- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Ed,
Hebrews 1:8-9 NIV
8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”This definitely says God called His Son “god”. But JA is spot on for this point. So what if Jesus is called “god”? Jehovah Himself foretold that he would be called “mighty god” in Isaiah. The point to remember is that “god” is only a title. It basically means “mighty one”. But WJ always leaves out the “your God” part (that I bolded above) when he quotes this scripture. Even as Jesus is said to be a “god”, or “mighty one”…….it is made VERY clear that it is HIS GOD who set him above his companions.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ Oct. 06 2010,08:30) ….And if Jesus was 'created', or even by Mikeboll, procreated, then he was not God.
Hi JA,One more time….just for you brother.
Procreate means “to bring into being”.
Create means “to bring into being”.
Enough said?
mike
Hi Keith,
I realize you got ambushed and sidetracked today. Maybe you could get to this tomorrow?
Keith:
Quote Is Jesus the “Only of its kind” Son (for kathis sake) or not?
Keith, Jesus is the “only begotten Son”. That's what the words say, and that's what the words mean. There is no grammatical evidence to support this new trinitarian sponsored “push” to make “monogenes” mean other than “only begotten”.Every instance of “monogenes” in the NT clearly identifies one who is the only child a father begot…….EXCEPT for Isaac. And even in that instance, it is not the literal “begotten” part that is in question, but the “only” part. Do you understand that? EVERY instance of “monogenes” in the NT refers to a child who was LITERALLY begotten, or “caused to exist” by a father. And in all cases but one, it refers to an ONLY child who was LITERALLY begotten by a father.
Do you agree with this Keith? Am I speaking scriptural truth here?
peace and love,
mikeKeith:
Quote So the answer is “yes” it clearly distinguishes between the Father and Jesus. No Keith, it doesn't distinguish between the “FATHER” and Jesus. It distinguishes between “GOD” and Jesus.
Do you agree?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,19:38) What a trinitarian “scholar” thinks is of no concern to me. You post the thoughts of a mere man, and then end your post with “Stick with the scripture”. 
MikeI knew that was coming. Of course you don't give a hoot what a world renowned Greek Grammarian thinks because your mind is set and not teachable. You even deny the NET because you think you know more.
You have no Biblical facts to back up your theory on Phil 2:6.
Funny how when the Trinitarians scholars or Forefathers seem to agree with you then you treat it as fact?
Ha Ha, Mike. Should I remember that the next time you quote the Net which was written by Trinitarians?
The Net, AT Robertson, and many commentators disagree with you. Most of the Forefathers believed Jesus was their God and they are not Polytheist.
Why is it that there is hardly any support out there for the Arians? Could it be that it wouldn't stand up to the scriptures and cream of Hebrew and Greek scholarship through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that brings us their true meaning? Many of them gave their complete lives to bring us the translations and concordances and dictionary’s that we have. Many thousand of hours have gone into research and the compilation of the information available to us today. The truth always wins out, that is why most credible works are Trinitarian.
So believe as you will Mike. But please don't act as if you know more than they.
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 05 2010,17:24) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,08:42) Ed you deny the fact that the scribes left out the vowels and the correct pronunciation was lost. WJ
Hi WJ,You're exhibiting the mentality of an Atheist!
Nobody can know more than WJ or an Atheist!There is (Atheist's say) no god?
Nobody knows (WJ says) his name?YHVH is God's Name (יהוה) translated into English; as the Hebrew lacks vowels.
[יהוה] GOD’s Name [י] Yod [ה] Ha [ו] Vav [ה] Hey is pronounced YÄ-hä-vā & [יה] YÄ
“GOD's Name” (יהוה) is spoken as YÄ-hä-vā: where ä sounds like that
of the word “ah” and the other ā sounds like the vowel in the word “hay”.Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
EdOh so I am an “atheist” now?
Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 05 2010,17:24) YHVH is God's Name (יהוה) translated into English; as the Hebrew lacks vowels.
No ED, the Hebrew language was a complete language. Israeli Hebrew has 5 vowel phonemes.So your statement is a half truth and misleading to push something that is not true.
The Hebrew scribes did not write the vowels for fear of blasphemy therefore the true pronunciation of the name was lost.
You are denying this fact.
WJ
Hi Keith,
I don't deny the NET, A.T. Robertson, or any other expert “because I think I know more”. I agree with the scholars WHEN they agree with scripture. When they move away from scripture to push their own unscriptural doctines, it becomes very clear from what they write.
I think the NET scholars are very sharp and knowledgeable, but when they list “the second person in the Godhead” as a definition for “Jesus”, any thinking person can easily see that they did not base that on scripture, but their own biased beliefs.
By the same token, when they say Phil 2:6 proves Jesus is God Himself, it is a ridiculous statement and it is clear that it was derived from their own bias. Phil 2:6 says nothing of the sort, and if you'd address the points in my post about it, your honest response to my points would clearly acknowledge these experts' bias.
How about an answer to my question about Adam and Cain?
How about telling me how Keith can be in the form of Keith?
For one to be in the form of another, there have to be two. And if the form Jesus was in was “the Father's”, you might have a point. But he wasn't said to be in the form of “the Father”, but in the form of “God”. That says that not only is he a separate person from the Father, but that he is also a separate person from God. Do you agree?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,14:59) No ED, the Hebrew language was a complete language. Israeli Hebrew has 5 vowel phonemes.
Is that true Keith? I had heard somewhere long ago that the Hebrew language didn't use vowels at all.mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 05 2010,16:30) WJ,What is the English 'TRANSLATION' of the Tetragramaton, YHVH? Is it not 'I AM' because God said to Moses, 'I Am what I Am, therefore you should say unto them, ''I AM'' has sent you'.Does this sound like God telling us a name that HE KNOWS that we were not going to pronounce?Certainly not. He gave His name, A name so simple, so wonderful, so beautifully descriptive, it is unbelievable that anyone can say that they can't say it.Jesus' name is not 'Jesus'. We translate it into English as that. Another language translates it 'Yesus', 'Yashua', 'Yeshua'…etc. Yet we don't feel we shouldn't say it in our own language.”I AM” can be translated into ANY and Every language so there is never any reason not to use it except to be careful not to blaspheme by it.WJ, what is the name of God Almighty? Is it not 'YHVH'?WJ, what is the name of the Son of God? Is it not Jesus, Jesus Christ?Then is it not clear that there are two distinct persons?WJ, what is the name of the Holy Spirit?…WJ, did Jesus die on the Cross and give up his Spirit to God, 'Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit'.Yes, he did. But if Jesus is an integral part of the Godhead, how could he die? How can God die?.And if he died as a Man, then he was not God, Jesus was not God, therefore there was no Trinity….And if Jesus was 'created', or even by Mikeboll, procreated, then hewas not God. The Scriptures says he will BECOME…not that he is or was…but that he will become…One cannot 'become' God, cannot become, Almighty God, and in any case, there can be only One Almighty God, and that is YHVH, the Most High God.WJ,Is that 'adhominen free' enough for you.What excuse will you crank in this time?
JAAll this has been addressed a thousand times on this forum and I and Jack has personally debunked everything that you said.
I left a message for you on the JA vrs WJ debates thread. You have not answered. How do you pronounce “YHVH” or YHWH” JA?
What is the “One Name” under heaven whereby men must be saved?
Why do you deny John 1:1 and the Equality of the Son to the Father? The Holy Spirit has a name that he shares with the Father and Jesus in Matt 28:19. If “We” do not know the name of the Father does that mean the Father is not God?
Then why does it have to mean the Holy Spirit is not God?
We have “One name” by which and through “ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER COMES”! That name is JESUS (Yeshua‘) which means YHWH saves!
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and “GIVEN HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME”: That AT THE NAME OF JESUS every knee should bow, of THINGS IN HEAVEN, and THINGS IN EARTH, and THINGS UNDER THE EARTH; And that “EVERY TONGUE SHOULD CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to the glory of God the Father. Phil 2:9-11
It is the Fathers good pleasure that in him all fulness dwells. The Father is pleased when Jesus is exalted in the hearts of those that love him. The Father is pleased when Jesus is praised and worshipped. The Father is honored when Jesus is given the same honor as the Father.
It is to the Glory of the Father that every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:06) Hi Keith, I don't deny the NET, A.T. Robertson, or any other expert “because I think I know more”. I agree with the scholars WHEN they agree with scripture. When they move away from scripture to push their own unscriptural doctines, it becomes very clear from what they write.
No Mike, you disagree with them when they disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the scriptures that is tainted by your anti-trinitarian views.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,14:59) No ED, the Hebrew language was a complete language. Israeli Hebrew has 5 vowel phonemes.
Is that true Keith? I had heard somewhere long ago that the Hebrew language didn't use vowels at all.mike
Mike check it out.You probably heard it from ED.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,22:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,14:59) No ED, the Hebrew language was a complete language. Israeli Hebrew has 5 vowel phonemes.
Is that true Keith? I had heard somewhere long ago that the Hebrew language didn't use vowels at all.mike
Mike check it out.You probably heard it from ED.
WJ
WJyou should know;
the written Hebrew was without vowels,latter they introduce the dots signs to keep the knowledge were and what sound to ad whit the word and letters used
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:06) How about telling me how Keith can be in the form of Keith?
MikeKeith is a proper name. God is not a proper name but a Title that describes the metaphysical class of a being.
Just like human is a title that describes man.
So Adam and Cain are equally human.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,14:59) No ED, the Hebrew language was a complete language. Israeli Hebrew has 5 vowel phonemes.
Is that true Keith? I had heard somewhere long ago that the Hebrew language didn't use vowels at all.mike
MikeHere is some information about it..
How Biblical Hebrew Is Written
It is well-known that only consonants are written in the Hebrew script. “This statement, however, is only partially true. While it is true that all characters of the Hebrew script are consonants, it is not so that a text in Hebrew contains as little information about the vowels as an English text from which all vowels were deleted. Basically, there are two features in the writing system that give additional information: SourceWJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,20:29) Keith: Quote So the answer is “yes” it clearly distinguishes between the Father and Jesus. No Keith, it doesn't distinguish between the “FATHER” and Jesus. It distinguishes between “GOD” and Jesus.
Do you agree?
mike
MikeWhat are you saying? That the Father is not God?
I agree that it distinguishes between the Father and Jesus because we also know that Jesus shares the titles El, 'Elohiym, and Theos.
Do you agree?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,15:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,14:59) No ED, the Hebrew language was a complete language. Israeli Hebrew has 5 vowel phonemes.
Is that true Keith? I had heard somewhere long ago that the Hebrew language didn't use vowels at all.mike
Mike check it out.You probably heard it from ED.
WJ
Hi Kieth,“”Don't accuse out of ignorance.
I said the Hebrew LACKS vowel representations.
The Hebrew has two represented vowels “the Aleph” א and “the Ayin” צEd J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,15:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,20:29) Keith: Quote So the answer is “yes” it clearly distinguishes between the Father and Jesus. No Keith, it doesn't distinguish between the “FATHER” and Jesus. It distinguishes between “GOD” and Jesus.
Do you agree?
mike
MikeWhat are you saying? That the Father is not God?
I agree that it distinguishes between the Father and Jesus because we also know that Jesus shares the titles El, 'Elohiym, and Theos.
Do you agree?
WJ
Hi WJ,There are EXACTLY five words for “God” the Greek (all are pronounced Thēôs); they are…
Four (4) of these are “plural” forms of the word; only one (1) is used in “singular” form.1) θεος
2) θεου
3) θεω
4) θεον
5) θεε……..Also a matching aspect to the five variants for God in The Hebrew Masoretic texts…
Strong’s 426: אלה (ĔL-äh) elah: corresponding to 433; God:-God, god.
Strong’s 6697: צור (tsû-är) tsoor: (Jesus) a rock; a refuge(house); X(times) mighty God, sharp, X(times) stone, X(times) strength.
Strong’s 433: אלוה (ĔL-ō-äh) eloah: from 410; a deity or The Deity:-God, god. See 430
Strong’s 430: אלהים (ĔL-ō-Hêêm) elohiym: plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used in the plural of the supreme God; angels, X(times) exceedingly; God, X(times) great, judges, X(times) mighty.
Strong’s 410: אל (ĔL) ale: mighty; strength; The Almighty (also used of any deity):- God, X(times) goodly, X(times) great; power, strong.This pattern of five has a matching aspect to…
…………………God's signature
YHVH=63 (God's Name: יהוה transliterated into English)
יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH is pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's Name in English is: “Joshua”)
God The Father=117 (Representing GOD: יהוה האלהים)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The word”: in all believers!)Also matching the number of times JEHOVAH is used in singular form in the “AKJV Bible”(74)…
1) JEHOVAH is My Name “YHVH”=63 (Exodus 6:3)
2) JEHOVAH is The Most High “GOD The Father”=117 (Psalm 83:18)
3) The LORD JEHOVAH=151 is [The Savior=117] in “Jesus Christ”=151 (Isaiah 12:2)
4) The LORD JEHOVAH=151 is Everlasting strength in “Holy Spirit”=151 (Isaiah 26:4)
5) JAH (Psalm 68:4) The Name of “GOD”=26 is יהוה=26 spoken as “YÄ”=26 and “YÄ-hä-vāGod bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMike,
Your last post to me made definition of 'Create' and 'ProCreate'.But it does not show 'distinction' between the two.
Once again, Mike:
“Create”, To bring into being from first principle, something that does not already exist, completely new, unknown before.“ProCreate”: To bring into being another of the same kind, of the same kind that already exists, another 'being' of the kind that already exists.
So, Mike, given the definition and the 'extended distinction of the definition', please construct some sentences based on both words, Create and ProCreate, please.
Oh, let me help you get started on how to eat meat, how to chew. Mike it's a little different from drinking milk. If you try to eat meat like you drink milk, you will choke and die…
1) God 'Created' the heaven and the Earth…they did not formally exist prior to their being created (p.s. 'Heaven' here is not God's abode but means 'Sky and Space', as in 'the waters that were in the heavens' Genesis 1, and Earth means the solid base. Thus, waters, grounds and skies)
2) God 'Created' the animals that are on the land, created the fish that are in the sea, the birds that are in the air, the plants that are in all places. They were created because did not formally exist before their being created.
3) God 'Created' Mankind, A Man, Adam, formed him (his physical body) from the 'dust', the chemical elements, and God breathed 'life' into that Man and he became a living soul (Man was formed directly by God…did not 'evolve' like the animals, Darwin, et al, like Science, is not wrong, just deluded from the spiritual point of view. Remember that Satan was there at the creation. He knows the 'How' but not the 'How of the How'…because only Almighty God knows that, can do that..'give life to a spiritual creation')
4) God told Adam to 'Procreate' others of his kind, fill the Earth with others of a kind that existed in his, Adam's, form, a physical flesh and blood being.
5) God 'Created' the Angels, Spirit creatures…note 'Creat…ures', created beings, not procreatures. Of Lucifer, he said, 'Thou was perfect in the day of thy Creation…'
Ok, over to you, Mike.
By the way, who is controlling this thread?
Can the thread creator please try to control what is posted in the thread that they created.
If anything of worth can be spun off from something revealed in this thread can they ask for that that poster to 'procreate off' in another thread of their own, in a manner of speaking.Oh, one other point. Of what entity kind [was]/is [pre]Jesus?
We know that Jesus is a Spirit Creature in Heaven (God's abode) and that he is also Man, the first of the Spirits with a body, preEminent, Begotten of Son of God, as [some] others of Mankind will become Begotten Sons of God, also.
For those who say then that Jesus is God, you will also need then to say that those of Mankind who also become Begotten Sons of God, as Scriptures says they will, will also be God, 144,000 GODs…..
Also, what FORM was he in prior to emptying himself and becoming man.
Does Scriptures say? In what Form do Angels exists.
WJ, that was pointed at you, particularly, for a response but is open to all.As far as I can see and discern from Scriptures, there are only two types of beings in Heaven: God Almighty and the Angels.
Where, then, is 'Jesus'? He cannot be 'Almighty God', and if he were the 'trinity God' then when he left Heaven, a Trinity then did not exist…ooh, a cunundrum…
Scripture says that he existed 'in the form of God' but what is 'the form of God'? Is it not 'A Spirit'? A Spirit Being? Yes.
And in what Form were the Angels? Ummmm….Hmmmm….ahhh…but….hmmm….'let us think about that'Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 06 2010,00:37) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,15:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,14:59) No ED, the Hebrew language was a complete language. Israeli Hebrew has 5 vowel phonemes.
Is that true Keith? I had heard somewhere long ago that the Hebrew language didn't use vowels at all.mike
Mike check it out.You probably heard it from ED.
WJ
Hi Kieth,“”Don't accuse out of ignorance.
I said the Hebrew LACKS vowel representations.
The Hebrew has two represented vowels “the Aleph” א and “the Ayin” צEd J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDI said probably didn't I?
So thanks for clarification!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 06 2010,15:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2010,23:06) How about telling me how Keith can be in the form of Keith?
MikeKeith is a proper name. God is not a proper name but a Title that describes the metaphysical class of a being.
Just like human is a title that describes man.
So Adam and Cain are equally human.
WJ
Hi Keith,Paul wasn't talking about some “species” of “god” in Phil 2. He was speaking about the being “our God”. This is made clear by the comment about Jesus considering equality with God. I know you like the “didn't consider it robbery” KJV translation, and I like the “didn't consider it something to be grasped” NIV translation. Either way though, it makes it clear that Paul wasn't talking about “god-kind” in general, but a specific person.
So if Jesus was in the form of the being we know as “God”, then Jesus couldn't actually BE that being we know as “God”, right? You keep avoiding this point Keith. If one is said to be “in the form” of another, then there are two mentioned, right? And in order to be “in the form” of someone else, you cannot actually BE the person you are said to be “in the form” of.
Will you either agree with this or refute it? Because the “ignoring it” option you've been choosing is only going to make me ask it more times.
You've already said you know Paul was talking about “the Father” in Phil 2, and that Jesus was in the form of “the Father”. So don't try this “it was a title” stuff.
If it was only a “title”, then how do you know Paul wasn't saying Jesus was in the form of Satan? He was also given the “title” of “god”, wasn't he? So were angels and men and Dagon and Molech.
So I agree with you that he is talking about our Father, Jehovah God. And knowing that, you have to admit that for Jesus to be “in the form” of Jehovah God, he has to be someone other than Jehovah God, right?
Please answer my bolded point Keith.
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
