Attn anti-trinitarians: please explain these:

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 24 2009,17:52)

Quote (Paladin @ June 24 2009,16:36)

Quote (thethinker @ June 25 2009,05:53)

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

Hi Kathi

“The Word was God”, or “God was the Word”, if God is “eternal” then the Word is “eternal”!

That is unambiguous!

WJ,
You're absolutely correct. It is unambiguous!

thinker

Give me a minute………

Nah…!!! I don't think so.

Contradicts John.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

I will write upon him my onoma kainon.

kainos adj acc neut sing

[UBS] kainos, new; of new quality; unused; unknown, unheard of; ti kaino,teron the latest thing (Ac 17.21)

Acts 17:21 For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some [kainos] new thing.

Certainly not from eternity if it was “new” in 69 a.d.

Hi PD

Does John 1:1 read…

In the beginning was the “Word of God” and the “Word of God” was with God and the “Word of God” was God?

Didnt think so!

All the inference and reading into the text will not change the fact that John made no distiction between the Word and God except the Word was with God and was God and not “Of God”. Hence the Trinitarian view.

Hi PD

BTW, the word “kainos” is not mentioned anywhere near the text in John 1.

In other words John also didnt say “the “kainos” creation was made by him and for him and without him nothing in the “kainos” creation was made.

Your theology won't cut it here!

June 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm#134503

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 24 2009,17:52)

Quote (Paladin @ June 24 2009,16:36)

Quote (thethinker @ June 25 2009,05:53)

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

Hi Kathi

“The Word was God”, or “God was the Word”, if God is “eternal” then the Word is “eternal”!

That is unambiguous!

WJ,
You're absolutely correct. It is unambiguous!

thinker

Give me a minute………

Nah…!!! I don't think so.

Contradicts John.

I will write upon him my onoma kainon.

kainos adj acc neut sing

[UBS] kainos, new; of new quality; unused; unknown, unheard of; ti kaino,teron the latest thing (Ac 17.21)

Acts 17:21 For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some [kainos] new thing.

Certainly not from eternity if it was “new” in 69 a.d.

Hi PD

Does John 1:1 read…

In the beginning was the “Word of God” and the “Word of God” was with God and the “Word of God” was God?

Didnt think so!

All the inference and theological reading into the text will not change the fact that John made no distiction between the Word and God except the Word was with God and was God and not “Of God”. Hence the Trinitarian view.

Hi Keith,
If the word is God, the begotten God, then it is not eternal.

I see it like this:
In the beginning was the word, the word was with GOD (the source), and the word was God (the only begotten God from the source).

This verse makes a distinction between the first “God” and the second “God” when it says that the second one was with the first one.

So, therefore it is ambigious.

Kathi

June 24, 2009 at 10:41 pm#134505

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 25 2009,10:32)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 24 2009,17:52)

Quote (Paladin @ June 24 2009,16:36)

Quote (thethinker @ June 25 2009,05:53)

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

Hi Kathi

“The Word was God”, or “God was the Word”, if God is “eternal” then the Word is “eternal”!

That is unambiguous!

WJ,
You're absolutely correct. It is unambiguous!

thinker

Give me a minute………

Nah…!!! I don't think so.

Contradicts John.

I will write upon him my onoma kainon.

kainos adj acc neut sing

[UBS] kainos, new; of new quality; unused; unknown, unheard of; ti kaino,teron the latest thing (Ac 17.21)

Acts 17:21 For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some [kainos] new thing.

Certainly not from eternity if it was “new” in 69 a.d.

Hi PD

Does John 1:1 read…

In the beginning was the “Word of God” and the “Word of God” was with God and the “Word of God” was God?

Didnt think so!

Hi Keith,
If the word is God, the begotten God, then it is not eternal.

I see it like this:
In the beginning was the word, the word was with GOD (the source), and the word was God (the only begotten God from the source).

This verse makes a distinction between the first “God” and the second “God” when it says that the second one was with the first one.

So, therefore it is ambigious.

Kathi

Do you not find anything wrong with saying “second God”?

June 24, 2009 at 10:56 pm#134510

Participant

Bo,
When a word is repeated twice in a verse then there is a first instance that it is used and a second instance that it is used. In John 1:1 the word “God” is used twice, a first time when it says “and the word was with God” and a second time when it says “and the word was God.” I think that you read that I am saying that there is a first most high GOD and a second most high GOD. I am not! They are not both the most high GOD.

Kathi

June 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm#134511

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 25 2009,10:56)

Kathi

Okay, but there are still 2 gods in your opinion right?

Wouldn't the Most High God be The ONLY TRUE GOD?

June 24, 2009 at 11:49 pm#134517

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,18:32)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 24 2009,17:52)

Quote (Paladin @ June 24 2009,16:36)

Quote (thethinker @ June 25 2009,05:53)

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

Hi Kathi

“The Word was God”, or “God was the Word”, if God is “eternal” then the Word is “eternal”!

That is unambiguous!

WJ,
You're absolutely correct. It is unambiguous!

thinker

Give me a minute………

Nah…!!! I don't think so.

Contradicts John.

I will write upon him my onoma kainon.

kainos adj acc neut sing

[UBS] kainos, new; of new quality; unused; unknown, unheard of; ti kaino,teron the latest thing (Ac 17.21)

Acts 17:21 For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some [kainos] new thing.

Certainly not from eternity if it was “new” in 69 a.d.

Hi PD

Does John 1:1 read…

In the beginning was the “Word of God” and the “Word of God” was with God and the “Word of God” was God?

Didnt think so!

All the inference and theological reading into the text will not change the fact that John made no distinction between the Word and God except the Word was with God and was God and not “Of God”. Hence the Trinitarian view.

Hi Keith,
If the word is God, the begotten God, then it is not eternal.

I see it like this:
In the beginning was the word, the word was with GOD (the source), and the word was God (the only begotten God from the source).

This verse makes a distinction between the first “God” and the second “God” when it says that the second one was with the first one.

So, therefore it is ambigious.

Kathi

Hi Kathi

The problem that you have is the same.

John didn’t say…

In the beginning was the “Begotten Word” and the “Begotten Word” was with God and the “Begotten Word” was God!

If this was Johns intent he could have easily wrote it as such.

But he didn't, did he?

“The Word was God” or “God was the Word”, there is no other way to see it. The fact that John says the “Word was with God” and the “Word was God” clearly cannot be a begotten Word!

You guys make John into some kind of idiot for using the same word “Theos” for the Word that was with God, when he could have said it some other way. John clearly shows the Deity and oneness Jesus had with the Father through out his writings including the immediate verse following…

“THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE”. John 1:2, 3

Including the light of day! In Gen 1:1-3

You guys can say ambiguous if you like, but the fact is, John 1:1 cannot translate into your rendering or PDs rendering because you are adding to the text.

The Trinitarian view believes the text as it is.

June 25, 2009 at 1:14 am#134520

Participant

Keith and Bo,

Who is the “I” in this passage. If it is the Son and the Son is God replace the I with “God” and continue to read.

Rev 3:12
12 'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.
NASU

First of all, only the names of His God, the city of His God and His name are written on those who overcome. What happened to their supposed equality, WJ? And to Bo, why isn't Mohammed written on them also? And WJ, why isn't there the name of a third person?

Who is the one referred to as “my God” Keith? And who is the one calling Him “my God?”

Is the writer of Rev. the same as John 1? It seems like both books are written by the same John. If that is so, then John understands that one God has another for His God.

Kathi

June 25, 2009 at 1:20 am#134521

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 24 2009,19:00)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 25 2009,10:56)

Kathi

Okay, but there are still 2 gods in your opinion right?

Wouldn't the Most High God be The ONLY TRUE GOD?

Well, Bo, I do believe that the most High God would be the only true God ultimately. But, what type of God would come from the one true God? Would a false God come from a true God? Would false light come from true light…no! Don't come to the conclusion that if one is the only true God then the other is a false God. Think of it like this:
There is only one true GOD-the most high GOD
and
There is only one true begotten God-the Son of GOD.

Do you see how this can work?

Kathi

June 25, 2009 at 6:09 am#134557

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,21:14)

Keith and Bo,

Who is the “I” in this passage. If it is the Son and the Son is God replace the I with “God” and continue to read.

Who is the one referred to as “my God” Keith? And who is the one calling Him “my God?”

Is the writer of Rev. the same as John 1? It seems like both books are written by the same John. If that is so, then John understands that one God has another for His God.

Kathi

Hi Kathi

So you think that invalidates John 1:1-3?

Your argument is a red herring and leaves out the fact that Jesus who was in very nature God left his place of Glory and submitted to the Father by becoming a servant through taking on the likeness of sinful flesh and being found in fashion as a man declared the Father to be his God. Phil 2

But the Word that was with God and was God is till God for God cannot change. The Word/Spirit of Jesus did not change and could not change but took on the “Form” of a servant and being found in fashion as a man humbled himself, even as the scriptures clearly reveal that YHWH can take on different forms and still yet be God.

The Father also calls Jesus God as well as the Apostles and the Angels are commanded to worship him and there is no difference in the honor and worship that is given to Jesus than to the Father and the Holy Spirit in the NT, for Jesus uses the same Greek word for worship “proskyneō” for true worship to the Father that was practiced on him.

In fact there is no difference in their eternal attributes or nature.

If you see Jesus who is the “Visible Image of God” as less than God then you have created a false image of God and therefore worship a false God.

Jesus said you can only serve One master. Jesus is our only Lord and master.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about* long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny “JESUS CHRIST OUR ONLY SOVEREIGN AND LORD“. Jude 1:4

To hold another being in such high esteem, worship, and honour to a Hebrew Monotheist would have been a violation of the Shema if he were not God!

Jesus demanded that men should die for him. No anointed prophet or mere man could make such demands on another mans life unless he was God.

No other being in the NT is ascribed the word “Theos” by an Apostle or follower of Jesus. That word is exclusively used for the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit by the believers.

I believe the words of the Apostles without all of the inferences, and special pleadings to make the Apostles say what they didn’t say.

Paul said…

while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our “GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST”, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:13

And Paul was not contradicting himself when he said…

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE”. For even if there are “SO-CALLED GODS”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 1 Cor 8:4,5

This is my confession and there is nothing in the scriptures that tells me Jesus who is “the visible image of the invisible God” should be seen as anything less than the Father no more than I am less than my Father in nature.

I serve One Divine Being Kathi, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are “ONE GOD”. I Have “One Spirit”, how many do you have?

When God speaks to you is it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? Can you tell? If you cannot tell, then why can’t you tell?

If Jesus spoke to you and you say God spoke to you through Jesus, then why don't you say they Spoke to me?

You say you serve 2, The Father GOD and Jesus the Begotten God!

Whose theology is closer to John 1:1, “And God was the Word”?

As men seek to make Jesus into something less than the Father they dishonour the Father who has given him a name above all names including his own!

Blessings WJ

June 25, 2009 at 7:53 am#134566

KangarooJack

Participant

Lightenup said to bd:

Quote

Do you see how this can work?

Kathi,
It does NOT work for it is contradictory. You say that the most high God is the only true God ultimately. Then you say the other God cannot be a false God. This means that the “other” is a true God and the most high God is not the ONLY true God. You always want to have it both ways. This is the result of your literalism in reference to the word “begotten.” But the word “begotten” in reference to Jesus simply refers to His becoming God's Son officially.

thinker

June 25, 2009 at 8:06 am#134568

KangarooJack

Participant

Worshipingjesus said to Paladin:

Quote

Hi PD

BTW, the word “kainos” is not mentioned anywhere near the text in John 1.

In other words John also didnt say “the “kainos” creation was made by him and for him and without him nothing in the “kainos” creation was made.

Your theology won't cut it here!

WJ,

Right on! I would like to add verse 10,

Quote

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world did not know Him

The world He created was that to which He came and that which rejected Him. It was NOT the new creation. John 1 is soooo clear about things.

thinker

June 25, 2009 at 2:53 pm#134588

Paladin

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 25 2009,20:06)

Worshipingjesus said to Paladin:

Quote

Hi PD

BTW, the word “kainos” is not mentioned anywhere near the text in John 1.

In other words John also didnt say “the “kainos” creation was made by him and for him and without him nothing in the “kainos” creation was made.

Your theology won't cut it here!

WJ,

Right on! I would like to add verse 10,

Quote

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world did not know Him

The world He created was that to which He came and that which rejected Him. It was NOT the new creation. John 1 is soooo clear about things.

thinker

Don't ever again accuse me of “dragging WJ into” our discussion.

(TT)
Worshipingjesus said to Paladin:

Quote

Hi PD

BTW, the word “kainos” is not mentioned anywhere near the text in John 1.

In other words John also didnt say “the “kainos” creation was made by him and for him and without him nothing in the “kainos” creation was made.

Your theology won't cut it here!

I see as usual you do not address what I actually said, but you have to rearrange the issue in order to rebutt it.

I said NOTHING about “kainos” being in John 1. I said the “new name – logos of God” referenced in REVELATION, in 69 a.d. showed it could NOT have been an issue in 33 a.d. among the disciples. John did not write his gospel until 96 a.d.
and his reference to the logos reflected his use of it in the apokalypse, in which it was “new, and unknown.”

(TT)

Quote

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world did not know Him

The world He created was that to which He came and that which rejected Him. It was NOT the new creation. John 1 is soooo clear about things. thinker[/QUOTE]

(P) ONLY if you can show ktisis or poeo instead of egeneto.
Verses 3 and 10 both use egeneto, which, though the Lexicographers will tell you means “create” It is NEVER so translated in the New Testament, because it is a reference to “becoming through change.”

The Lexicographers ALWAYS follow tradition and doctrine by about fifty years. It is just a matter of time until some lexicographer translates “egeneto” as “Created,” or “Creates.”

And WHY? Because The doctrine DEMANDS it.

June 25, 2009 at 3:10 pm#134590

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2009,02:09)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,21:14)

Keith and Bo,

Who is the “I” in this passage. If it is the Son and the Son is God replace the I with “God” and continue to read.

Who is the one referred to as “my God” Keith? And who is the one calling Him “my God?”

Is the writer of Rev. the same as John 1? It seems like both books are written by the same John. If that is so, then John understands that one God has another for His God.

Kathi

Hi Kathi

So you think that invalidates John 1:1-3?

In fact there is no difference in their eternal attributes or nature.

If you see Jesus who is the “Visible Image of God” as less than God then you have created a false image of God and therefore worship a false God.

Jesus said you can only serve One master. Jesus is our only Lord and master.

To hold another being in such high esteem, worship, and honour to a Hebrew Monotheist would have been a violation of the Shema if he were not God!

Jesus demanded that men should die for him. No anointed prophet or mere man could make such demands on another mans life unless he was God.

No other being in the NT is ascribed the word “Theos” by an Apostle or follower of Jesus. That word is exclusively used for the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit by the believers.

I believe the words of the Apostles without all of the inferences, and special pleadings to make the Apostles say what they didn’t say.

Paul said…

And Paul was not contradicting himself when he said…

I serve One Divine Being Kathi, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are “ONE GOD”. I Have “One Spirit”, how many do you have?

When God speaks to you is it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? Can you tell? If you cannot tell, then why can’t you tell?

If Jesus spoke to you and you say God spoke to you through Jesus, then why don't you say they Spoke to me?

You say you serve 2, The Father GOD and Jesus the Begotten God!

Whose theology is closer to John 1:1, “And God was the Word”?

As men seek to make Jesus into something less than the Father they dishonour the Father who has given him a name above all names including his own!

Blessings WJ

Keith,
You didn't say who the “I” was in the Rev. passage. Who is the “I” Keith?

June 25, 2009 at 3:15 pm#134591

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 25 2009,03:53)

Lightenup said to bd:

Quote

Do you see how this can work?

thinker

Thinker,
He literally was begotten of the Father. The Son is the only true begotten God. The Father never was begotten and the Father is the only true always existent GOD.

The Son's resurrection was proof that the Son accomplished the main purpose of His being begotten in the first place. The resurrection didn't cause Him to be begotten “officially” or “unofficially.”

Kathi

June 25, 2009 at 3:38 pm#134592

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 25 2009,11:10)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2009,02:09)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,21:14)

Keith and Bo,

Who is the “I” in this passage. If it is the Son and the Son is God replace the I with “God” and continue to read.

Who is the one referred to as “my God” Keith? And who is the one calling Him “my God?”

Is the writer of Rev. the same as John 1? It seems like both books are written by the same John. If that is so, then John understands that one God has another for His God.

Kathi

Hi Kathi

So you think that invalidates John 1:1-3?

In fact there is no difference in their eternal attributes or nature.

If you see Jesus who is the “Visible Image of God” as less than God then you have created a false image of God and therefore worship a false God.

Jesus said you can only serve One master. Jesus is our only Lord and master.

To hold another being in such high esteem, worship, and honour to a Hebrew Monotheist would have been a violation of the Shema if he were not God!

Jesus demanded that men should die for him. No anointed prophet or mere man could make such demands on another mans life unless he was God.

No other being in the NT is ascribed the word “Theos” by an Apostle or follower of Jesus. That word is exclusively used for the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit by the believers.

I believe the words of the Apostles without all of the inferences, and special pleadings to make the Apostles say what they didn’t say.

Paul said…

And Paul was not contradicting himself when he said…

I serve One Divine Being Kathi, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are “ONE GOD”. I Have “One Spirit”, how many do you have?

When God speaks to you is it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? Can you tell? If you cannot tell, then why can’t you tell?

If Jesus spoke to you and you say God spoke to you through Jesus, then why don't you say they Spoke to me?

You say you serve 2, The Father GOD and Jesus the Begotten God!

Whose theology is closer to John 1:1, “And God was the Word”?

As men seek to make Jesus into something less than the Father they dishonour the Father who has given him a name above all names including his own!

Blessings WJ

Keith,
You didn't say who the “I” was in the Rev. passage. Who is the “I” Keith?

Hi Kathi

Jesus of course!

I thought I explained that.

Who is the “He” in this verse….?

But about the Son 'he” says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. Heb 1:8

So what does your text prove?

The Father didn’t take on the role of a servant did he?

Instead of evading the issue that John 1:1 says “And God was the Word”, why don't you explain why John writes it this way?

Was John contradicting his own words?

When he witnessed Thomas calling Jesus his “Lord and God” and Jesus acknowledging what should have been a blasphemous statement by saying…

…”“BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN ME, YOU HAVE BELIEVED”; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

Are you blessed for believing what Thomas believed?

John didn’t rebuke or correct Thomas either, did he?

After all it was John who wrote John 1:1 and John 1:18 wasn’t it?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. John 1:1

No one has ever seen God, “but God the One and Only“,*who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18

There is only “ONE TRUE GOD” Kathi.

Henotheism is a lie!

Blessings WJ

June 25, 2009 at 4:31 pm#134595

KangarooJack

Participant

Lightenup said:

Quote

Thinker,
He literally was begotten of the Father.

Kathi,
How can you say that Christ was literally begotten seeing that God is spirit?

Lightenup said:

Quote

Peter disagrees with you,

Quote

God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:

“You are My Son, Today I have begotten you (Acts 13:33)

Christ was begotten at His resurrection and exaltation. Christ's Sonship has to do with His office as Mediator. It simply means that He is the head of the covenantal family. God is spirit and spirits do not literally beget.

thinker

June 25, 2009 at 4:33 pm#134596

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 26 2009,03:15)

Quote (thethinker @ June 25 2009,03:53)

Lightenup said to bd:

Quote

Do you see how this can work?

thinker

Thinker,
He literally was begotten of the Father. The Son is the only true begotten God. The Father never was begotten and the Father is the only true always existent GOD.

Kathi

Kathi,

I understand what you are saying but in the strictest sense “the” supreme being can not be “begotten”

This is not to say “a” supreme being cannot be begotten but “The” meaning Thee Supreme being is truly Unique and is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

God almighty can create a million “Sons” but a million sons cannot create one God almighty.

Also God can destroy if He chose to all other beings and who would stop Him but all other beings combined represent no threat to God.

Really, Honor and blessing are due Jesus but the fact is the testimony of Jesus Christ is Worship God.

June 25, 2009 at 4:43 pm#134597

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 26 2009,04:31)

Lightenup said:

Quote

Thinker,
He literally was begotten of the Father.

Kathi,
How can you say that Christ was literally begotten seeing that God is spirit?

Lightenup said:

Quote

Peter disagrees with you,

Quote

God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:

“You are My Son, Today I have begotten you (Acts 13:33)

thinker

You see what happens when people start believing that God literally begot Jesus?

That is why the Quran straightens out the confusion by saying:

(5) And they say: “((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten offspring.” Glory to Him! they are (but) servants raised to honour.
( سورة الأنبياء , Al-Anbiya, Chapter #21, Verse #26)

(1) They say: “(Allah) hath begotten a son” :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #116)

First Jesus is begotten and the next logical step is he is God because his Father is God which would make sense if he was literally begotten but he was not. He was “got” with the Word “be”

(1) She said: “O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?” He said: “Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #47)

but as Far as God Almighty:

(8) He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
( سورة الإخلاص , Al-Ikhlas, Chapter #112, Verse #3)

June 25, 2009 at 4:48 pm#134599

SEEKING

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 19 2009,01:27)

Please explain how YHWH can refer to Himself as “US” if He is not a plural entity.[/b]

So far nobody here has explained anything.

thinker

Thinker,

Help me grasp your train of thought here. If I, with my buddy Joe present, say to you, “Thinker, join US at the ball game”how does that make ME a “plural entity? Plurality seems formed only as Joe and I (individually) join to form the US referred to.

But, Joe and I remain seperate beings not at all one.

Blessings,

Seeking

June 25, 2009 at 4:49 pm#134600