Answering jodi lee's nonsense

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 07 2010,03:28)

Quote (thethinker @ April 07 2010,11:00) Quote (JustAskin @ April 07 2010,08:04) WJ, TT, What does the scriptures say concerning talking with those who do not have the Spirit of Truth. Does it say that we should continue dialoguing with them till they infect our very spirit? Not continuing to dialogue with Is1 is in no way a failure to be able to respond – Why do yousay that when you both have failed in all your Wiley (TT) and (diplomatic (WJ) ways to defeat me. Can Satan defeat the those with the Holy Spirit – No. So what are you jiggering about. IS1's posts do not contain even the reality of scripture – this shows he is just out for a fight – not wholesome dialogue – feverish or otherwise – just a fight… Throw in any old nonesense as a response – is that even Trinitarian Godly (oh, hold up – it might be – Ok, you got me – you win. What does the scriptures say: “It is better to be allow yourself to be wronged than to continue to try and justify yourself against an adversary…” or something like that… JA, Why did the Father Himself call Jesus “Lord” in Hebrews 1:10? thinker That is an excellent question. It'd be good to get an answer from some one at some point. We live in hope….

Hi Paul,
He is called Lord in Hebrews because God made Him both Lord and Christ.

Acts 2:36
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ — this Jesus whom you crucified.”
NASU

[mikeboll64]

Quote (thethinker @ April 07 2010,20:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2010,12:42) Quote (thethinker @ April 07 2010,11:44) Ed J said: Quote The Trinitarians say: Jesus is “The Owner”. The non-Trinitarians reply: Jesus is NOT “The Owner”, Jesus' Father is “The Owner”! The scripture is very clear that Jesus us the “heir” of all things (Hebrews 1). This makes Him the owner. The heir is the owner dude. What world do you live in? thinker Hi thinker, And we will be joint heirs.  Will we all be the owners?  Will we all be God Almighty? peace and love, mike Paul said that we will be heirs of Christ. 17and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ — if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.Young's Literal Translation) The Greek says that we will be heirs together “of Christ.” It does not say that we will be joint heirs with Christ but heirs together of Christ meaning that we will be conformed to His image. Note the phrase, “that we may also be glorified together” which means to be “conformed to Christ's image” (vs. 30). We will not be “co owners” with Christ. Our inheritance is salvation through Him and our being made into His image. Christ is the sole heir of the kingdom: 1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; When are you going to learn to read the scripture in context? thinker

Hi Thinker,

Let's look at the Greek first:

Quote

eij {COND} de; {CONJ} tevkna, {N-NPN} kai; {CONJ} klhronovmoi: {N-NPM} klhronovmoi {N-NPM} me;n {PRT} qeou', {N-GSM} sugklhronovmoi {A-NPM} de; {CONJ} Xristou', {N-GSM} ei~per {COND} sumpavscomen {V-PAI-1P} i&na {CONJ} kai; {CONJ} sundoxasqw'men.

You took two years of this language, so could you help me out and show me where the word “OF” is in relation to Christ?  I don't speak Greek, but I know of some other translations.

KJV:

Quote

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together .

NIV:

Quote

17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs–heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

WEB:

Quote

17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him.

ASV:

Quote

17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified with [him].

And there are many, many more that translate it this way.  Now let's look at Young's Literal Translation (probably the ONLY one you could find that translates it differently):

Quote

17 and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ — if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.

What's wrong with this translation?  Think it out, Thinker…  Read it in context…  Got it yet?

Paul is saying that the Spirit testifies that we are children of God.  And as children of God, we are also heirs of God.  Heirs together WITH WHO?  Who else is a child of God and heir of God?  You have been making a point to say we are the “BRETHREN of Christ” in our debate.  “He is our BROTHER” you keep repeating.  But now, you want to forget that to try to make the word “OF” make any kind of sense?

We are not heirs OF the heir, Jack.  We are heirs OF God, WITH our brother Jesus,  just like it says in many credible translations.

peace and love,
mike

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2010,13:31)

I would love to know of an online Septuagint site so I could learn more.  Maybe you could point me in the right direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint-hyperlinked.html
http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/

Quote

As far as Heb. 1:10, you have nit-picked my posts, but have answered nothing relevant.  It was Paul who most undoubtedly wrote Hebrews.

No the is some doubt, that's why most Bible enthustiasts with experience are more guarded with their claims than you have been.

Quote

McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says:  “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authourship of this epistle except Paul.”

Yes – so the inference is Paul probably wrote Hebrews….

Quote

But even if it wasn't Paul, you blew off my first point.  What if the writer stopped talking about Jesus and talked directly about Jehovah in verse 10, 11 and 12?  It can just as easily be read in this context as the other.

I blew it off because you supplied no evidence to back up your assertion. There are at least 2 significant problems with your theory:

1. There are no grammatical cues for a switch in subject from Yeshua to the Father. None.

2. It's not in keeping with the context of the letter. The background to the Hebrews letter was intense persecution being suffered by the first century christian readers. As a result the Jewish christians were considering reverting back to Judaism. Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. Hence the first chapter is exclusively about the attributes and position of Yeshua. This is why the chapter builds to a crecendo.

If Paul were to switch focus to the father mid stream that would not only be confusing but would undermine the whole purpose of the letter – to demonstrate the supremacy of the Son, the very object of the faith, the person for which they are being persecuted.

Mike, look at the contextual detail in the first chapter and you will see that Hebrews 1:10, as applied to Yeshua, is not out of place:

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Trinity is poison.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
That is why when angels work and speak for God they are reported as speaking as God.
God is everything that matters.
Vessels are just vessels.

[terraricca]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 08 2010,14:40)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2010,13:31) I would love to know of an online Septuagint site so I could learn more.  Maybe you could point me in the right direction.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/ http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint-hyperlinked.html http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/ Quote As far as Heb. 1:10, you have nit-picked my posts, but have answered nothing relevant.  It was Paul who most undoubtedly wrote Hebrews. No the is some doubt, that's why most Bible enthustiasts with experience are more guarded with their claims than you have been. Quote McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says:  “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authourship of this epistle except Paul.” Yes – so the inference is Paul probably wrote Hebrews…. Quote But even if it wasn't Paul, you blew off my first point.  What if the writer stopped talking about Jesus and talked directly about Jehovah in verse 10, 11 and 12?  It can just as easily be read in this context as the other. I blew it off because you supplied no evidence to back up your assertion. There are at least 2 significant problems with your theory: 1. There are no grammatical cues for a switch in subject from Yeshua to the Father. None. 2. It's not in keeping with the context of the letter. The background to the Hebrews letter was intense persecution being suffered by the first century christian readers. As a result the Jewish christians were considering reverting back to Judaism. Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. Hence the first chapter is exclusively about the attributes and position of Yeshua. This is why the chapter builds to a crecendo. If Paul were to switch focus to the father mid stream that would not only be confusing but would undermine the whole purpose of the letter – to demonstrate the supremacy of the Son, the very object of the faith, the person for which they are being persecuted. Mike, look at the contextual detail in the first chapter and you will see that Hebrews 1:10, as applied to Yeshua, is not out of place: The “world” was made through Him (v 2) He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3) He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3) He “upholds [sustains] all things by the word of His power” (v 3) The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6) He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8) He is contrasted from false gods (v 11) Is said to be immutable [an sole attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12) What can you put up to support you theory that it's that Father that's in view in vss 10-12? Quote Uh…no, it wouldn't.  It would be an utterance from the writer to Jehovah. And your proof is? Quote I've learned these games from thinker.  I gave a very CLEAR answer and you ignore it and ask the same question again.  So let me put it even more plainly: No you have not answered the question yet, you have only tried to snatch at reasons to avoid answering it. Quote IF 10, 11 AND 12 ARE ACTUALLY ABOUT THE FATHER SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT HIS SON, SO WHAT?  HE DOESN'T CALL HIM “MY” LORD, DOES HE.  HE HAS CALLED HIM MESSIAH, CHRIST, LAMB, SON OF MAN, MIGHTY GOD, KING OF KINGS AND MORE.  WHY WOULD CALLING HIM “LORD”, WHEN HE IS THE ONE WHO SET HIM UP AS THE LORD OF LORDS IN THE FIRST PLACE, MEAN ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE IMPLYING? Clear enough for ya?  If Jehovah calls him “King”, does it mean “MY” King?  Where's the Scriptures I asked for that have Jehovah calling Jesus “MY” Lord?  And where's the answer to my Hebrew verses that make it clear the author did NOT consider Jesus as God Almighty? I thought you may have been able to work this out for yourself but it looks like I'll need to explicate it for you. I'm not surprised the language used was “LORD” and not “my LORD” because it stands to reason that Yeshua is not THE Lord of the Father. This would fly in th face of many NT passages which make it plain that the Father is “greater than” the Son. BTW this is not an ontological statement, it's a statement of position. There is clearly a line of authority from the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians do not dispute this. Here is the point I was driving at:- The Greek word “kurios” is used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. That’s well known. But also, when used in the NT as an honorific (“lord”) it signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or station to the addresser. The slave addresses his mater as “lord”, not the other way around. This is principal is without exception. So there are two possible scenarios here: 1) The Father was addressing the Son in a way that denoted His subservience, or inferiority in rank, to Yeshua. Or, 2) He was addressing the Son as YHWH. I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son. So that leave only one possibility – The Father addresses the Son as YHWH. This would align perfectly with the context of Hebrews Ch 1 as a whole, which is about the absolute supremacy of the Son. It also fits precisely within the context of verses 10-12, which are OT quotations that manifestly reference YHWH….. Do you see it now? This is a colossal dilemma for those who say that Yeshua is not YHWH. Quote At least WJ answers with Scriptures to the points being discussed.  Paul and Thinker, when faced with a fact that contradicts the trinity that they cannot dismiss, start name calling. Whay pejorative have I use against you? Quote I mean, what in the world does the Watchtower or the NWT have to do with my posts? You use Watchtower arguments and cite the NWT in you posts Mike. Quote I used neither for my post.  But because you cannot twist around all the Scriptures I quoted or show me one where Jehovah calls Jesus “MY” Lord or “MY” God, like Jesus calls Jehovah more than once, you start slamming people who weren't even involved.  Is that how your version of Jesus taught you to behave?  Ridicules and insults?  How sad for both of you. I have neither ridiculed you nor insulted you. I have just confronted you on your poisonous doctrines. Quote So what about it Paul?  I've posted it big and bold for you – what's your rebuttal? I'm waiting for something to rebutt. Can you answer my question please and I'll obligue you.

Is8

it does not matter your view of speculation,i will bring one level higher,
i say all the scriptures as they are written today are 99% accurate ,and contain the principal of all knowledge required by any true believer in God and Christ ,

now if you do not believe this then,you are stating that God did not protect his WORD and so his holy spirit does not have power to do so,and this would means that your faith as no stand because you do not believe in God.
and this is why you and your friends always argue on words and grammar useless devotion.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (terraricca @ April 08 2010,15:52)

it does not matter your view of speculation,i will bring one level higher, i say all the scriptures as they are written today are 99% accurate ,and contain the principal of all knowledge required by any true believer in God and Christ , now if you do not believe this then,you are stating that  God did not protect his WORD and so his holy spirit does  not have power to do so,and this would means that your faith as no stand because you do not believe in God. and this is why you and your friends always argue on words and grammar useless devotion.

What have I written that has led you to conclude that I don't believe the scriptures to be accurate? For the record I hold that they are very accurate, in fact 100% accurate in the form of their original autographs, and God can indeed protect their integrity. Today we have many translations and some are better, or more accurate, than others. So I guess my standing with God on this matter looks okay.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the links.  I'm not sure about you.  First you say:

Quote

Yes – so the inference is Paul probably wrote Hebrews….

Then you say:

Quote

Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering.

You said:

Quote

because it stands to reason that Yeshua is not THE Lord of the Father. This would fly in th face of many NT passages which make it plain that the Father is “greater than” the Son.

What?!?  You admit the Father is greater?  What about the equality thing?

You said:

Quote

There is clearly a line of authority from the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians do not dispute this.

I'm being floored here.  So now the three are co-equal, but the Father is greater?  How does that make sense to you?

You said:

Quote

The Greek word “kurios” is used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. That’s well known.

No.  The word “lord”, like “God” and “Father” are titles.  For an unknown reason, probably a Jewish superstition, the Jews stopped calling Jehovah by his name at some point.  They substituted the TITLE “lord” in place of the divine name.  It has NEVER meant that anytime someone is called “lord”, they are being called “Jehovah”.  Even in referrence to Jehovah, it is one of His titles, not a substitute for His name.  Now when you read the word “LORD”, in all caps, is when the divine name YHVH is actually in the OT, but rendered as “LORD”.

You said:

Quote

But also, when used in the NT as an honorific (“lord”) it signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or station to the addresser. The slave addresses his mater as “lord”, not the other way around. This is principal is without exception.

The exception, as you admit, is when God is said to have called Jesus “lord”.

Your admission:

Quote

So there are two possible scenarios here: 1) The Father was addressing the Son in a way that denoted His subservience, or inferiority in rank, to Yeshua. Or, 2) He was addressing the Son as YHWH. I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son.

I agree that #1 is not correct, not because Jehovah is “superior in office” only, but because He is superior, period.

You said:

Quote

So that leave only one possibility – The Father addresses the Son as YHWH.

Why would anyone address someone named Jesus as Jehovah?   Jehovah our God is one.  And why are those the only two possibilities?  Your reasoning is nonsensical.  There is only one with the name of Jehovah, and Jesus isn't Him, as the Scriptures I quoted (but you've ignored) show.  I've given you a third and fourth possibility, but you believe it must be one of your two?

You said:

Quote

This would align perfectly with the context of Hebrews Ch 1 as a whole, which is about the absolute supremacy of the Son.

The Scriptures I posted for you from Hebrews put a damper on your “absolute supremacy of the Son” thinking. (Including one from chapter 1, I believe.)

You said:

Quote

You use Watchtower arguments and cite the NWT in you posts Mike.

Proudly!  But not in the post you accused me of using them.  I'm glad the Witnesses are hated and harrassed by the trinitarians.  Jesus said the world would hate his true followers.  But the world sure loves the millions and millions of trinitarians, as WJ likes to point out.  And it's funny that it's always a stupid insult with out any backing of what thought or Scripture they got wrong in that particular case.  I didn't even use anything of theirs, and yet you and thinker were going off on them.  Like kicking someone who wasn't even capable to defend himself.

You said:

Quote

I'm waiting for something to rebutt. Can you answer my question please and I'll obligue you.

I said it.  Then I said it with all caps and bolded.  And your respose was:

Quote

I thought you may have been able to work this out for yourself but it looks like I'll need to explicate it for you.

Answer to my bolded post, man!  Not with a flippant remark, but actually show me why what I said cannot be.

peace and love,
mike

[terraricca]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 08 2010,16:26)

Quote (terraricca @ April 08 2010,15:52) it does not matter your view of speculation,i will bring one level higher, i say all the scriptures as they are written today are 99% accurate ,and contain the principal of all knowledge required by any true believer in God and Christ , now if you do not believe this then,you are stating that  God did not protect his WORD and so his holy spirit does  not have power to do so,and this would means that your faith as no stand because you do not believe in God. and this is why you and your friends always argue on words and grammar useless devotion. What have I written that has led you to conclude that I don't believe the scriptures to be accurate? For the record I hold that they are very accurate, in fact 100% accurate in the form of their original autographs, and God can indeed protect their integrity. Today we have many translations and some are better, or more accurate, than others. So I guess my standing with God on this matter looks okay.

Is8

why then you teach the trinity??

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2010,16:32)

Hi Paul, Thanks for the links.  I'm not sure about you.  First you say: Quote Yes – so the inference is Paul probably wrote Hebrews…. Then you say: Quote Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. You said: Quote because it stands to reason that Yeshua is not THE Lord of the Father. This would fly in th face of many NT passages which make it plain that the Father is “greater than” the Son. What?!?  You admit the Father is greater?  What about the equality thing? You said: Quote There is clearly a line of authority from the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians do not dispute this. I'm being floored here.  So now the three are co-equal, but the Father is greater?  How does that make sense to you? You said: Quote The Greek word “kurios” is used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. That’s well known. No.  The word “lord”, like “God” and “Father” are titles.  For an unknown reason, probably a Jewish superstition, the Jews stopped calling Jehovah by his name at some point.  They substituted the TITLE “lord” in place of the divine name.  It has NEVER meant that anytime someone is called “lord”, they are being called “Jehovah”.  Even in referrence to Jehovah, it is one of His titles, not a substitute for His name.  Now when you read the word “LORD”, in all caps, is when the divine name YHVH is actually in the OT, but rendered as “LORD”. You said: Quote But also, when used in the NT as an honorific (“lord”) it signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or station to the addresser. The slave addresses his mater as “lord”, not the other way around. This is principal is without exception. The exception, as you admit, is when God is said to have called Jesus “lord”. Your admission: Quote So there are two possible scenarios here: 1) The Father was addressing the Son in a way that denoted His subservience, or inferiority in rank, to Yeshua. Or, 2) He was addressing the Son as YHWH. I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son. I agree that #1 is not correct, not because Jehovah is “superior in office” only, but because He is superior, period. You said: Quote So that leave only one possibility – The Father addresses the Son as YHWH. Why would anyone address someone named Jesus as Jehovah?   Jehovah our God is one.  And why are those the only two possibilities?  Your reasoning is nonsensical.  There is only one with the name of Jehovah, and Jesus isn't Him, as the Scriptures I quoted (but you've ignored) show.  I've given you a third and fourth possibility, but you believe it must be one of your two? You said: Quote This would align perfectly with the context of Hebrews Ch 1 as a whole, which is about the absolute supremacy of the Son. The Scriptures I posted for you from Hebrews put a damper on your “absolute supremacy of the Son” thinking. (Including one from chapter 1, I believe.) You said: Quote You use Watchtower arguments and cite the NWT in you posts Mike. Proudly!  But not in the post you accused me of using them.  I'm glad the Witnesses are hated and harrassed by the trinitarians.  Jesus said the world would hate his true followers.  But the world sure loves the millions and millions of trinitarians, as WJ likes to point out.  And it's funny that it's always a stupid insult with out any backing of what thought or Scripture they got wrong in that particular case.  I didn't even use anything of theirs, and yet you and thinker were going off on them.  Like kicking someone who wasn't even capable to defend himself. You said: Quote I'm waiting for something to rebutt. Can you answer my question please and I'll obligue you. I said it.  Then I said it with all caps and bolded.  And your respose was: Quote I thought you may have been able to work this out for yourself but it looks like I'll need to explicate it for you. Answer to my bolded post, man!  Not with a flippant remark, but actually show me why what I said cannot be. peace and love, mike

Mike,
Could you reread my post and think it through thoroughly before you respond. I don't think you've properly understood many of my points.

[KangarooJack]

Is. 1:18 said to Mikeboll:

Quote

1. There are no grammatical cues for a switch in subject from Yeshua to the Father. None. 2. It's not in keeping with the context of the letter. The background to the Hebrews letter was intense persecution being suffered by the first century christian readers. As a result the Jewish christians were considering reverting back to Judaism. Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. Hence the first chapter is exclusively about the attributes and position of Yeshua. This is why the chapter builds to a crecendo. If Paul were to switch focus to the father mid stream that would not only be confusing but would undermine the whole purpose of the letter – to demonstrate the supremacy of the Son, the very object of the faith, the person for which they are being persecuted.

Paul,

My thoughts exactly brother! The author does not change his subject from the Son to the Father in mid stream  as you say. Furthermore, the author said that they were to “leave the elementary teachings of Christ” in reference to certain things inwhich “faith toward God” was included (6:1-3).

They were to abandon “faith toward God” as it had been instituted by Moses and to now move on to faith in Christ.

Jesus Himself hinted at this saying, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” The call to “believe also in Me” would be idolatrous if Christ were not Himself God.

Boy am I glad you're back. These people here are in darkness and you are refreshing light! Please stay a while.

thinker

[terraricca]

Quote (thethinker @ April 08 2010,22:16)

Is. 1:18 said to Mikeboll: Quote 1. There are no grammatical cues for a switch in subject from Yeshua to the Father. None. 2. It's not in keeping with the context of the letter. The background to the Hebrews letter was intense persecution being suffered by the first century christian readers. As a result the Jewish christians were considering reverting back to Judaism. Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. Hence the first chapter is exclusively about the attributes and position of Yeshua. This is why the chapter builds to a crecendo. If Paul were to switch focus to the father mid stream that would not only be confusing but would undermine the whole purpose of the letter – to demonstrate the supremacy of the Son, the very object of the faith, the person for which they are being persecuted. Paul, My thoughts exactly brother! The author does not change his subject from the Son to the Father in mid stream ” as you say. Furthermore, the author said that they were to “leave the elementary teachings of Christ” in reference to certain things inwhich “faith toward God” was included (6:1-3). They were to abandon “faith toward God” as it had been instituted by Moses and to now move on to faith in Christ. Jesus Himself hinted at this saying, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” This call to “believing also in Me” would be idolatrous if Christ were not Himself God. Boy am I glad you're back. These people here are in darkness and you are refreshing light! Please stay a while. thinker

TT

you are again lost in your mind of detractor of the word of God,how is your conclution fit in those words of Paul

Heb 5:11 We have a lot to say about that. But it is hard to explain it to you. You learn too slowly.
Heb 5:12 By this time you should be teachers. But in fact, you need someone to teach you all over again. You need even the simple truths of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food.
Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk is still a baby. That person does not want to learn about living a godly life.
Heb 5:14 Solid food is for those who are grown up. They have trained themselves with a lot of practice. They can tell the difference between good and evil.
Heb 6:1 So let us leave the simple teachings about Christ. Let us grow up as believers. Let us not start all over again with the basic teachings. They taught us that we need to turn away from doing things that lead to death. They taught us that we must have faith in God.
Heb 6:2 They taught us about different kinds of baptism. They taught us about placing hands on people. They taught us that people will rise from the dead. They taught us that God will judge everyone. And they taught us that what he decides will last forever.
Heb 6:3 If God permits, we will go beyond those teachings and grow up.
Heb 6:4 What if some people fall away from the faith? It won’t be possible to bring them back. It is true that they have seen the light. They have tasted the heavenly gift. They have shared in the Holy Spirit.

you have eyes but do not see ,remove the trinity may be you could see better.???

[KangarooJack]

Quote (terraricca @ April 09 2010,01:15)

Quote (thethinker @ April 08 2010,22:16) Is. 1:18 said to Mikeboll: Quote 1. There are no grammatical cues for a switch in subject from Yeshua to the Father. None. 2. It's not in keeping with the context of the letter. The background to the Hebrews letter was intense persecution being suffered by the first century christian readers. As a result the Jewish christians were considering reverting back to Judaism. Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. Hence the first chapter is exclusively about the attributes and position of Yeshua. This is why the chapter builds to a crecendo. If Paul were to switch focus to the father mid stream that would not only be confusing but would undermine the whole purpose of the letter – to demonstrate the supremacy of the Son, the very object of the faith, the person for which they are being persecuted. Paul, My thoughts exactly brother! The author does not change his subject from the Son to the Father in mid stream ” as you say. Furthermore, the author said that they were to “leave the elementary teachings of Christ” in reference to certain things inwhich “faith toward God” was included (6:1-3). They were to abandon “faith toward God” as it had been instituted by Moses and to now move on to faith in Christ. Jesus Himself hinted at this saying, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” This call to “believing also in Me” would be idolatrous if Christ were not Himself God. Boy am I glad you're back. These people here are in darkness and you are refreshing light! Please stay a while. thinker TT you are again lost in your mind of detractor of the word of God,how is your conclution fit in those words of Paul Heb 5:11 We have a lot to say about that. But it is hard to explain it to you. You learn too slowly. Heb 5:12 By this time you should be teachers. But in fact, you need someone to teach you all over again. You need even the simple truths of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food. Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk is still a baby. That person does not want to learn about living a godly life. Heb 5:14 Solid food is for those who are grown up. They have trained themselves with a lot of practice. They can tell the difference between good and evil. Heb 6:1 So let us leave the simple teachings about Christ. Let us grow up as believers. Let us not start all over again with the basic teachings. They taught us that we need to turn away from doing things that lead to death. They taught us that we must have faith in God. Heb 6:2 They taught us about different kinds of baptism. They taught us about placing hands on people. They taught us that people will rise from the dead. They taught us that God will judge everyone. And they taught us that what he decides will last forever. Heb 6:3 If God permits, we will go beyond those teachings and grow up. Heb 6:4 What if some people fall away from the faith? It won’t be possible to bring them back. It is true that they have seen the light. They have tasted the heavenly gift. They have shared in the Holy Spirit. you have eyes but do not see ,remove the trinity may be you could see better.???

t,

First, what translation is this you used?

Second, what did I say that contradicted the passage? It clearly says to leave the “elementary teaching of Christ” which includes faith in God (in its old covenant content).

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.

It CLEARLY says that we are not to lay again that foundation of faith in God but to move on to perfection. The one who moves on to perfection will put His faith in Jesus Christ.

Was Jesus lying when Je said, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.”

Was Paul lying when he said that we are justified “by faith IN Jesus Christ.”

Those who will not move on to perfection by faith in Christ are under the threat of damnation.

thinker

[terraricca]

Quote (thethinker @ April 09 2010,02:54)

Quote (terraricca @ April 09 2010,01:15) Quote (thethinker @ April 08 2010,22:16) Is. 1:18 said to Mikeboll: Quote 1. There are no grammatical cues for a switch in subject from Yeshua to the Father. None. 2. It's not in keeping with the context of the letter. The background to the Hebrews letter was intense persecution being suffered by the first century christian readers. As a result the Jewish christians were considering reverting back to Judaism. Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. Hence the first chapter is exclusively about the attributes and position of Yeshua. This is why the chapter builds to a crecendo. If Paul were to switch focus to the father mid stream that would not only be confusing but would undermine the whole purpose of the letter – to demonstrate the supremacy of the Son, the very object of the faith, the person for which they are being persecuted. Paul, My thoughts exactly brother! The author does not change his subject from the Son to the Father in mid stream ” as you say. Furthermore, the author said that they were to “leave the elementary teachings of Christ” in reference to certain things inwhich “faith toward God” was included (6:1-3). They were to abandon “faith toward God” as it had been instituted by Moses and to now move on to faith in Christ. Jesus Himself hinted at this saying, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” This call to “believing also in Me” would be idolatrous if Christ were not Himself God. Boy am I glad you're back. These people here are in darkness and you are refreshing light! Please stay a while. thinker TT you are again lost in your mind of detractor of the word of God,how is your conclution fit in those words of Paul Heb 5:11 We have a lot to say about that. But it is hard to explain it to you. You learn too slowly. Heb 5:12 By this time you should be teachers. But in fact, you need someone to teach you all over again. You need even the simple truths of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food. Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk is still a baby. That person does not want to learn about living a godly life. Heb 5:14 Solid food is for those who are grown up. They have trained themselves with a lot of practice. They can tell the difference between good and evil. Heb 6:1 So let us leave the simple teachings about Christ. Let us grow up as believers. Let us not start all over again with the basic teachings. They taught us that we need to turn away from doing things that lead to death. They taught us that we must have faith in God. Heb 6:2 They taught us about different kinds of baptism. They taught us about placing hands on people. They taught us that people will rise from the dead. They taught us that God will judge everyone. And they taught us that what he decides will last forever. Heb 6:3 If God permits, we will go beyond those teachings and grow up. Heb 6:4 What if some people fall away from the faith? It won’t be possible to bring them back. It is true that they have seen the light. They have tasted the heavenly gift. They have shared in the Holy Spirit. you have eyes but do not see ,remove the trinity may be you could see better.??? t, First, what translation is this you used? Second, what did I say that contradicted the passage? It clearly says to leave the “elementary teaching of Christ” which includes faith in God (in its old covenant content). 1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so. It CLEARLY says that we are not to lay again that foundation of faith in God but to move on to perfection. The one who moves on to perfection will put His faith in Jesus Christ. Was Jesus lying when Je said, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” Was Paul lying when he said that we are justified “by faith IN Jesus Christ.” Those who will not move on to perfection by faith in Christ are under the threat of damnation. thinker

TT
you are dancing around the real truth of Paul words,and you willfully do it you are not that stupid,
the trinity is your interest also your environment and so you will supported fully again all Bible truth.
you have done it ,you do it ,and you will do it again,the scriptures do not mean truth to you but something to slander.

Paul argument was that ones you get started in to the knowledge of God ,you can not stop we should all progress to maturity to come to the full knowledge of Christ and God .

this was the curse the trinitarians could not accept and at to be stopped and prevent their worshipers to come to the full knowledge of God ,because this was the knowledge who will destroy the trinity.

[JustAskin]

How amazing TT.

“Believe in God and believe also in Me” – This means Jesus is God….???

“Believe in my father and believe in me also” – This means I am my father!!

“believe that the heavens and the earth will last forever and believe also in me” – I am heaven and earth!!

“Believe that this drill will make a hole in that piece of wood, and believe in me [as a workman]” – I am a drill!!!

Anyone else wanna join in – don't!! – only one man should die for the sins of another!

[KangarooJack]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 09 2010,05:24)

How amazing TT. “Believe in God and believe also in Me”  – This means Jesus is God….??? “Believe in my father and believe in me also” – This means I am my father!! “believe that the heavens and the earth will last forever and believe also in me” – I am heaven and earth!! “Believe that this drill will make a hole in that piece of wood, and believe in me [as a workman]” – I am a drill!!! Anyone else wanna join in – don't!! – only one man should die for the sins of another!

Uh yeah dude! If Jesus was not God He would be telling His us to commit idolatry.

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (thethinker @ April 08 2010,13:38)

Quote (JustAskin @ April 09 2010,05:24) How amazing TT. “Believe in God and believe also in Me”  – This means Jesus is God….??? “Believe in my father and believe in me also” – This means I am my father!! “believe that the heavens and the earth will last forever and believe also in me” – I am heaven and earth!! “Believe that this drill will make a hole in that piece of wood, and believe in me [as a workman]” – I am a drill!!! Anyone else wanna join in – don't!! – only one man should die for the sins of another! Uh yeah dude! If Jesus was not God He would be telling His us to commit idolatry. thinker

True Jack!

But I wouldn't be surprised if JA doesn't go around saying “If you believe in God, then believe also in me”!  

Blessings Keith

[KangarooJack]

Quote (terraricca @ April 09 2010,03:58)

Quote (thethinker @ April 09 2010,02:54) Quote (terraricca @ April 09 2010,01:15) Quote (thethinker @ April 08 2010,22:16) Is. 1:18 said to Mikeboll: Quote 1. There are no grammatical cues for a switch in subject from Yeshua to the Father. None. 2. It's not in keeping with the context of the letter. The background to the Hebrews letter was intense persecution being suffered by the first century christian readers. As a result the Jewish christians were considering reverting back to Judaism. Paul's intention was to exhort them, to remind them that the object of their faith, Yeshua, is worthy of their suffering. Hence the first chapter is exclusively about the attributes and position of Yeshua. This is why the chapter builds to a crecendo. If Paul were to switch focus to the father mid stream that would not only be confusing but would undermine the whole purpose of the letter – to demonstrate the supremacy of the Son, the very object of the faith, the person for which they are being persecuted. Paul, My thoughts exactly brother! The author does not change his subject from the Son to the Father in mid stream ” as you say. Furthermore, the author said that they were to “leave the elementary teachings of Christ” in reference to certain things inwhich “faith toward God” was included (6:1-3). They were to abandon “faith toward God” as it had been instituted by Moses and to now move on to faith in Christ. Jesus Himself hinted at this saying, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” This call to “believing also in Me” would be idolatrous if Christ were not Himself God. Boy am I glad you're back. These people here are in darkness and you are refreshing light! Please stay a while. thinker TT you are again lost in your mind of detractor of the word of God,how is your conclution fit in those words of Paul Heb 5:11 We have a lot to say about that. But it is hard to explain it to you. You learn too slowly. Heb 5:12 By this time you should be teachers. But in fact, you need someone to teach you all over again. You need even the simple truths of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food. Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk is still a baby. That person does not want to learn about living a godly life. Heb 5:14 Solid food is for those who are grown up. They have trained themselves with a lot of practice. They can tell the difference between good and evil. Heb 6:1 So let us leave the simple teachings about Christ. Let us grow up as believers. Let us not start all over again with the basic teachings. They taught us that we need to turn away from doing things that lead to death. They taught us that we must have faith in God. Heb 6:2 They taught us about different kinds of baptism. They taught us about placing hands on people. They taught us that people will rise from the dead. They taught us that God will judge everyone. And they taught us that what he decides will last forever. Heb 6:3 If God permits, we will go beyond those teachings and grow up. Heb 6:4 What if some people fall away from the faith? It won’t be possible to bring them back. It is true that they have seen the light. They have tasted the heavenly gift. They have shared in the Holy Spirit. you have eyes but do not see ,remove the trinity may be you could see better.??? t, First, what translation is this you used? Second, what did I say that contradicted the passage? It clearly says to leave the “elementary teaching of Christ” which includes faith in God (in its old covenant content). 1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so. It CLEARLY says that we are not to lay again that foundation of faith in God but to move on to perfection. The one who moves on to perfection will put His faith in Jesus Christ. Was Jesus lying when Je said, “Believe in God, believe ALSO in Me.” Was Paul lying when he said that we are justified “by faith IN Jesus Christ.” Those who will not move on to perfection by faith in Christ are under the threat of damnation. thinker TT you are dancing around the real truth of Paul words,and you willfully do it you are not that stupid, the trinity is your interest also your environment and so you will supported fully again all Bible truth. you have done it ,you do it ,and you will do it again,the scriptures do not mean truth to you but something to slander. Paul argument was that ones you get started in to the knowledge of God ,you can not stop we should all progress to maturity to come to the full knowledge of Christ and God . this was the curse the trinitarians could not accept and at to be stopped and prevent their worshipers to come to the full knowledge of God ,because this was the knowledge who will destroy the trinity.

Yak yak yak. All yak and no substance. Jesus meant that we should believe in Him as we would believe in God. You don't believe in the drill. You believe in the man who operates the drill.

Jesus said, “Let not your hearts be troubled, believe in God, believe ALSO in me.” Oops! That's a new testament idea so we had better dump it. We are not supposed to put our faith in a mere man.

thinker

[JustAskin]

So, TT,

“You don't believe in the drill. You believe in the man who operates the drill.”

You make a distinction between one article and another – how quaint – was that your idea or did you steal it from teh holy Spirit?

Why do you then not make a distinction between GOD and JESUS (WHy GOD — and Jesus — Why not Just GOD?)
“Believe in US, believe in God” – now that is saying something – it includes both articles.

“God Almighty (one person) sent Me (a second, subordinate, person) to do his will” (A co-equal person cannot be SENT by a co-equal partner (Why wasn't the Holy Spirit sent – [he] was just as able – or the Father even – why the Son?)
“To believe in Me is to believe in the one who sent me, God Almighty”

Jack – Do you say that Jesus is saying he is God, here?

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 09 2010,05:44)

Quote (thethinker @ April 08 2010,13:38) Quote (JustAskin @ April 09 2010,05:24) How amazing TT. “Believe in God and believe also in Me”  – This means Jesus is God….??? “Believe in my father and believe in me also” – This means I am my father!! “believe that the heavens and the earth will last forever and believe also in me” – I am heaven and earth!! “Believe that this drill will make a hole in that piece of wood, and believe in me [as a workman]” – I am a drill!!! Anyone else wanna join in – don't!! – only one man should die for the sins of another! Uh yeah dude! If Jesus was not God He would be telling His us to commit idolatry. thinker True Jack! But I wouldn't be surprised if JA doesn't go around saying “If you believe in God, then believe also in me”!   Blessings Keith

WJ

are you mocking the word of God???

[Author]

Posts