- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This is BRILLIANT. I LOVE IT.
Kangaroo Jack, (formerly, Thinker, but no more,) asked me:
“How does a non person “testify” of someone?”
He asked me this because God's holy spirit (a non person) is said to “testify.”So, the question, again is, how does a non person testify of someone?
I was able to get Jack to come up with an answer himself:
Quote The “spirit and water and blood” denotes Christ's genuine humanity” and are set in contrast to the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit which were previously mentioned. In other words, there is the personal testimony of the of the Father, Word and Holy Spirit. Then there is the incarnation of Christ itself (spirit, water and blood) which testifies.
So non persons can be said to testify. His argument is therefore invalid. He still can't see it.You then raise this question:
Quote Angels are called “ministering spirits. Are angels non personal because they are spirits David?
Again, your logic confounds me. I did not make the argument that “spirits” are nonpersonal. I made the argument that you are flat out plainly wrong about your idea that if something is said to testify, it must be a person. YOU YOURSELF PROVED YOURSELF WRONG, BY DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS POSSIBLE. Of course, you went on to explain why that was a special case, but none the less, you nicely proved yourself wrong. (Again, that is, unless you actually believe the blood or water were people. You continue to be purposefully unclear as to a direct answer.)Quote How many times has WJ pointed out that all other spirits are persons and you all have just swept it under the rug?
Ask to borrow someone's Bible, and then we can have a real conversation. The word spirit is used in about 7 different ways in the Bible.Quote David, When you do not address me by the name I want to be called you disrespect my rights.
Now that I know, I will never call you Thinker again. I never really wanted to in the first place. I am sorry about your name change.Quote I looked and saw no reference to pronouns or specifically the pronoun “ekeinos” in reference to the Holy Spirit. Give me a heading so I don't have to read your entire treatise. So you didn't read it did you? Why do you argue with me when you don't even know why I believe what I believe? Are you afraid of what you will learn if you look at those scriptures?
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 26 2010,05:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,03:21) David: Quote You know, the angels are also called “sons” of God.
Angels are not called sons of God anywhere in the Bible. You are probably referring to Genesis 6 where it says that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men. The “sons of God” were of the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.
Hey KJ,I disagree with what you said here,
let me provide scripture to show you why,Bene-elohim, is often used to describe Angels,
Quote 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Quote Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Quote Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. You claimed that the Angels are not called Sons of God, but they are at some points. Doesnt it always refer to angels, of course not, but there are times that they are.
Point being, Bene-elohim i use for Angels as well.
With much love,
I hope you dont take personaly,
just an observation,Much Love,
Job is not the only book. There are others. Seriously, can someone lend him a Bible?[[[I'm editing (adding) this to make it clear that the above words were meant for KJ, not SF. I was agreeing with SF.]]]
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,05:32) Mikeboll said to WJ: Quote Where is the scripture that says all three are one?
Keith,It would not do any good. Jesus says that “I and the Father are one” and Mike denies it in the way Jesus meant it. Jesus was speaking in reference to His keeping His sheep in cooperation with His Father. Yet Mike denies that the Father and the Son do all things as one.
Again, it will do no good.
Jack
Hi Roo,How does that answer my question? Btw, Jesus also says his hope is that we will be one with him and his God. So what's your point? Will some of us be equal members of the godhead?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,09:45) Quote (t8 @ May 26 2010,08:49) Kurios
he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
the possessor and disposer of a thing
the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their masterIt is a title given not just to God.
Example. God is great. But we use the word great to describe other things.
So what? The name YHWH translates into the new testament as “kurios” (Lord). So you may define kurios how you want.Jack
Hi All,Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I have said this in many posts and even started a thread about it months ago.
YHWH does NOT TRANSLATE into lord. Translators frequently SUBSTITUTE the word lord for the divine name of God, which is YHWH.
YHWH means basically “I will be what I will be”. Is that what lord means?
Get it right, Jack. We've been through this.
Substitute does NOT mean translate.
If the original text has Ford F150, and I SUBSTITUTE the word truck, it does not mean the definition of truck is now Ford F150. It does NOT mean that every time you see the word truck, it refers to a Ford F150.
Please try to understand this.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,08:09) t8 Of course you deny then that the Father is not your Lord is that right? Because you must be consistent with your understanding of that scripture.
If Paul is implying that the “One God” is exclusive to the Father then he is also saying that the “One Lord” is exclusive to Jesus.
But how do you deal with scriptures like…
Hi WJ,Yes. I deny that the Father is NOT my Lord.
Sorry, couldn't resist. But just for the sake of bringing your beliefs more in line with Scripture, I will solemnly vow never to refer to Jehovah as Lord anymore. There are many titles along with the personal name He gave us to use forever that I can refer to Him as.
***IF***
You will agree that the Father alone is your only God. Will you agree?
peace and love,
mikeI don't really understand this discussion of the word “lord.”
It is a word that means “master” and it is used quite commonly in the Bible, about 1200 times, and very roughly about 700 of those times are in the Hebrew Scriptures and about 500 in the Greek.The phrase “Lord Jehovah” or “Lord YHWH” occurs about 320 times.
It's just a word that means Master. Others in the bible are of course also called Lord.
Anyway, this thread is so far off course. We shouldn't even bother naming threads. After about page 3 they all revert to random thoughts on the trinity and then they die.
Quote t8, You are ignoring what you want to ignore. In the old testament the Husband was God. Jesus is our Husband. Ergo….
Jehovah was ISRAEL'S husbandly owner.(Jer 3:14)
Jesus Christ is viewed as the Husband of the Christian congregation. (Eph 5:22, 23; Re 19:7; 21:2)The name YHWH translates into the new testament as “kurios” (Lord).–KJ
I'd like to go back to this comment, because it is absurdly wrong.
Instead of me just saying it's wrong, I want WJ, or Isaiah 1:18 or any trinitarian to tell him how obviously wrong he is. (He does point out that later Septuagint's substituted “Lord” as many Bibles do today.)
Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: “The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.”
Today’s English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: “THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.”
And yes, even later versions of the Septuagint did this. (I think that is where the superstitious tradition began.)
Anyway, if there are any trinitarians out there who want to explain how wrong Kangaroo J is, that would be great. He may believe you.
Quote (david @ May 26 2010,13:04) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 26 2010,05:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,03:21) David: Quote You know, the angels are also called “sons” of God.
Angels are not called sons of God anywhere in the Bible. You are probably referring to Genesis 6 where it says that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men. The “sons of God” were of the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.
Hey KJ,I disagree with what you said here,
let me provide scripture to show you why,Bene-elohim, is often used to describe Angels,
Quote 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Quote Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Quote Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. You claimed that the Angels are not called Sons of God, but they are at some points. Doesnt it always refer to angels, of course not, but there are times that they are.
Point being, Bene-elohim i use for Angels as well.
With much love,
I hope you dont take personaly,
just an observation,Much Love,
Job is not the only book. There are others. Seriously, can someone lend him a Bible?
Really david Really,was that really nessary genius?
I didnt say it was the only Book. Its the only ones i referensed at the moment captain,If there is more, go ahead and show your knowledge for everyone to know! this is a forum after all!
SORRY for trying to help you out…. psh…
Perdon!go ahead bus do your stuff!!
this your show after all!SF, I was actually speaking about Kangaroo Jack. To me, it is obvious that angels are called “sons of God” in several places. Jack seemed unaware of this.
I was actually agreeing with you. Sorry that I didn't make that more clear and sorry for the misunderstanding. I can see how vague I was.david
SF, now that I read it, as you would, not knowing who it was meant for, it's actually kind of funny. It seems like I'm jumping on you for missing a couple scriptures. Again, sorry for not using names.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,07:39) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 26 2010,06:29) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,06:08) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 26 2010,05:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,03:21) David: Quote You know, the angels are also called “sons” of God.
Angels are not called sons of God anywhere in the Bible. You are probably referring to Genesis 6 where it says that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men. The “sons of God” were of the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.
Hey KJ,I disagree with what you said here,
let me provide scripture to show you why,Bene-elohim, is often used to describe Angels,
Quote 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Quote Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Quote Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. You claimed that the Angels are not called Sons of God, but they are at some points. Doesnt it always refer to angels, of course not, but there are times that they are.
Point being, Bene-elohim i use for Angels as well.
With much love,
I hope you dont take personaly,
just an observation,Much Love,
Greetings SF,Where are angels mentioned in the passages you give. It simply says “sons of God”.
After the sons of God had taken the daughters of men and married them God said, “My spirit shall not always strive with MAN”. Therefore, the sons of God were OF MAN.
Jack
Actually KJ,The verse you gave, i compelelty ignored,
I posted verse to prove the point that the
Sons of God, are the same Angels.I thought it was self explanatory i guess not let me fully extend.
Quote 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Its very obvious that When God mentions the Foundations of the earth, which was the third day, that the Sons of God were present. To whom does it refer to the sons of God, if Adam wasnt created until the 6th day?
Quote Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Notice that Satan was an angel, cheribum, and other sons of God also came to the presense of God? it had to be angels, or a degree of angels, such as Cherbiums or what not.Quote Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Same here.This is self explanatory, If it was literal sons of God, as in MAn, than it would be different. Most of the time, when reffering to the greek sons of God, it means just that, Humans as the sons of God. but in hebrew, the 3 times that was mentioned as bene-elohim, is used for angels.
I mean, its not that big of a deal to argue about it, but I guess.
so thats my explanation.
Much love,
SF,Bene elohim is often translated as “mighty ones” (Psalm 29:1). Angels are not sons of God in the sense you say. Only men are sons of God.
Hebrews 1 is clear. It says, “To which of the angels did He ever say, “You are my son”. In other words, God NEVER called an angel His son.
KJ
KJ,First of all in Hebrew 1 its talking about a Son not sons.
How can it translate to mighty ones? this is a conclusion show me the claim? where are you getting this from?
Bene- means son in Hebrew
Elohim- is what? Godthis is self explanatory, actually this is so easy that i dont even know why im debating this point.
In referense all i said that in those verses i provided, that the sons of God mentioned there are angels.
If you disagree and if im wrong,
Pls lets go back to Job,
Show me why im wrong,
exactly, lets go verse by verse.and i agree that God never called his angels his “SON” but his “sons” in plural. What would be so wrong with that, even we are his SONS yet not SON.
This is the same thing…
and the part of “you are my son” is in referesne to when Jesus was being baptized. lets qoute the whole scripture.Quote 5: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Whats the big deal to understand that God mentioned that the angels were
sons of God? yet we are also sons of God? but we are not his SON. that hebrews give referense too.We are children of light, yet angels are called the stars also?
i mean get the picture,it really isnt that big of a deal KJ,
again if im wrong, lets go back to Job, and go verse by verse to understand first who are the sons of God mentioned in Job and why was Satan hanging around with them?
Much Love KJ,
really bro, i dont see the big deal.
Quote (david @ May 26 2010,17:26) SF, I was actually speaking about Kangaroo Jack. To me, it is obvious that angels are called “sons of God” in several places. Jack seemed unaware of this.
I was actually agreeing with you. Sorry that I didn't make that more clear and sorry for the misunderstanding. I can see how vague I was.david
Lol David,Its ok bro, i felt shell shocked like a ninja turtle when i read that. lol
Im thinking wow the rare times that i can agree im attacked lol.
Its ok, its cool,
Disregard my frustrated response!
=)Quote (david @ May 26 2010,16:37) The name YHWH translates into the new testament as “kurios” (Lord).–KJ I'd like to go back to this comment, because it is absurdly wrong.
Instead of me just saying it's wrong, I want WJ, or Isaiah 1:18 or any trinitarian to tell him how obviously wrong he is. (He does point out that later Septuagint's substituted “Lord” as many Bibles do today.)
Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: “The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.”
Today’s English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: “THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.”
And yes, even later versions of the Septuagint did this. (I think that is where the superstitious tradition began.)
Anyway, if there are any trinitarians out there who want to explain how wrong Kangaroo J is, that would be great. He may believe you.
Actualy i was reading that verse that KJ offred in jude in Greek, and i translated it, and i got Kurion for Lord.
something like that?is that wrong? because i didnt go further to see other places, but in that one place i did find that word.
Quote (david @ May 26 2010,17:40) SF, I'm still laughing about that. I can just see you saying: “Really, David……Really?”
I do that alot in person…
I actually said that when i read your post lol.
literally out loud lol.it seems you have heard me from a distance =0
Quote (david @ May 26 2010,12:43) Quote 1 Corinthians 15:28 “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” –SF
SF, I think I know why trinitarians don't often quote this scripture, but often allude to it. (The Son again subjecting himself to God.)
SF, do you take this scripture to mean that God will literally be in people?
Hey David,Im very behind in this thread obviously.
Yes i know but it provides something more than the Trinity.
The very Idea that God may be all in all.I did offer another scripture stating in Revelations that there will be no shadows…Only Gods light.
Quote
Revelation 21:3
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Ezekiel 37:27
My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Revelations 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Revelations 22:5And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people
Matthew 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23(AL) but if(AM) your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
We know that God is light,
And i have mentioned before in another thread, how Jesus put everything under him, yet subjected everything under him who put everything under him. So that God may be all in all.In other words, if we can Agree that God wants to be the center of our lives, that He is the source of life, than God is our everything.
The God of all. I am that I am.
I find it romantic in a sense, that God wants to be the very prioirty in our lives. Its the same when your in a relationship.I like the first scripture in revelations becuase it tells how the literaly light will come from God, that there will be no need for lamps or sun, or moon, or stars. God will be the very light that will fill all things and safely asssume that shadows will not exist. That means that even when we are facing the light, that the light will even light our backs. That we are surrounded by light. This is amazing to me because i did a study how light affects perception of things. the better the light source the better detail you can see. When im in the light, you can see all the thigns you cant see when the light is not as strong or indoors. For example i have blonde and brown hair, but if the sun isnt shining, you will never see that. i look like i have highlights, but i never dyed my hair in my life. the light brings out everything. So the perfect Light would bring out everysingle detail.
in other words perfect clarity.
In Matthew which is just genius it mentions how Jesus states that the only lamp in your body is in the eyes. that means the darkest place in the world is your body. becuase there is no light.Isnt that why doctors use a special light to to surgeries and what not.
So if the darkest place in the world could be the body, yet God says there wouldnt be any darkness, that means that even in the body there will be light. Since God is light, that God may dwell in you, His temple. just like 2 corinthians states about the temple, How God will be in us. I think this is a awesome addition to Gods omnipresence.
In other words,I see why Trinitarians would avoid it, (which KJ didnt by the way) https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3231
but I would like to embrace it,
Why because in every relationship we start becoming one with the person, not that we become part of the Godhead.
But isnt it true that two people when in love, start becoming one in the unity of Love.
Wouldnt that also mean the one who is Love, would be in us all… in a perfect relationship.
in other words… becoming one through relationship in mediator Jesus Christ, like in John 17 Jesus prays for us to be one just as the Father and the Son are one…yet later mentioned.
John 17:23 “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”
Made perfect in one? Perfection in one?
In the end it all ties back to perfection.
For God is everything to me…all in all,
He is my God, My love…. He always wows me…
Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.What do you think?
David said:
Quote “All of this shows the scriptural understanding (as well as the same understanding by Christian writers of the first centuries) of “god” as applied to angels and certain men who were trying to follow God or who were representatives or ambassadors for God”.
But you say you confess that Jesus is a “god” in a way that is superior to the angels. Explain how this can be true in the way you apply the term to Jesus.the Roo said:
Quote Is Jesus merely a “representative of God” as the angels? If you say yes then explain how He can be superior to the angels which you say are also representatives of God. David replied:
Quote Jack, WJ does this to me all the time too. He often takes what I say and inserts the word “just” or “merely” as you have done. Of course he is not ONLY a representative of God. He is many things. But he IS a representative of God, is he not? Did he not represent God, as an ambassador? Jack, here are two basic definitions of representative. You are using the first one maybe and I am using the second:
1. One that serves as an example or type for others of the same classification.
2. One that serves as a delegate or agent for another.
Many people in the Bible would fit the second, pretty much anyone God sends to give his message.
So you are saying that Jesus is a representative like “many others” but not in a way that is superior to them. He is not in a class all by Himself. Do I have it right so far David?You still have not explained how Christ is superior to the angels David!
the Roo said:
Quote Jesus is called “The God” (hotheos) in John 1:18 and Hebrews 1:8. On another thread you seem to imply that “The God” would be equivalent to the name “God Almighty”. You said,
“The idea that anyone called by the word “god” is either “The God” or a “false god” is a Title Confusion Trick…. The Bible does use the word “god” with reference to ones who were neither “false gods” or “The God.”
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=2907
Did you mean to say above that the expression “The God” is equivalent to the term “God Almighty”?
David replied:
Quote No, I didnt' mean that. Let me restate it:
The idea that anyone called by the word “god” is either “The [Almighty] God” or a “false god” is a Title Confusion Trick….
What I mean is, there is a third option. Angels are not The Almighty and they are not false gods. Etc.
So Jesus is a true Theos and the Father is not the ONLY true Theos. Correct?The Roo said
Quote Is Jesus a true “hotheos” or a false “hotheos” like satan? David replied:
Quote JACK, YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE VERY SAME TITLE CONFUSION TRICK!
You only allow for those two options. This is a fallacy, presenting two options when there is a third.
And the thiird option is….the Roo said:
Quote Your claim that you view Jesus as superior to the angels has just fallen apart. If the name “Son” in reference to Jesus was not a name that is by far superior to the angels, then why do you say that angels are also called “sons”? I'll tell you why. You do this because you do not view the Jesus' name as “Son” as a name that is by far superior to the angels. David replied:
Quote You know, Adam (and other people) are also called sons of God. You do know what the word “son” means?
Are you saying that I can't claim that Jesus is superior to other sons of God, just because they too are called “sons of God”? Jesus was the “only begotten” son of God, obviously that makes him special. Obviously, him coming to the earth and what he did for us makes him “superior” as you say.
So how does Jesus' name as “Son” make Him superior to the angels if they are also sons? You have yet explained to us how Jesus is superior to the angels! In Hebrews 1 the name “Son” as it is applied to Jesus is superior to the name “god” as it is applied to angels. Therefore, the name “God” as it applies to Jesus also indicates His superiority to the angels. You have not yet explained how Jesus is superior to the angels. You have said only that He is like “many others”:Quote [Theos is] one that serves as a delegate or agent for another.[/i]
Many people in the Bible would fit the second, pretty much anyone God sends to give his message.This statment proves beyond a doubt that you view Jesus as being on the same level as “many people in the Bible”. Therefore, my charge against you still stands!
the Roo said:
Quote So I will not apologize! When I argue that the name “Son” means that Jesus is superior to the angels you reply saying, “But angels are called sons too”. So how can you claim that you believe that Jesus is superior to the angels? David replied:
Quote “Son” is not a word that means: “superior to angels.” Go look it up. It's in most dictionaries.
Bang Boom David! Thank you! You have just said that Jesus is not superior to the angels just as I have charged you. Just be honest like Mikeboll and say that Jesus is a god like satan.Thanks again David. You have obviously incriminated yourself.
the Roo
the Roo said:
Quote The “spirit and water and blood” denotes Christ's genuine humanity” and are set in contrast to the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit which were previously mentioned. In other words, there is the personal testimony of the of the Father, Word and Holy Spirit. Then there is the incarnation of Christ itself (spirit, water and blood) which testifies. David replied:
Quote So non persons can be said to testify. His argument is therefore invalid. He still can't see it.
Read it again David. I was distinguishing between the Holy Spirit from the [human] spirit of Christ.The Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are that which bear record in heaven. The full and genuine humanity of Christ, that is, the spirit, water and blood also bear record. Both “spirits” (the divine and the human) are personal.
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
