- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2010,03:41) Quote (Ed J @ May 02 2010,01:00) Hi JustAskin, What we have here is a lack of communication (Cool hand Luke).
Hi Ed,Wasn't it “a failure to comunicate”? Or was that “Smokey and the Bandit”?
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,Yea; your right…
Sorry for the distraction WJ.
“What we have here is a Failure to communicate”. (Cool hand Luke)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,15:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2010,03:41) Quote (Ed J @ May 02 2010,01:00) Hi JustAskin, What we have here is a lack of communication (Cool hand Luke).
Hi Ed,Wasn't it “a failure to comunicate”? Or was that “Smokey and the Bandit”?
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,Yea; your right…
Sorry for the distraction WJ.
“What we have here is a Failure to communicate”. (Cool hand Luke)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDNo problem. It was short and sweet and not 500 words of unrelated material.
WJ
WJ,
First off you choose a passage that has much controversy attached to it, Second you site from early church fathers, third you leave out other's that do not hold the same perspective on the matter.
Your opinion on the matter is of a bias one to balance the conversation out why not read this article which plainly disputes what you have to say.
Getting past all the that, why do you feel it is a priority in your life to have people believe in the triad teachings. Do you find this is most detrimental to ones salvation if they do not believe jesus is a/or god, that is what perplexes me the most.
Take care WJ, hope all is well with you.
Quote (princess of the king @ May 01 2010,15:14) WJ, First off you choose a passage that has much controversy attached to it, Second you site from early church fathers, third you leave out other's that do not hold the same perspective on the matter.
Your opinion on the matter is of a bias one to balance the conversation out why not read this article which plainly disputes what you have to say.
Getting past all the that, why do you feel it is a priority in your life to have people believe in the triad teachings. Do you find this is most detrimental to ones salvation if they do not believe jesus is a/or god, that is what perplexes me the most.
Take care WJ, hope all is well with you.
POKYour souce is not telling the truth, this is from their site.
“Who Changed Matthew 28:19? and Why?
18 And Yeshua came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.You will realize that Verse 19 originally read: “…baptizing them in my name: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:” and that the Trinitarian Doctrine was inserted into the text by the Roman Catholic Church. this article
The Catholics didn't change the text in the MSS. Thats a lie! They changed the baptismal formula that the Church was practicing to “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
The controversy is only claimed by the opposers, but the fact is there is no evidence at all that proves the RCC changed the text but only wishful thinking.
Not only do Church Fathers like Ignatius (c. 35–107), Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Tertullian (c. 160–225) quote the verse long back to the first century, but the most damaging evidence to the unbelievers was “every extant Greek biblical manuscript that contains this verse of Matthew has the tripartite phrase“.
Plus the Didache which is believed by most scholars to be dated between 90 and 120CE also has the extant form of the passage.
So your souce has mountains of evidence to overcome and it looks like your source is only making false claims without any evidence at all! The manuscripts all have the formula! All credible translations have it.
The dispute is over ambiguous claims about Eusebius having a lost copy of the original which didn't have the tripartite phrase. But that is merely an unfounded rumor and their is no way to tell.
The NET completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, states…
Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare,” “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163-64, 167-75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27-29. (Emphasis mine) NET
What also should be looked at by those who make this weak claim about Eusebius is that he was a Trinitarian and a prominent figure at the Council of Nicea. And his confession has the tripartite phrase.
Smoke screens with no evidence at all. Just conjecture made by the doubters.
Matt 28:19 is an inspired text written by Mattew and spoken by our Lord!
WJ
WJ,
Do you see how easily you fall into your ways?
After all the attempts I made to clear the way for answers to the thread topic, you enter, without even so much as a blink, into an unrelated dispute.Could you not just let it go.
Can you not resist the chance to enter a dispute, even when you trying to foster relations against another.How about this approach:
“
PoK,
Thanks for your post, but can we explore that elsewhere.If you really require a response, please start a new thread and I will certainly join you there.
By the way, what are your thoughts on the topic of this thread.”
And there you have it: Appreciation, invitation, restoration.
Not a monolithic kneejerk challenge to add pages to your aborted lovechild thread.
Hi WJ,
I answered you in the “elohim” thread:
Hi WJ,
I wonder if that verse could mean, “in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit.”
It is worded as such in Rev, where John says in New Jerusalem there will be the “throne of God, and of the Lamb.”
We could easily read this as only one throne, had we not previously been told there are two.
If I signed in for us at a busy restaurant, but thought we had a better chance to be called faster if I signed in under all of our names separately, would I be correct in saying I signed in under the name of WJ, and of Thinker, and of Mike? Would it mean we all had the same name?
One more thought: As you point out, Jesus is not recorded as using the divine name Jehovah in the NT, although it is in the LXX as the original Hebrew tetragrammaton. Yet Jesus more than once speaks to the Father about “making his name known”. Since he wasn't obviously talking about the proper name of his Father, he must have been talking about the qualities of his Father, right? Like having a “good name”. So could your Scripture maybe be talking about “name” in that sense?
Does it absolutely mean “they all have the same name” because of the way it is worded?
You said:
Quote This is in response to your claim that there is not even a hint of a Trinity mentioned in the Bible from another thread, but Matt 28:19 by Jesus own words says there is “a Trinity”. How in the world does Matt preach a trinity? Because it mentions three in one sentence, therefore they are all God? You're reaching man.
You said:
Quote Right, read the whole post, Eusebius was a prominent figure at the Nicene Council. As far as the Jws they only give their opinions and no proof that a “Trinity” is not mentioned. Prominent, yet worded his letter in such a way as to make it very clear he does not think Jesus is the Almighty. In fact, he agrees with Scripture that God begat Jesus as the firstborn of created things, before the ages. And that only the Father is God Almighty.
And the JW's quoted Strong's opinion, and gave solid reasonings, both of which imply that Matt doesn't mean what you think. I challenged you to debunk the JW info, and you ran. Just like you ran from Terra's point blank questions.
You said:
Quote But you and your Father are not God. Nor are you and your father. Nor is Jesus. Nor is the Holy Spirit. Are you seeing a pattern? None is God except God alone.
You said:
Quote You won't find them in Kingdom Hall true. But all the 8 year olds in my Church and many others know Jesus as there God. Hence my quotes of the Pharisee Scriptures. Woe to you, WJ, for you fail to believe the truth of the Scriptures, and you teach your man-made doctrine to babes. Those who teach will be judged more harshly.
You said:
Quote You say he is “a god” but yet he is not your god Mike. What gives? Jesus=Webster's, WJ.
You said:
Quote Go and learn what Eusebius and the Church Fathers believed Mike. Though they may use the word Begotten it would be in relationship to his incarnation or his election. Were you there? The word “monogenes” comes from two words. One means “only” the other means “caused to exist”. It is a reletively new doctrine that the trinitarians invented that says “monogenes” doesn't mean “only begotten”. It is not proven, nor does it explain why starting with the KJV, Bibles for centuries have translated it “only begotten”. And as I showed thinker, 4 of the 6 translations you praised for being written by so many scholoars translate it as “only begotten”. Not to mention the NWT and Young's Literal Translation.
Face it WJ, you can not have “only begotten” shooting down your doctrine, so you invent things to make it go away. Just like you invent things to say that “firstborn of all creation” means “ranked #1 of all men”. But the words in the Bible do not lie.
What did Eusebius mean by “the firstborn of created things”?
You said:
Quote As I said Eusebius was a prominant figure at the Nicene Council and they did not believe Jesus had a beginning or came into existence except during the incarnation when he came into existence in the likeness of human flesh. About the Nicene Council:
Roman Emperor Constantine, an early champion of the Catholic Church, wanted peace among his subjects, many of whom were Christians. After trying (and failing) to mediate a resolution, he called a council of the whole church to settle the issue once and for all. In the year 325, delegate bishops were invited, and 300 of those (about 18%) met at Nicaea and, under pressure from the Emperor, adopted the Nicene Creed. This famous creed states that the Son is, “…God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father…”. This creed was bitterly denounced by many, and actually revoked by later councils, which changed it to state that the Son is, “…of like substance” with the Father, and “we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach.”
But the decision of these councils did not stand. The church later went back to the Nicene Creed. Even then it took many generations before it became sacrosanct and infallible in the eyes of the church. And it was 55 years later that the Holy Spirit became included in the godhead.
And in all the times I've looked at this creed, I just noticed “God FROM God”. Is the Almighty FROM another God, WJ?
You said:
Quote So therefore Mike Begotten to them could not mean what you say it means. Sorry the Church Fathers and the scriptures disagree with you! The “FROM” I just mentioned begs to differ. And it is the recent trinitarians struggling to keep their doctrine alive in the midst of a world that has more access to the truth thanks to sites like this, that have to now go back and change the meanings of long accepted definitions of the Greek words. The truth is out there, and more and more people will learn it. The trinitarian preachers like you are going to have your work cut out for you.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (terraricca @ May 02 2010,06:46) WJ you answer the wrong questions;
i knew that would be your way;my question;is the God of Israel(nation in Moses time) the true God?
you answer;
God is not the God of all natural Jews. The True Israel of God is spiritual now!my second question;;
were the Jews deceived by there God believing that he was one;??you answered;;
Have you forgotten it was the Jews that also were responsible for his crucifixtion. They rejected him on grounds of making himself equal to God by claiming to be the “Only Son of God” and that God was his personal Father.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. “HE CAME UNTO HIS OWN AND HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT”. John 1:10, 11
this does not answered the question.
my next question;
again is the God worshiped by the Jews a trinity ?your answered;;
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. “And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him”.
Yep the Apostles were natural Jews that worshipped Jesus and called him their Lord and God, and spoke of the “three” in Matthew 28:19.again you did not answer the question,
SO MAY GOD GIVE YOUR REWARD ACCORDING TO YOUR TRUTHFULLNESS OF YOUR HEART AND KNOWLEDGE.
Hi Terra,Spot on, brother! Please don't let up. Keep throwing those same simple yet important questions down WJ's throat until he answers them. And keep calling him out for running from them.
peace and love,
mikeWJ,
Even as I gloat over your fallen body, I feel compassion for you.
I cannot call you 'a worthy opponent' because, quite frankly, your were the lamest opponent I ever encountered.Did I hear, 'hey, everyone come quick , JA is fighting WJ!' (Neo vs Morpheus, The Matrix)
I have to say 'sorry' to those who were expecting more. To them I say, 'Get you ticket money back from WJ's sales manager who appears to have run off with WJ's sponsor money.
I'm still extending an invitation to another debate.
Actually, I have noticed that there aren't any other trini verses except John 1:1~ left for you to still lay a claim to. I can't figure it, myself…
WJ,
Not one to for long post, this may be due to my attention span or the context of ones post. In all truth, I do not believe the same as I did when I joined the board, which to me is a good thing, that means I have not been cut off in understanding truth, or what I call having an unteachable spirit, now some of my faith has not changed. It is a gift to know, when we are the teachers and when we are the student.
The point of the matter, you have not changed once in your time on the board, I have not seen you grow, only become obsessed with trinity, your obsession has grown stronger and stronger. It is the only subject you carry in your discussions. Please take note on this, it is very important.
So let us test this passage you bring forth:
Starting with frequency, a important matter.
Is there another passage that carries the same as in Mat. 28.19
Are there other passages in the text that carry 'in my name'
(Joh 15:16) You have not chosen Me, but I chose you out and planted you, that you should go and should bear fruit, and your fruit remain, that whatever you should ask the Father in My name, He may give you.
(Joh 16:23) And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Truly, truly, I say to you, Whatever you shall ask the Father in My name, He will give you.
(Joh 16:24) Until now you asked nothing in My name; ask, and you will receive, so that your joy may be full.
(Joh 16:26) In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not tell you that I will petition the Father about you;
What name must you call upon to be saved?
Let's move on:
Practice.
Did the diciples baptize in the triad manner?
1Co 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
These are just references you must also deal with in your preachings, will you handle them with love and kindness?
to trinitarians
answer those questions;;you like always you do not answer the questions,
you only run around .
again is the God of the Jews the true God or not ??
direct question give a direct answer.
again is the God worshiped by the Jews a trinity ?
were the Jews deceived by there God believing that he was one;??
IF YOU CANOT ANSWER IT IN A INTELIGENT WAY ,AND I MEAN BY SAYING IT IS IRELEVANT ,THOSE QUEST ARE THE BASE TO GET YOU OUT OF YOUR MADDNESS,
NO ONE NEEDS TO BE INSTRUCTED IN ANY GREEK OR HEBREW ANCIEN LANGAGE,BUT THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST IS THE TRUTH.
SO WERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS??
Keith,
See, I address you personally, by your name.Not before have I heard such complete unwravelling and profound explication of a single Scripturally turgid rendered verse (except: 'the Father, son and Holy Spirit' which has been universally condemned as trini falasy) from one proclaim with such God inspired humbleness.
Princess of the King, I congratulate you on your post.
In Jesus' name, I commend you.WJ, come close and hear this what one man spoke at one time to many:
'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings'WJ,
Princess has echoed something I have said to you many times before: You have not learnt anything in your time in this forum. And, indeed, you CANNOT.
The Trinity doctrine has hemned you in. You are hedged all around by prickly leaves (false verses) from the poisoned plant (false doctrine).
We are offering to lift you out, bring you out, detox you of the poison you have been pricking yourself with for years and pretending it was normal.
Come out from within [it], WJ, we urge you, in Jesus' name.
Call on the name of Jesus and ask God, YHVH, for the Holy Spirit, to help you.
Listen close, please. Jesus said 'ASK…IN…MY…NAME…'
WJ, ask who?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 02 2010,06:59) Quote (terraricca @ May 01 2010,14:46) WJ you answer the wrong questions;
i knew that would be your way;
TYour questions are irrelevant if they are not in light of the NT Jew and Apostles!
This discussion is about the NT scripture Matthew 28:19 which is inspired by God through the Apostle Matthew.
But you do not believe in this scripture so why should I discuss OT scripture with you, for if I show you God is plural in the OT you will just claim the scriptures are not true but a lie.
WJ
WJyou are wrong again ,wen you deal with who is and what is God ,you deal with all the word of God ,only speculators try to use one verse ,one word,one sentence,one idea,
to be truthful in what you believe ,it has to be true to the entire scriptures the OT or NT.
For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy
Hi,
If you want to PROVE the authenticity of a verse then you must find others that say the same thing[2Cor 13.1]
It is not possible for this verse as none exist.The apostles baptised in the name of Yashua.
Quote (terraricca @ May 01 2010,22:56) NO ONE NEEDS TO BE INSTRUCTED IN ANY GREEK OR HEBREW ANCIEN LANGAGE,BUT THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST IS THE TRUTH. SO WERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS??
TI have given you my answer and you will not hear it.
This thread is about Matthew 28:19 and you do not believe it is scripture.
So for the last time I will say I will not discuss scripture with someone who believes it is corrupt because they will always claim that they are corrupt when they do not like what is being said.
Goodbye and I wish you the best in seeking your answers!
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ May 02 2010,20:45) Keith,
See, I address you personally, by your name.Not before have I heard such complete unwravelling and profound explication of a single Scripturally turgid rendered verse (except: 'the Father, son and Holy Spirit' which has been universally condemned as trini falasy) from one proclaim with such God inspired humbleness.
Princess of the King, I congratulate you on your post.
In Jesus' name, I commend you.WJ, come close and hear this what one man spoke at one time to many:
'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings'
JA,You show your ignorance yet again. The “babes and sucklings” were the disciples and they were taught by Christ Himself for over three years. They were taught by the Holy Spirit after that.
They had more than a college education. There is no place for the uneducated in biblical commentary.
thinker
Quote (terraricca @ May 02 2010,08:58) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 02 2010,06:59) Quote (terraricca @ May 01 2010,14:46) WJ you answer the wrong questions;
i knew that would be your way;
TYour questions are irrelevant if they are not in light of the NT Jew and Apostles!
This discussion is about the NT scripture Matthew 28:19 which is inspired by God through the Apostle Matthew.
But you do not believe in this scripture so why should I discuss OT scripture with you, for if I show you God is plural in the OT you will just claim the scriptures are not true but a lie.
WJ
WJyou are wrong again ,wen you deal with who is and what is God ,you deal with all the word of God ,only speculators try to use one verse ,one word,one sentence,one idea,
to be truthful in what you believe ,it has to be true to the entire scriptures the OT or NT.
For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy
JANot wrong at all. T doesn't believe Matt 28:19 is scripture.
The NT interprets the Old.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,17:40) About the Nicene Council: Roman Emperor Constantine, an early champion of the Catholic Church, wanted peace among his subjects, many of whom were Christians. After trying (and failing) to mediate a resolution, he called a council of the whole church to settle the issue once and for all. In the year 325, delegate bishops were invited, and 300 of those (about 18%) met at Nicaea and, under pressure from the Emperor, adopted the Nicene Creed. This famous creed states that the Son is, “…God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father…”. This creed was bitterly denounced by many, and actually revoked by later councils, which changed it to state that the Son is, “…of like substance” with the Father, and “we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach.”
But the decision of these councils did not stand. The church later went back to the Nicene Creed. Even then it took many generations before it became sacrosanct and infallible in the eyes of the church. And it was 55 years later that the Holy Spirit became included in the godhead.
MikeGod of God does not mean Jesus had a beginning.
If so then the Holy Spirit which is “Of God” and proceeds from God would have had a beginning. Do you believe the Holy Spirit had a beginning? Was there a time the Holy Spirit was not with the Father? Was there a time the Holy Spirit did not exist?
The Nicene creed in its earliest rendering in which Eusebius was a prominant supporter of, also reads….
But those who say: “There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'“—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Don't just quote part of it Mike for it also reads…
“light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father“
This says he is “True God from True God”, begotten, “NOT MADE“.
If you are going to argue for the Creed then you should know that obviously their definition of begotten is not the same as yours.
The point of the creeds was to settle the battle between the Arians and the Trinitarians that did not believe Jesus was God but rather one of the creation.
Jesus said he “came from God” but in the context he is not saying that he had a beginning before he came in the flesh. John 13:3
WJ
Quote (thethinker @ May 04 2010,04:43) Quote (JustAskin @ May 02 2010,20:45) Keith,
See, I address you personally, by your name.Not before have I heard such complete unwravelling and profound explication of a single Scripturally turgid rendered verse (except: 'the Father, son and Holy Spirit' which has been universally condemned as trini falasy) from one proclaim with such God inspired humbleness.
Princess of the King, I congratulate you on your post.
In Jesus' name, I commend you.WJ, come close and hear this what one man spoke at one time to many:
'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings'
JA,You show your ignorance yet again. The “babes and sucklings” were the disciples and they were taught by Christ Himself for over three years. They were taught by the Holy Spirit after that.
They had more than a college education. There is no place for the uneducated in biblical commentary.
thinker
Hi TT,
So these men who learned from the Master went out baptising IN THE NAME OF JESUS.You say we should listen to them so how have you misread scripture?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,17:40) Hi WJ, I answered you in the “elohim” thread:
Hi WJ,
I wonder if that verse could mean, “in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit.”
It is worded as such in Rev, where John says in New Jerusalem there will be the “throne of God, and of the Lamb.”
We could easily read this as only one throne, had we not previously been told there are two.
If I signed in for us at a busy restaurant, but thought we had a better chance to be called faster if I signed in under all of our names separately, would I be correct in saying I signed in under the name of WJ, and of Thinker, and of Mike? Would it mean we all had the same name?
One more thought: As you point out, Jesus is not recorded as using the divine name Jehovah in the NT, although it is in the LXX as the original Hebrew tetragrammaton. Yet Jesus more than once speaks to the Father about “making his name known”. Since he wasn't obviously talking about the proper name of his Father, he must have been talking about the qualities of his Father, right? Like having a “good name”. So could your Scripture maybe be talking about “name” in that sense?
Does it absolutely mean “they all have the same name” because of the way it is worded?
MikeI answered you in the other thread…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2010,22:36) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,18:00) Mike Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”: Matt 28:19
These are the words of Jesus.
Better than alluding to it, this verse has a singular name for three and all having the definite article.
Hi WJ,I wonder if that verse could mean, “in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit.”
It is worded as such in Rev, where John says in New Jerusalem there will be the “throne of God, and of the Lamb.”
We could easily read this as only one throne, had we not previously been told there are two.
If I signed in for us at a busy restaurant, but thought we had a better chance to be called faster if I signed in under all of our names separately, would I be correct in saying I signed in under the name of WJ, and of Thinker, and of Mike? Would it mean we all had the same name?
The word “name” is singular” Mike. If the writer wanted to convey what you say then it would read as you say or read “In the Names” of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, but it doesn't. Besides that would contradict what the Apostles did. They baptized in one name and there is only one name or authority that men can be saved. The key to Matt 28:19 is verse 18 when Jesus claims he has all authority The Apostles recognized that but apparently the ATs do not or they just merely give lip service to that.Hebrew names also depicted the nature of the person.
At any rate my contention is that there is a Trinity spoken of by Jesus own words, but are they one or is there a difference in their respective nature or ontology? That is the question.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2010,22:36) One more thought: As you point out, Jesus is not recorded as using the divine name Jehovah in the NT, although it is in the LXX as the original Hebrew Tetragammation.
Yes it was translated as “kyrios” which is translated in English as “Lord”. Here is something to think about Mike, the word 'kyrios' Lord is found in the NT about 748 times and almost invariably it is in reference to Jesus. Including scriptures like this…But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the “Lord, (YHWH)” every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Rom 14:10, 11
Paul here is ascribing the Tetragammation YHWH to Jesus by quoting Isa 45:23…
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2010,22:36) Yet Jesus more than once speaks to the Father about “making his name known”. Since he wasn't obviously talking about the proper name of his Father, he must have been talking about the qualities of his Father, right? Like having a “good name”. So could your Scripture maybe be talking about “name” in that sense? peace and love,
mike
I have no problem with the quality of the Father being part of the name. The question, is the quality that is depicted less than who God is? If Jesus has the Fathers name then that would mean that every quality that the Father possesses would be the same qualities that Jesus and the Holy Spirit possess also.That’s equality, “E-quality” Mike. Here
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
