- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ,
You seem to be happily post drivel here, though.The Debate should take priority, AND , I have been patient.
I waited until I saw you posting several posts without responding to our debate.
Why did you take on Mike, who is already un a hot debate with TT. Hardly seems balanced…or is the idea that you are wearing Mike down with the dual Rottwieler attack?
You were so HOT to have a debate with me because you were convinced you had the edge…. Ha ham what you picked was my pet subject…
So why have you cooled? Did I not lay down to you and roll over and say: ruff, ruff!!
Wrong animal, WJ.
One day you will read back your posts and realise what everyone else can already see – that you are so far out of kilter it's amazing that you can still post and type straight while laughing at the riduculous incongruent composition.
Is it a curious thing that YOU have never claimed that what you write is wuth the support of the Holy Spirit? It seems YOU don't need the Holy Spirit…or is there another reason? You CAN'T, nay, DAREN'T claim Holy Spirit support because you know what you are posting is not Scriptural.
WJ, right here and right now; Say to me that what you post claiming Scriptures, not the rants, but Scriptures, tell me now, that they are by means of the Holy Spirit, by means of it's revelation to you.
WJ, please do not respond if it means you are tempted to lie… Remember what happened to the Scripture personwho 'lied to the Holy Spirit'!!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 20 2010,15:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2010,23:14)
Hi WJ,Please stop with this argument. You guys embarrass yourselves with this one. All you're saying is that your “equal God Almighty” will soon be subjected under “the ONLY true God, Jehovah”. Does that make sense? Does God become less than God at any time? Scriptures say that God never changes.
peace and love,
mike
Mike1. Why, because you do not like the Truth or the reality that Jesus possesses all things and he is the supreme ruler now?
2. Somehow you think that because Jesus subjects the Kingdom and himself back to the Father willingly that that means he is less God.
3. Was the Father less God when he gave it all to Jesus?
4. The Spirit of God is subject to Jesus at this time. Is the Spirit of God less God?
5. But Jesus Kingdom according to scriptures will never end and the increase of his Kingdom will never end.
6. The purpose of subjecting it back to the Father is so that God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit will be all in all!
7. There will no longer need to be a mediator. But I do not expect you to get it.
8. Nevertheless, stop with your Jesus is some little servant claims.
9. Because the reality is Jesus is supreme ruler sitting in the throne of God ruling as God and all things are being made subject to him.
10. This seems to be a thorn in you crawl, because it shows equality with God!
WJ
Hi WJ,I've numbered your points to take up less room.
1. Jesus possesses all things that his God gave him. Nothing more.
2. Well, it says he will be subjected so that God can be all in all. Seems clear to me that Jesus is not God now, or it would say “so that God the Father will be all in all.” And it is obvious he won't be then.
3. You misunderstand – maybe because you have to in order to keep your beliefs from sinking. God did not disappear. Jehovah has put Jesus in charge of His Kingdom. Jesus is running His Kingdom for awhile because that is the will of Jesus' God, Jehovah. He has not given “all” to Jesus in the sense that HE has nothing for the time being. Jesus has been given “all under God”. God is still the boss. Always has been, always will be. If you doubt this, answer the “holy servant” part of Acts 4:30.
4. Blasphemy. The Spirit of God is a part OF God. It is Jehovah's Spirit, not a separate God, WJ. Jesus has been granted from his God that all He has can be used by His Son.
5. It is God's Kingdom. Just like the nation of Israel was God's chosen nation. But it could also rightly be called “David's kingdom” when he was the king. That didn't make David God Almighty, did it? Jesus is ruling as King over his God's Kingdom – he is NOT God himself. He does not have a separate kingdom of his own to my knowledge.
6. That makes no sense at all, WJ. You're saying the Son, who IS God, will be made subject TO the Father, who is God, so that God can be all in all? Why the “switcheroo”, then? Why couldn't Jesus have been raised back to “equal God”? Instead, he was raised back to “higher God”, just so he can later be subjected back to “less than equal God”, which according to you, will make him “equal God” somehow. Un-Scriptural nonsense.
7. But there is now, right? And who is it? God the Son? How can God mediate between God and mankind? Can a mediator be one of the two parties being mediated between? Can a Priest OF God actually BE God?
8. Jesus is a servant of God, a Priest between God and us, a mediator between God and us, and he sits at God's right hand waiting for God to beat down his enemies so that he can subdue them. This is Scripture, WJ. This is not something imagined by those of us who know the trinity is a flawed man-made doctrine. IT IS SCRIPTURE. And not one of us thinks that Jesus is some helpless little servant boy. We recognize that he is our savior, our Lord and our King. We know that he is the most powerful being in existence next to God. We love him with all our heart just like you and thinker do. We only refuse to set him in a higher place than is taught by Scripture. And we consider it blasphemy to put him on the same level (or higher as you suggest) as our Great King and Savior and God. The Almighty YHVH.
9. Jesus sits at the right hand of God. He rules FOR God, not AS Him. And he is NOT supreme compared with his Father and God, Jehovah.
10. The way you and thinker twist the meaning of the Scriptures is the thorn in my crawl – whatever that means.
Think about this:
1. Jesus is a Priest. What is a priest, WJ?
2. Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 4:30)
3. Jesus is a mediator. Can a mediator be on of the parties being mediated between?peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ April 20 2010,17:30) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2010,23:09) Hi Thinker, Do the Scriptures say anywhere that Jesus has given power, authority, or anything else for that matter to Jehovah?
MikeYes, the scriptures say Jesus will give back the Kingdom to the Father and subject himself who has all authority and power to the Father!
Say it isn't so!
WJ
Jesus is ruling over Jehovah's kingdom. He is a “faithful son over his Father's house”. Jesus cannot give back to God what already belongs to God.peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ April 20 2010,16:16) So tell me once again without all the spin how that if all things come through the Father and Jesus how Jesus is not equally God?
Okay WJ,No spin, just a simple question you refuse to answer. Does Scripture say anywhere that ALL things come FROM Jesus?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ April 20 2010,18:55) I'll leave Mike to answer your list of questions but you do realise that you have exposed yourself with Scriptural untruths?
Hi JA,This is not in the debate forum. Jump in anytime on any point. You are my brother in Christ, so I will speak truthfully. I agree with Nick. While I'm probably ignoring the rafter in my own eye, I think the argumentative talk is counterproductive, and not representative of the JA I am slowly getting to know through the PMs.
peace and love,
mikeQuote 3. You misunderstand – maybe because you have to in order to keep your beliefs from sinking. God did not disappear. Jehovah has put Jesus in charge of His Kingdom. Jesus is running His Kingdom for awhile because that is the will of Jesus' God, Jehovah. He has not given “all” to Jesus in the sense that HE has nothing for the time being. Jesus has been given “all under God”. God is still the boss. Always has been, always will be. If you doubt this, answer the “holy servant” part of Acts 4:30. Luk 22:28*30 `And ye are those who have remained with me in my temptations, and I appoint to you, as my Father did appoint to me, a kingdom, that ye may eat and may drink at my table, in my kingdom, and may sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'
Quote (princess of the king @ April 21 2010,13:06) Luk 22:28*30 `And ye are those who have remained with me in my temptations, and I appoint to you, as my Father did appoint to me, a kingdom, that ye may eat and may drink at my table, in my kingdom, and may sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'
Hi POK,What's the point? Do you think there are going to be more than one kingdom? God's, Jesus' and the apostle's?
Or do you read it as I do? I read that there is one kingdom, God's, which can be called Jesus', because he will be king, and can be called the apostle's, for they also will rule over it.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ April 20 2010,18:04) WJ,
You seem to be happily post drivel here, though.The Debate should take priority, AND , I have been patient.
I waited until I saw you posting several posts without responding to our debate.
Why did you take on Mike, who is already un a hot debate with TT. Hardly seems balanced…or is the idea that you are wearing Mike down with the dual Rottwieler attack?
You were so HOT to have a debate with me because you were convinced you had the edge…. Ha ham what you picked was my pet subject…
So why have you cooled? Did I not lay down to you and roll over and say: ruff, ruff!!
Wrong animal, WJ.
One day you will read back your posts and realise what everyone else can already see – that you are so far out of kilter it's amazing that you can still post and type straight while laughing at the riduculous incongruent composition.
Is it a curious thing that YOU have never claimed that what you write is wuth the support of the Holy Spirit? It seems YOU don't need the Holy Spirit…or is there another reason? You CAN'T, nay, DAREN'T claim Holy Spirit support because you know what you are posting is not Scriptural.
WJ, right here and right now; Say to me that what you post claiming Scriptures, not the rants, but Scriptures, tell me now, that they are by means of the Holy Spirit, by means of it's revelation to you.
WJ, please do not respond if it means you are tempted to lie… Remember what happened to the Scripture personwho 'lied to the Holy Spirit'!!
JAYour spirit is sour. All you do is talk trash. There is no Holy Spirit coming from you.
You will get an answer in the debates thread when I am ready.
As far as Mike, I had the debate with him before you because you lolly gaged around making bully statements and dodging my challenge until I finally pressed you into debating.
I asked that we be courteous and repectful of each other and you couldn't get past your first post without patronizing and spewing out your accusations and poison!
WJ
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 20 2010,16:39) Hi WJ,
Where does scripture say all things come THROUGH the Father?
“For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen“. Rom 11:36Of course in context it could be Jesus, but who do you think the verse is speaking of?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2010,20:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 20 2010,16:16) So tell me once again without all the spin how that if all things come through the Father and Jesus how Jesus is not equally God?
Okay WJ,No spin, just a simple question you refuse to answer. Does Scripture say anywhere that ALL things come FROM Jesus?
peace and love,
mike
MikeI see, Answer a question with a question?
Ok, who possesses all things? Then who does all things come from?
WJ
Mike, Nick,
Thanks for your leveller.
I will take all you say into account and act on it.
This is useful spiritual brotherly love that we, when our brother strays from the path of righteousness, that we guide him back with, firstly, gentle admonishment.
WJ,
Meet you in the debate (JustAskin vrs WorshippingJesus)
By the way, you preloaded the debate in your opening statement. I wrote the rebuff in that light. You made the slight, then said 'oh, let's agree to be civil'! Kick the opponent first then ask for an agreement of 'No kicking each other'.
I also said, and did, literally, draw a line under that aspect as far as the debate is concerned. Your initial request for a debate was concerning the Holy Spirit and I gave you a valid explanation why I did not consider it a suitable topic. I felt that you had accepted it, did you?
Tell the good as well as the bad, if you need tell either of them at all!!! 'Nuff Sed'
Hi Mike,
I often just pass through topics and just side with one or another but not actually post my own view or actual support, IF I see that the one I support is doing well and that the opponent is making reasonable attack or defence.
You are doing well and I marked you as a brother. So, I left things in your worthy hands until I saw some incredulous posts and I could not restrain an input, especially in light of a lack (for whatever credible reason!) of response to a debate post from said opponent elsewhere.
thethinker said:
Quote Show from scripture where Christ's Father is called His “Lord.” Mike replied:
Quote At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.[/color]
If the Father is Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't that include Jesus, too? Now you show from Scripture where Jehovah calls Jesus “MY GOD”.
First, this was an intersessory prayer by Jesus. He prayed this in our behalf. Jesus did NOT address His Father as “My Lord.”Second, The Father also addressed His Son as “Lord.”
8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10And, THOU, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:Mike:
Quote Now you show from Scripture where Jehovah calls Jesus “MY GOD”
I never said that Jehovah addressed Jesus as His God. The whole idea is absurd.Mike:
Quote Yes, He created the heavens and the earth BY “Wisdom”, another title of His Son in Proverbs 8.
This is not a valid argument because the book of Proverbs is poetic. Wisdom is personified as a FEMALE throughout the book. The Father CLEARLY said that the creation is the work His Son's own hands.Mike:
Quote But to make it more clear to you, read Acts 4. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.
The word for “made” is the Greek “poieo” which may mean “to appoint.” Peter meant that God “appointed” the creation to take place. But it was Jesus who actually spoke the creation into existence and made it with HIS OWN HANDS. The creation was spoken into existence by the “WORD.” Jesus alone is the Word. The Father is not the Word.In John 1:3 it says that all things were “made” by Him (the Word). The word “made” here is “ginomai” (to come into being).
The Father: He appointed the creation to come into being.
Jesus: He actually brought the creation into being.
Mike:
Quote It starts out clearly explaining that they are praying to Jehovah, the Father.
You are correct that they are praying to the Father. But you err in your treatment of the word “made.” The Greek is “poieo” which means “to appoint.” The Father “appointed” the creation to come into being. But it was actually formed by the Son's own hands. You have miserably failed to debunk the Father's testimony.Mike:
Quote This is where they call Jesus God's “holy servant”. The part I posted for you before. The part to which you responded, “As usual, you've taken what Peter said out of context. He was talking about the pre-exalted Jesus. Jesus is not God's servant anymore, Mike.” (Or something to that effect.) Which is why I included verse 29 and 30 this time. Do you see the bolded “NOW”? “Now” they were asking for miracles through the name of God's STILL holy servant Jesus. AFTER he was exalted.
You are in error. The word “servant” is not in the Greek text. The Greek says “boy” in both verses 27 & 30. The KJV says “child.” This is how we know that Peter is referring to Christ BEFORE His exaltation. In the days of His flesh He was as the boy who was the same as the servant and not a fully investitured son. He was as the “boy son” who according to Paul was the same as the servant. (Gal. 4). Peter could not have been asking a work to be done in the name of the exalted Jesus. He was asking the work to be done in the name of the “child-servant” Jesus who lived among them and who proved Himself before God and men. Jesus is a fully investitured Son now. A fully investitured son was not a servant in the Hebrew culture. It's that simple!Mike:
Quote Both can share the credit of the creation, but it is important to know which one was the source. And that is the one FROM whom all things come.
Horse hockey and double talk! God does not share His glory with any other but God! Get real!Mike:
Quote Grammmar”? How do you get “plurality of persons” out of “GODS”? Wouldn't it be a “plurality of Gods”? Walk me through how you come to “plurality of persons inside one God”.
You have crossed over into harassing me now. If you visit the original “echad and elohym” thread you will see that Martian posted a source which says that the singular verb indicates that the word “elohim” means “God.” I triple checked my theology books and found that trintiarians concur. The difference is that the anti-trinitarians take the plural pronouns figuratively while the trinitairans take them literally.In other words, the anti-trinitarians pick and choose which is literal and not literal. They assign the literal meaning to the verb but a so called “plural of majesty” (non-literal) meaning to the pronouns. The trinitarians take the plural pronouns as the literal plural and the singular verb as a literal singular verb. I prefer to go with the grammar that is consistent. Please don't ask me again. I will not change my answer.
thethinker said:
Quote It CLEARLY says that Jesus is “counted worthy” of the glory of the builder. Then it says that God is the builder. The implication is clear. Mike replied:
Quote Read Peter's prayer above. The implication doesn't seem all that clear to him, or to ANY NT writer for that matter.
You have misunderstood Peter as I have shown above. I will not hold this one against you because our translations failed to bring out that “made” means “appoint” and “servant” is not in the Greek text. The Father's own testimony is that His Son created all things BY HIS OWN HANDS.I accept the Father's testimony.
Mike:
Quote You say “adonay” always means “God”. Here's what Online Bible Study Tools says:
'Adonay TWOT – 27b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ad-o-noy' Noun MasculineDefinition
my lord, lord
of men
of God
Lord – title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence
Looks like it can even be used of men, Jack. It just basically means the same thing as “adonai”.
You're pulling a “Martian” on me now. You took the TWOT out of context just as Martian. On page 13 the TWOT goes on to say that the word “adon” in the plural (adonay) ALWAYS REFERS TO GOD just as Strong's says. I am getting really irritated with you and Martain pulling this stuff.David replied to Jehovah saying, “My Adonay (God) is at your right hand.”
Mike:
Quote Jehovah says to Jesus, “Sit at my right hand”. That is not a position of equality, Jack.
Oh yes it is a position of equality young Mike. Paul said that when all things are subjected to Christ THEN the Son “will also be subject” to the Father (1 cor. 15:28). This means that at the right hand the Son is not subject to the Father sir! Paul said that He WILL BE subject!Mike:
Quote Then He says He will bust down Jesus' enemies. Why would God Almighty need someone else to break his enemies for him?
Uh, verses 5-7 is talking about the Messiah Himself busting down His enemies. We have been over this already. The last enemy to be destroyed is death and paul said that it is Jesus who destroys and abolishes death.14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
and,
10But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: Heb. 2:14 & 2 Tim. 1:10
It CLEARLY says that Christ destroys His arch enemy the devil who holds the power of death. It CLEARLY says that He abolishes death. One more,
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8
YOU SPEAK HALF TRUTHS AND LIES!
thethinker said;
Quote quote]The verb is aorist which indicates completed action in past time. God was not “giving” the Revelation to Jesus. He “GAVE” it to Him at His exaltation.
Mike replied:
Quote So it couldn't mean yesterday while he was in heaven? 
It has to mean it was at his exaltation?
Yes it has to mean at His exaltation and I will tell you why. Jesus said that the Father would send the Spirit of truth “IN MY NAME” (on MY AUTHORITY). The Father sent the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost Mike. THIS MEANS THAT JESUS WAS CALLING ALL THE SHOTS LONG BEFORE THE REVELATION WAS WRITTEN MIKE!1. Jesus said that the Father would send the Spirit of truth “ON MY AUTHORITY.”
2. The Father sent the Spirit on Pentecost.
Conclusion: Jesus was calling all the shots by the time of Pentecost.
You and Martian misuse sources. Vine's Expository Dictionary indicates that Jesus manifested His power (glory) when He changed the water into wine. There is a vast difference between the meaning of a word in its vocabulary form and the way it is to be exegeted in a given context. This is why Vine's Dictionary is called an “expository” dictionary. You know nothing of Greek Exegesis.
And stop citing the TWOT out of context. The TWOT agrees with Strong's that the word “Adonay” (the plural adon) is a name for God ALONE. See TWOT page 13.
thinker
Mike:
Quote You say “adonay” always means “God”. Here's what Online Bible Study Tools says:
'Adonay TWOT – 27b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ad-o-noy' Noun MasculineDefinition
my lord, lord
of men
of God
Lord – title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence
Looks like it can even be used of men, Jack. It just basically means the same thing as “adonai”.TO ALL:
Please be advised that Mikeboll has quoted the TWOT out of context as His friend Martian has also done. Mike omits a chief fact which is indicated on page 13 of the TWOT: The word “adon” in the plural “adonay” is always a name for God ALONE.
The word in Psalm 110:5 is “adonay.” David replied to Jehovah saying, “My Adonay is at your right hand.” David was in effect calling the Messiah his God for “adonay” (plural of adon) is a name for God ALONE. Strong's Concordance agrees (Strong's # 136).
I know that most of you here are on Mike's side of the issue. But you need to send him a private message and exhort him to be more thorough and keep things honest. We must always expect honesty from one another.
thanks,
thethinker
Hi Thinker,
You said:
Quote First, this was an intersessory prayer by Jesus. He prayed this in our behalf. Jesus did NOT address His Father as “My Lord.” No, it wasn't actually a “prayer” at all. Jesus, filled with joy through the Holy Spirit, just felt the need to publicly praise his Lord. Nothing was asked on our behalf. So Jesus did recognize Jehovah as “the Lord of heaven and earth”, which includes “over him”.
You said:
Quote I never said that Jehovah addressed Jesus as His God. The whole idea is absurd. Absurd?
That's what I've been saying. It is absurd to think that God would call someone else “my God”. But Jesus does, doesn't he? So then it is equally absurd to think Jesus is God. You said:
Quote Wisdom is personified as a FEMALE throughout the book. Okay, we won't count Proverbs. I'm not totally sure it is Jesus spoken about myself.
You said:
Quote The word for “made” is the Greek “poieo” which may mean “to appoint.” Do you buy this, Jack? God “appointed” the heavens and the earth? Appointed them to do what? Reaching
You said:
Quote The creation was spoken into existence by the “WORD.” Jesus alone is the Word. The Father is not the Word. Jesus is the Word…..OF GOD. Jesus speaks nothing of his own initiative. Only what his Father tells him.
You said:
Quote In John 1:3 it says that all things were “made” by Him (the Word). It actually says all things came into existence “THROUGH” him. As do many other Scriptures.
You said:
Quote The word “made” here is “ginomai” (to come into being). WHAT?!? The same word that is the base of the word “genes” in monogenes? The same word I argued means “to generate” or “to come into being”? The same word that WJ is now insisting doesn't mean “to generate”? The same word that you blew off in our debate because it doesn't prove Jesus “came into being”? Now you want to use the same definition for it that you dismissed as false for me to use?
You gotta admit, that's hilarious!Yes Jack, it DOES mean that. And the NWT (that terrible translation) says: 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
Take note of the word “through”.
You said:
Quote The Father: He appointed the creation to come into being. Jesus: He actually brought the creation into being.
Even though that's not in the ballpark of what Acts 4 is saying, let's go with it. What you're saying is that God APPOINTED the creation to come into being, and His servant Jesus brought it into being at his God's command.
You said:
Quote The Greek is “poieo” which means “to appoint.” The Father “appointed” the creation to come into being. But it was actually formed by the Son's own hands. You have miserably failed to debunk the Father's testimony. I have only debunked the way you interpret it. But you have no choice but to read it that way, or admit the trinity is false. And you're not ready to do that….yet.
If we use your definition of the word “poieo”, the Scripture doesn't read how you say. It reads, “Sovereign Lord, you are the One who APPOINTED the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them, 25 and who through holy spirit said by the mouth of our forefather David, your servant…Does this translation of the Greek make sense, Jack? Of course not. And you notice the word “servant” used of David? It is the same word “boy” as is used of Jesus.
You said:
Quote This is how we know that Peter is referring to Christ BEFORE His exaltation. How? Because Peter and John were really praying for miracles through the flesh and blood man, Jesus? AFTER HE WAS EXALTED, THEY PRAY THROUGH EARTHLY JESUS?
I am SOOOOO happy I came across this Scripture, Jack. You have no idea how pleased I am. While I am sure it must have been used before, I have never seen it used. Do you know what this means for you? It kills you whole theory in one fell swoop. You say that Jesus was God, then lowered himself to be man, then was raised back to God, where he is under no one for the time being. While the eventual subjection makes your “Now I'm God, Now I'm Not” theory unbelievable in itself, you still twist any Scripture you can to p
reach it. But now, since it is clear that Jesus is STILL God's SERVANT in heaven, we know he is NOT GOD, Which explains why he still calls Jehovah “my God”. And it explains why every NT writer clearly shows through their writings that the Father is God, and Jesus is not. Oh, happy day! You said:
Quote Horse hockey and double talk! God does not share His glory with any other but God! Get real! Is all glory in creation God's? Didn't Solomon have it? Is he God? Can't Jesus have glory of his own? Stop being silly.
You said:
Quote In other words, the anti-trinitarians pick and choose which is literal and not literal. They assign the literal meaning to the verb but a so called “plural of majesty” (non-literal) meaning to the pronouns. The trinitarians take the plural pronouns as the literal plural and the singular verb as a literal singular verb. I prefer to go with the grammar that is consistent. Please don't ask me again. I will not change my answer. But you didn't answer my question: How do you get “plurality of persons” out of “GODS”? Wouldn't it be a “plurality of Gods”? Walk me through how you come to “plurality of persons inside one God”.
Why isn't it a plurality of gods? The word means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”. And the TRUE (Trinity Reasonings=Unsubstantiated Excrement) believers don't misuse the pronouns and verbs. We find it very likely that since Jesus was a part of everything God made, the “us” refers to God and His Son, Jesus.
And you still haven't answered why YOUR source said that kings traditionally used the plural for themselves. Did they think that:
a. They were a plurality of kings.
b. They were very majestic, and this was a way of stating that.Which one makes more sense, Jack? Please answer.
You said:
Quote I will not hold this one against you because our translations failed to bring out that “made” means “appoint” and “servant” is not in the Greek text. I've explained that the “appoint” definition in that particular sentence does not work. And the word “boy” and “servant” are still interchangeable today in many languages. Why is David also called a “boy”? You said it yourself: He was as the boy who was the same as the servant
You said:
Quote You're pulling a “Martian” on me now. You took the TWOT out of context just as Martian. I took nothing out of context. I copied and pasted the definition as is from Online Bible Study Tools.
You said:
Quote On page 13 the TWOT goes on to say that the word “adon” in the plural (adonay) ALWAYS REFERS TO GOD just as Strong's says. I am getting really irritated with you and Martain pulling this stuff. I've pulled no “stuff” that I am aware of. You would think that if TWOT thinks it ALWAYS REFERS TO GOD, they wouldn't have this as the word's definition:
'Adonay TWOT – 27b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ad-o-noy' Noun MasculineDefinition
my lord, lord
of men
of God
Lord – title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverenceThe NT writers were apparently unaware of TWOT's “ALWAYS MEANS GOD” definition, because they translated it as “kurios”. And I'm sure you know that means “lord”. And Jesus also must not of known the word's real meaning either. Or he would have said: 43He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'God'? For he says,
44″ 'The Lord said to my God:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”They translated it how Jesus said it. He apparently didn't say God. Maybe TWOT is mistaken?
You said:
Quote Oh yes it is a position of equality young Mike. Still waiting for that proof in our debate. I mean, this isn't all you have for proof, is it?
You said:
Quote Uh, verses 5-7 is talking about the Messiah Himself busting down His enemies. We have been over this already. So all through the Bible it talks of God doing this, but in this one verse, it is saying Jesus will do it?
Then how do you explain this Scripture?12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to BE made his footstool,
Be made by whom? And this brings up another point. What exactly is a priest, Jack? How can Jesus be a Priest who goes between us and God, and also BE God? Please explain.
You said:
Quote YOU SPEAK HALF TRUTHS AND LIES! Yes Jack. Jesus will destroy all that his God has put under him and commanded him to destroy.
You said:
Quote Yes it had to mean at His exaltation and I will tell you why. Jesus said that the Father would send the Spirit of truth “IN MY NAME” (on MY AUTHORITY). The Father sent the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost Mike. Jesus said that the Father would send the Holy Spirit “ON MY AUTHORITY.” THIS MEANS THAT JESUS WAS CALLING ALL THE SHOTS LONG BEFORE THE REVELATION WAS WRITTEN MIKE! MIKE First, Jesus said he would request that the Father do this for him. Second, I wonder if the Spirit was sent in the name of the little boy Jesus that the apostles prayed for miracles through.
If Jesus was “calling the shots” from the time he was exalted, why did Peter and John pray TO God THROUGH the SERVANT Jesus? Why not pray to Jesus directly? He was God and was “calling the shots” by then, right? Jack, I thank you for all your help. The more I have to study the Scriptures to debunk your flawed theories, the more I gain a deeper, more full understanding of how, when put all together, the trinity absolutely cannot be possible.
You said:
Quote You and Martian misuse sources. Vine's Expository Dictionary indicates that Jesus manifested His power (glory) when He changed the water into wine. Is this your way of saying you can not debunk the definitions I posted for the word? That's okay, “Hey, Vine ain't perfect.”
You said:
Quote And stop citing the TWOT out of context. The TWOT agrees with Strong's that the word “Adonay” (the plural adon) is a name for God ALONE. Seems like Jesus and the NT writers didn't think it meant “God”. Sorry, they win over TWOT.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2010,18:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2010,20:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 20 2010,16:16) So tell me once again without all the spin how that if all things come through the Father and Jesus how Jesus is not equally God?
Okay WJ,No spin, just a simple question you refuse to answer. Does Scripture say anywhere that ALL things come FROM Jesus?
peace and love,
mike
MikeI see, Answer a question with a question?
Ok, who possesses all things? Then who does all things come from?
WJ
Hi WJ,I'll take that as a “NO”. Thanks.
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote Jesus did recognize Jehovah as “the Lord of heaven and earth”, which includes “over him”.
Again, Jesus said “My Father” but never “My Lord.” And again, the Father also called Jesus “Lord” (Heb. 1:10)Mike:
Quote It is absurd to think that God would call someone else “my God”.
But God called Jesus “God” (Heb. 1:8). He meant that Jesus was the God of men.Mike:
Quote Do you buy this, Jack? God “appointed” the heavens and the earth? Appointed them to do what?
You cut n pasted again. I said that God appointed them into existence. First, I have the Father's own testimony. You claim that the Father is your God. But you deny His testimony regarding His Son creating the heavens and the earth with HIS OWN HANDS. Second, Peter used the same word “poieo” in 2:36 saying, “God has appointed (poieo) Him both Lord and Christ.”Mike:
Quote Jesus is the Word…..OF GOD. Jesus speaks nothing of his own initiative. Only what his Father tells him.
Circular. He is not in the flesh anymore.Mike:
Quote It actually says all things came into existence “THROUGH” him. As do many other Scriptures.
The KJV says “by Him.” The Greek “dia” means by direct agency. If it said, God created “by” Him you would have a case. John 1:3 simply says, “by Him” without mention of any other agent involved. Again, the Father said that Jesus created all things by His own hands.Mike:
Quote WHAT?!? The same word that is the base of the word “genes” in monogenes? The same word I argued means “to generate” or “to come into being”? The same word that WJ is now insisting doesn't mean “to generate”? The same word that you blew off in our debate because it doesn't prove Jesus “came into being”? Now you want to use the same definition for it that you dismissed as false for me to use?
We were talking about “genes” and not “ginomai.” Maybe you were talking about “ginomai” but I was talking about “genes.” The idea of origin had been dropped from the word “monogenes” before the new testament was written. Again, the authoritative Septuagint proves it. It says,“I am lonely and afflicted” (Ps. 25:16).
The word “lonely” is the Greek “monogenes.” Show where you see the idea of origin in “monogenes” here? Or will you sweep it under the carpet?
Mike:
Quote What you're saying is that God APPOINTED the creation to come into being, and His servant Jesus brought it into being at his God's command.
Where does the Scripture say that Jesus was a servant BEFORE His incarnation? Philippians 2 says that He existed in God's form and BECAME a servant. You are given to a whole lot of presupposition.Mike:
Quote I have only debunked the way you interpret it.
What other way is there to interpret it? The Father addressed His Son saying, “The heavens are the work of YOUR HANDS.”Mike:
Quote How? Because Peter and John were really praying for miracles through the flesh and blood man, Jesus? AFTER HE WAS EXALTED, THEY PRAY THROUGH EARTHLY JESUS? I am SOOOOO happy I came across this Scripture, Jack. You have no idea how pleased I am. While I am sure it must have been used before, I have never seen it used. Do you know what this means for you? It kills you whole theory in one fell swoop. You say that Jesus was God, then lowered himself to be man, then was raised back to God, where he is under no one for the time being. While the eventual subjection makes your “Now I'm God, Now I'm Not” theory unbelievable in itself, you still twist any Scripture you can to preach it. But now, since it is clear that Jesus is STILL God's SERVANT in heaven, we know he is NOT GOD, Which explains why he still calls Jehovah “my God”. And it explains why every NT writer clearly shows through their writings that the Father is God, and Jesus is not. Oh, happy day!
But the word “servant” is not present in the text. The word is “child.” Peter also said that God “glorified His “child” Jesus (Acts 3:13). Paul teaches that a child is the same as a servant but a son is a servant no more (Galatians 4).And Peter was indeed asking for a work to be done on the grounds of Christ's COMPLETED work. His completed work is the ground of all gifts and blessings we receive. You celebrate prematurely.
Mike:
Quote And the word “boy” and “servant” are still interchangeable today in many languages.
It doesn't matter. Once the boy becomes a fully investitured son he is no longer a servant. Are you saying that Jesus is still as a boy? Are you saying that He is not fully investitured? Jesus has taken full possession of HIS kingdom!Mike:
Quote I took nothing out of context. I copied and pasted the definition as is from Online Bible Study Tools.
Go back and read it in context. The TWOT explicitly says that the name “Adonay” ALWAYS REFERS TO GOD. YOU INDEED TOOK IT OUT OF CONTEXT.Mike:
Quote I've pulled no “stuff” that I am aware of. You would think that if TWOT thinks it ALWAYS REFERS TO GOD, they wouldn't have this as the word's definition: 'Adonay TWOT – 27b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ad-o-noy' Noun MasculineDefinition
my lord, lord
of men
of God
Lord – title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence
Page 13: When 'adon appears in the special plural form, with a first common singular pronominal suffix ('adona[y]), it always refers to God. According to Strong's this is the word in Psalm 110:5King David said, “My Adonay (God) is at your right hand.”
Mike:
Quote The NT writers were apparently unaware of TWOT's “ALWAYS MEANS GOD” definition, because they translated it as “kurios”. And I'm sure you know that means “lord”. And Jesus also must not of known the word's real meaning either. Or he would have said: 43He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'God'? For he says,
44″ 'The Lord said to my God:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”
The word in Psalm 110:1 is not the same word that appears in verse 5. I indicated this at the beginning. In verse 1 the word is “adon” (see Strong's # 113). In verse 5 the word is “adonay” (Strong's 3 136). Strong's and the TWOT agree that the name in verse 5 applies to God alone.thethinker said:
Quote Oh yes it is a position of equality young Mike.
Mike:
Quote Still waiting for that proof in our debate.
I gave you Paul's statement that the son “WILL BE” subject to the Father. This indicates that Jesus was not subject then. Are you going to get around to answering this soon? Should I plan my funeral waiting on you?Mike:
Quote all through the Bible it talks of God doing this, but in this one verse, it is saying Jesus will do it?
Ah but it does not say that all throughout the bible.Mike:
Quote Yes Jack. Jesus will destroy all that his God has put under him and commanded him to destroy.
Half truths! The scripture says that God will subjugate his enemies. It says also that Christ will subjugate His enemies (Philippians 3:21). I know I know, you're going to answer with your “because” clause in Philippians 3:21. Show your “because” clause. I want proof!“I and My Father are one.”
Mike:
Quote First, Jesus said he would request that the Father do this for him.
Agreed.First, this does not cancel out the statement in verse 26 where Jesus said that the Father would send the Spirit of truth in HIS NAME. The expression means the same thing it means in verse 14, “If you ask anything IN MY NAME” I will give it to you.” It means “On My authority” in both instances. So my point stands that Jesus would have ALL authority at His exaltation.
Second, near the end of the discourse His disciples replied saying, “Now we believe that you know ALL THINGS.” Note that Jesus did not correct them. He answered them saying, “Do you really believe?”
Third, He made himself a servant in the first place. So even if H was still a servant would prove only a functional inequality. But this is definitely not the case. h has been exalted to His Father's right hand and will not be subject until H delivers the kingdom to His Father
Therefore, Jesus had been given all truth long before the Revelation was written.Mike:
Quote Second, I wonder if the Spirit was sent in the name of the little boy Jesus that the apostles prayed for miracles through.
The COMPLETED work of Christ in the days of His flesh is the grounds of all blessings we receive.thethinker said:
Quote You and Martian misuse sources. Vine's Expository Dictionary indicates that Jesus manifested His power (glory) when He changed the water into wine. Mike replied:
Quote Is this your way of saying you can not debunk the definitions I posted for the word? That's okay, “Hey, Vine ain't perfect.”
The definitions you offer do not apply in John 2 and in Romans where it says that Jesus was raised from the dead by the “glory” of the Father. Do you deny that “doxa” means “power” in reference to God raising Jesus from the dead?thethinker said:
Quote And stop citing the TWOT out of context. The TWOT agrees with Strong's that the word “Adonay” (the plural adon) is a name for God ALONE. Mike replied:
Seems like Jesus and the NT writers didn't think it meant “God”. Sorry, they win over TWOT
See my answer above. The word is Psalm 110:1 is not the same word used in verse 5. You misused the TWOT. Read it in its entirety.1. You did not answer my point inwhich I showed that the Father calls Jesus “Lord” (Heb. 1:10).
2. You have not answered Paul's statement that Christ “will be” subject to the Father (future from the writing of the book).
I should have given you the benefit of the doubt unlike with Martian. I believe you did not intentionally leave out facts from the TWOT. But you are not using it properly. Your post reflects you think the word in Psalm 110:1 & 5 have the same meaning.
Please provide the link for the online TWOT to which you refer. I need to compare it with my printed TWOT which says,
“Page 13: When 'adon appears in the special plural form, with a first common singular pronominal suffix ('adona[y]), it always refers to God. According to Strong's this is the word in Psalm 110:5″
King David said, “My Adonay (God) is at your right hand.”
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
