- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2011,01:19) Quote (t8 @ July 31 2011,20:57) If you understood the difference between identity and nature, you would not teach what you teach.
t8Tell you what, when you can explain or give an example of how you can “identify” anything without nature then you may have a point!
WJ
Keith,I have posted Webster's definition of “identity” that it means “sameness of character and nature” a thousand times and they still reject it. I have posted other sources too and they think they know better than the lexographers and the philosophers.
Jack
Kathi! Kathi! It is that important that the Church si a She>>>> Ok She is a She…… Are you satisfied? Now to Jehovah God these are the Scriptures that tells us YOU are wrong….
Are you going to admit that the Scriptures are right and you are wrong, because of the Scriptures you ARE wrong…Psa 83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.
Psa 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JEHOVAH, and rejoice before him.
Psa 97:9 For thou, LORD Jehovah, [art] high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods.
Do you see two beings here? I don't…. Jehovah is one LORD Almighty God, Heavenly Father, that is Hos name……His not their….
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,05:37) Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2011,19:05) Quote (Pastry @ July 31 2011,04:02) Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2011,15:32) Irene,
I have been answering Mike and he keeps asking for more. What I have shown him is sufficient to prove that a compound unity is referred to with singular pronouns.Quote As far as the Church is concerned, it is not a He or She, the Church is singular as a unit, All organized religion are not the true Churches. You say gender is not the issue, but it is. Because nobody calls the Church a He or a She do they? There is only ONE TRUE CHURCH…..and the head of that Church is Jesus…. So, Irene, if I prove that the church is called a 'she' will that make a difference to you…will you allow yourself to consider that you are wrong about this matter?
Here is your proof:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
That should help you see that the church is indeed called a 'she' and also 'her.'
About what Jack put up, it does a great job proving to Mike just what Mike asked me to prove to him…I am very happy that Jack found this so it will put an end to the issue. Note that what he put up proves that a compound unity is expressed as a 'he' and 'him.'
Jehovah God, the name of the compound unity of the Father and the Son is referred to as a 'He' and a 'Him' also.
So, Irene, maybe you should look at the two scriptures and wonder if they might be hitting a little close to home
BTW, I have always believed in the unity of the Father and the Son. I am just finding more and more clarity and verses and reasons.
God is good…ALL the time,
Kathi
No Kathi! The She in this article is about the wife, not the Church. Read it with an open mind….
You have no clear Scripture that says that Jehovah God is two people. But We have….. already given you that Scripture…..Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
The 'she' is the church. Read it more closely.Irene, can you call Jesus your Lord?
Can you call Jesus your Lord of lords?
Can you call Jesus your Lord of lords as in Deut 10:17? If not, why not.
Mike, and Pierre would you please let Irene answer this without butting in, thanks!
Kathi
Irene,
It is important to me that you answer these questions so that you can come to truth about it. It really is not subjective but objective. I know you want truth, right? If I believe that the 'she' in the above passage is not the church but it really is, then I would be thinking a lie. So, you don't want to be thinking a lie, do you?According to the scripture, is the church called a 'she?'
Note that I did not ask “According to you, should the church be called a 'she?'” Nor did I ask, “should the church today be called a 'she'?”Please answer that honestly, it only takes a moment.
Then answer the other questions too.
Irene,
Thank you for answering the question. Now you can see that personal singular pronouns can be used to refer to a compound unity. With this truth, you might be able to see that Jehovah is a compound unity of more than one person. Your verses do not contradict that the name 'Jehovah' could be the name of the compound unity of the Father and the Son. Your verses express a oneness and does not say Jehovah is one person, just that He is one.Now please answer the rest of the questions. Here they are again:
Irene, can you call Jesus your Lord?
Can you call Jesus your Lord of lords?
Can you call Jesus your Lord of lords as in Deut 10:17? If not, why not.
KathiQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 02 2011,01:12) Go back to the op of this thread. God NAMED the male and the female “Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2). It was the man who named the woman “Eve.” But God named her “Adam.”
Again you prove that you lack understanding in this subject.God called them Man as in Mankind. That word is Adam.
That is why in your bible you will see the word man or mankind.
It is the name of the species or their type. Are you able to comprehend this?
You are very confused when it comes to names of individuals and names of type or species.
It's not really that hard KJ. But if it is hard for you, then why are you debating a subject that is too difficult for you?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 02 2011,08:54) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 02 2011,01:12) Go back to the op of this thread. God NAMED the male and the female “Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2). It was the man who named the woman “Eve.” But God named her “Adam.”
Again you prove that you lack understanding in this subject.God called them Man as in Mankind. That word is Adam.
That is why in your bible you will see the word man or mankind.
It is the name of the species or their type. Are you able to comprehend this?
You are very confused when it comes to names of individuals and names of type or species.
It's not really that hard KJ. But if it is hard for you, then why are you debating a subject that is too difficult for you?
No t8. You prove that you operate under YOUR definitions and not under the definitions that we ALL must. YOUR distinction between “identity” and “nature” is assumed and not proven and is contrary to the dictionaries and the philosophers.You must prove YOUR definitions and not just assume them. The experts say that “identity” means “sameness of nature.” The woman's identity was “the Adam” with the man because she had the same nature as the man. Thus God NAMED them “Adam.”
Jesus is “the God” with the Father because He has the same nature as the Father.
No distinction between “identity” and “nature” exists but the one YOU have created.
Is Jesus less than “the” man because He is the Son of “the” Man?
Quote But if it is hard for you, then why are you debating a subject that is too difficult for you?
Why do you not use the same definitions of “identity” and “nature” that we ALL must use? I'll tell you why. Because it puts your damnable theology into question.KJ
Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2011,20:19) This was one of your hurdles that I had to get over and I did.
Hi Kathi,Please don't waste your time trying to convince me of the nonsense you've been posting lately. I'm not buying and never will. Jesus is the only begotten SON OF the Most High God Jehovah, and that's really all there is to it.
But you say you've jumped a hurdle? Which site is right? Jack's site that says “HIS eyes”? Or Biblos.com, the LXX, and the English translation on Jack's site – which all say “THEIR eyes”?
Shouldn't you PROVE that Jack's site was the one with the correct translation before considering the hurdle as jumped? I don't know enough about the Hebrew language to make a decision………………..so I don't know which site to believe.
peace,
mikeMike,
I'm just answering your questions for my benefit to know that I can. I will leave the convincing to the Lord. I am just supposed to proclaim the truth freely as it is given me…what kind of ground it falls on is out of my control. This site is open to anybody whether their soil is rich and fertile, ready to hold on to truth and produce fruit or the rocky soil where the truth just blooooows away.Neither of us know much about the Hebrew language. I do know that some translators translate more literally than others. Some translate so the translation is more easily readable rather than literal. It appears that Jack's link is the more literal translation.
Your friend,
KathiKJ
Quote Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 02 2011,01:12)
Go back to the op of this thread. God NAMED the male and the female “Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2). It was the man who named the woman “Eve.” But God named her “Adam.”did you never heard of the Adam's family ??
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 01 2011,16:28) Is Jesus less than “the” man because He is the Son of “the” Man?
Hi Jack,Jesus would naturally be of the same nature as “the man” he was the son of…………….we all are right?
But he would not BE “the man” he was the son of, right?
So Jesus can have the same nature as “the God” he is the Son of. But he cannot BE “the God” he is the Son of.
Jack, if we have but ONE God Almighty, and Jesus is the SON OF that ONE God Almighty, then he simply can't BE that same ONE God Almighty that he is the SON OF.
This is first grade logic Jack. Surely you can understand this?
1. Jack, is there only ONE God Almighty in existence?
2. Is Jesus the Son OF that ONE God Almighty?
If you are able to answer those two simple questions honestly – with a YES – then you will have either ceased to believe in the Trinity Doctrine, or have ceased to be a man who discusses scriptures logically and honestly.
It's really just that simple. Jesus is the Son OF our ONE AND ONLY God.
peace,
mikeApplying KJs doctrine
To Adam.
God named the species Adam and called the first man Adam.
One idenifies the adam, the other the species.
So Adam can be adam, but she is not Adam.Thanks
Adam.Interpretation
Hi KJ.
God named the species Adam and called the first man Adam.
One idenifies the man, the other the species or nature.
So Eve can be adam, but she is not Adam.Thanks
t8——–
KJ, your basic lack of understanding here demonstrates aptly the reason why you believe and preach the false doctrine of the Trinity.
The more you say, the deeper you dig yourself in this ditch.
You are embarrasing yourself here.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 02 2011,09:28) Why do you not use the same definitions of “identity” and “nature” that we ALL must use? I'll tell you why. Because it puts your damnable theology into question.
KJ.Nature has names as do people for identification purposes. We identify individuals with names as we identify different natures with names. That is not even up for debate really. It is an accepted concept by almost all people who have ever lived. If you wish to say this is wrong, then your debate is with the human race and not just me.
I know you are lost on this subject, but these 3 points might help your understanding.
Adam as the first man (identifies a particular person)
Eve as the first woman (identifies a particular person)
Adam as in mankind. (identifies a particular nature/species/flesh)I am sure it is not lack of intellect that blocks your understanding here, rather it is a form of brainwashing that is blocking this most basic precept.
But because you are unable to grasp what most 4 year olds already know, why don't you call everyone on this forum Adam and be done with it. Show faith in your own understanding and call me, Mike, LU, Shimmer, Gene, and everyone else, by the name of Adam and see your own understanding in action. Good luck with making that work BTW, you are going to need it.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,17:31) Mike,
I'm just answering your questions for my benefit to know that I can
Well, keep working on your presentation then, Kathi. Because so far, you haven't produced one single shred of evidence worthy of convincing even a third grader that the Son OF God is also a co-equal member of the God he is the Son OF.Just like you considered the hurdle to have been jumped prematurely, it seems you've also prematurely considered what you call “answers” to have been acceptable to anyone of third grade intelligence or above.
Maybe you should try out your presentation on a couple of kindergarteners first – before laying it on me.
peace and love to you my friend,
mike
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,13:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,13:35) Mike,
You just need to know why Jehovah is the most high and the most high what. Then you will understand.
Jesus is called 'son of the Most High God'.
But the Father is not called 'Father of the Most High God'.Your understanding appears to not work with the above facts.
Do you admit this to be the case LU?If yes, why not.
Your doctrine suggests that God is a combination of two. Therefore if one is called the son of God, then why not the other the Father of God?Quote
Now you can see that personal singular pronouns can be used to refer to a compound unity. With this truth, you might be able to see that Jehovah is a compound unity of more than one person. Your verses do not contradict that the name 'Jehovah' could be the name of the compound unity of the Father and the Son. Your verses express a oneness and does not say Jehovah is one person, just that He is one.
Kathi! No, Jesus is not Jehovah God…. Let me tell you this. Even though the Church in Biblical terms is a She, to me it is not. The Church in the world, is not the Church of God at all. The Church of God are the people, not a Building. When Jesus comes again He will marry the Church. He is the head of that Church…
As that is so, so is Jehovah God not a unity between Almighty God and His Son. Their believes are what unites them and us. So are we then Jehovah also? Not by a long shot….
You are not even considering the Scriptures I gave you…..
Peace and Love IreneQuote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,18:21) Therefore if one is called the son of God, then why not the other the Father of God?
I know you've asked this before, but it is still brilliant.Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 01 2011,19:06) Even though the Church in Biblical terms is a She, to me it is not.
Hi Irene,In the passage to which Kathi refers, the KJV calls the church “IT”, not “SHE” like some of the other translations.
The Greek language, like many languages, has some words that are “feminine”, and others that are “masculine”. But there are 1000's of feminine words in the Greek mss that are rendered simply as “IT” in the English translations. Just like in the case of the church in the KJV translation.
And the problem with the “SHE” translation is that only TWO of the three “she's” are feminine Greek words. One of those three words that some translations render as “she” is actually a Greek MASCULINE word.
I know you don't like dealing with all this language stuff, but I thought you'd like to know that Kathi is simply reaching for a way to justify her claim that Jehovah is TWO persons who are for some odd reason called “HE” instead of “THEY”. She has picked a weak passage to use for justification, because for one, “she” is so often used of even inanimate objects. And for two, like I said, one of the “she's” should actually be a “he” if they were to follow the gender of the Greek words throughout the whole passage.
peace to you and Georg,
mikeQuote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,19:21) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2011,13:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,13:35) Mike,
You just need to know why Jehovah is the most high and the most high what. Then you will understand.
Jesus is called 'son of the Most High God'.
But the Father is not called 'Father of the Most High God'.Your understanding appears to not work with the above facts.
Do you admit this to be the case LU?If yes, why not.
Your doctrine suggests that God is a combination of two. Therefore if one is called the son of God, then why not the other the Father of God?
t8,
You don't quite get what I am saying. I will try to explain:Deut 10:17 tells us who Jehovah our God is:
For the LORD (Jehovah) your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.Jehovah our God = God of gods + Lord of lords
Jehovah our God is the name of the compound unity of the God of gods (the Father) and the Lord of lords (the Son).The 'God of gods' begat the 'Lord of lords' who was always within Him up until the point that He begat Him. Jehovah our God has not changed, He, referring to the unity, has always been the God of gods and Lord of lords even before there were other so called gods and lords existing. The Father and the Son are each the most high in their respective positions. The Father is not the most high Lord and the Son is not the most high God. The Father is the most high God since He is the God of gods and the Son is the most high Lord since He is the Lord of lords within the unity called Jehovah our God..
In Cor 8:6 we are told that:
yet for us there is but '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 exist through Him.
The 'one God, the Father' would be who is the most high God as the 'God of gods,' in Deut 10:17 within the unity called Jehovah our God.
The 'one Lord, Jesus Christ' would be who is the most high Lord as the 'Lord of lords,' in Deut 10:17 within the unity called Jehovah our God.
In regards to this verse:
John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.If we put 'God of gods and Lord of lords' in the place of 'God and Jesus Christ it helps show how this ties into Deut 10:17:
John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God of gods, the Father and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
If it isn't more clear for you, I'm sorry…maybe just try to let it soak in and consider that there is one true God, the Father and one true Lord, Jesus Christ and how that fits into Deut. 10:17.
You will see in that Jesus is definitely called the Lord of lords:
Rev 17:14 “These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”and here:
Rev 19:16
And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”Thanks,
KathiMike,
Quote Because so far, you haven't produced one single shred of evidence worthy of convincing even a third grader that the Son OF God is also a co-equal member of the God he is the Son OF. Well, that would be because I am not trying to do that. The Son of God is a co-equal member of the unity with the God that He is the Son of.
Quote Maybe you should try out your presentation on a couple of kindergarteners first – before laying it on me. Do I need to dumb it down for ya Mike, is that what you are saying?
Mike,
Quote And for two, like I said, one of the “she's” should actually be a “he” if they were to follow the gender of the Greek words throughout the whole passage. I truly think this is not so…we just don't understand Greek construction well enough to know that, imo.
Eph 5:27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
With your level of Greek knowledge, should you be making such claims?
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
