into being without Jesus”.  John 1:1-3

    There goes the “Jesus” is just a puppet or a funnel that the Father works through” argument.

    Col 1:17 tells us “Jesus” is before all things, and by him all things consist.   :)

    So no David this topic is not dead since Moses, and others claimed to talk to YHWH face to face and again we know they did not see the Father. :p

    WJ


    Hi WJ.

    The question I asked was actually about Zechariah, the scripture in question.

    We are discussing John, because he quoted it. But my question was about Zechariah.

    Anyway, if this subject isn't dead, perhaps you could actually discuss this subject, rather than introduce other possibly trinity scriptures?

    And, since you never actually answered my question about Zechariah, but thought I was speaking of John (which makes no sense) perhaps now you could answer that question.

    It's not a “take your pick” kind of answer.

    It was originally translated one way or the other, not both. Which is correct?

    All you do in your post is throw several other trinitarian arguments out there.

    Perhaps this Zech 12:10 argument actually is DEAD.

    #249430
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    Hi All

    I suppose that they know more about the correct meaning of Zech 12:10 than the inspired Apostle John who aproximately 2000 years ago quoted the verse in John 19:37….

    and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.” John 19:37

    –wj

    You are right in that this does seem to point in the direction you believe, when referring to the argument from the video.

    However, something else I found interesting about Zech 12:10 is that some translation (even trinitarian ones) translate it like this:

    “… when they look upon him whom they have pierced” – RSV.

    See Also:
    NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (The ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS [manuscripts], `him'.” Also see Rotherham footnote.)
    http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/11/zech-1210-john-1937.html

    So, WHICH TRANSLATION MATCHES THE CONTEXT?

    AFTER SAYING THAT THEY WILL LOOK UPON ME (OR HIM) God continues with “they shall mourn for HIM.”

    It seems many Bibles contradict themselves here.
    The “me” in the first half does not agree with the “him” of the second half.

    If we looked at all manuscripts and translated with CONTEXT in mind, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must be translated as “him” or “the one.”

    Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as “him whom they pierced”!

    The septuagint of course uses “me” in the existing copies. (4th cent. CE)

    BUT, the Hebrew is significantly different.

    “The [Hebrew] text of Zech. 12:10 is corrupt. The LXX [Greek Septuagint] text reads:… (`they shall look upon me whom they have treated spitefully') …. The text in [Jn 19:37] does not follow the LXX; but it has also avoided the impossible [`me'] of the Hebrew text.” – p. 195, John 2, Ernst Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

    JOHN 19:37 (LET'S ASK AN INSPIRED BIBLE WRITER [JOHN] HOW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED: “ME” OR “HIM”??)

    But most important of all, closely examine John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as “They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced.” So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: “They shall look upon him” (not `me'). (Same source as above)

    SO, is it “me” or is it “him” in Zech 12:10?

    1. Later, in the same verse, we are told it is “him.”
    2. John clearly understood it to be “him.”
    3. Other manuscripts translate it as “him.”

    So, things that disagree with the most common translation are: (other manuscripts; the context of the rest of the verse; John's inspired writing)

    WJ, your argument is definitely a valid one as far as arguing against the video I presented. But, how would you address the above.

    #249437

    Quote (david @ June 21 2011,17:40)
    WJ, your argument is definitely a valid one as far as arguing against the video I presented.  But, how would you address the above.


    David

    I already have. Since you think Zech 12:10 could be “me or him” then that means to you it is “ambiguous”.

    I choose to interpret the verse based on Johns entire prologue (which I have already explained) and his use of the verse in light of the rest of his writings.

    What else do you want from me?

    WJ

    #249439

    Quote (t8 @ June 21 2011,17:08)
    Another example is three persons being God, and yet THEY are not THEY, but for some strange illogical reason are HIM.


    t8

    This is a logical fallacy since their are many pliral unities we refer to as “them or they”.

    If I refer to my government I can say “they or them”.

    If we say God is our Savour then we may refer to “them” as “they” are our Savour since the Father is not exclusively our Savour for without “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19) there is no salvation.

    Remember you said…

    Quote (t8 @ June 14 2011,20:10)
    Yes I cannot have God without the mediator that is true.


    How many Savours do you have?”

    How do these scriptures fit in your theology?…

    Thou shalt have “no other gods” (elohiym) before me. Exod 20:3

    And…

    “But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. “You shall acknowledge no God ('elohiym) but me, no Savior except me”. Hosea 13:4

    And…

    …and that “there is none other God (theos) but one”. 1 Cor 8:4

    Your theology places another god (theos) before YHWH. You can’t say this is not true because you have admitted you cannot have YHWH without Jesus. Your own words are deceiving when you say things like…

    Quote (t8 @ June 14 2011,17:49)
    Actually I believe that Jesus is theos/god.


    You can use the God/god argument all you want but as you know in Hebrew and Greek there are no “caps” or distinction in the words and that the context distinguishes between the “one true theos/god” and all others who are not the “one true theos/god”.

    So based on your statement above, how many theos/gods do you have and serve?

    Since you say…

    Quote (t8 @ June 14 2011,17:49)
    Actually I believe that Jesus is theos/god.


    Is Jesus “your” Savour and your god/theos?

    WJ

    #249440
    terraricca
    Participant

    WJ

    Quote
    Col 1:17 tells us “Jesus” is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    Jesus is before all thing after himself,and so it is true that all things consist by him or in him,

    Pierre

Viewing 20 posts - 441 through 460 (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