- This topic has 1,826 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike asked:
Quote Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?
In the sense of appointed judges yes. In the sense of deities absolutely not! There is only one true Deity.JA had it right. We are running a truck through Mike's arguments.
KJ
Mike said:
Quote The Almighty Creator of heaven and earth…………not to be confused with “elohim”, which does NOT necessarily mean that.
So the Almighty Creator is not “elohim”?
Mike's gettin worse!
KJ
Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,11:48) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 21 2011,05:57) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 19 2011,21:04) I am saying that the Tri-une formula is a fabrication because I know that the Holy Spirit is not a “Third Person” of a Tri-une God, but is the Spirit of God my Father.
Please MartyThen everytime that you bring up a scripture that we disagree with your interpretation of then we can just claim “Corruption”?
You won't do to good in your Trinitarian organization by teaching the scriptures are corrupt. You ever heard the ole expressions “One bad apple spoils the whole bunch”, and a “little leaven leavens the whole lump”?
Do you realize the Tripart formula is found in the “Didache”?
Do you realize the Didache is dated back as early as the late first century and that it is believed to be the original twelve Apostles teachings. Source
It agrees with every major extant manuscript that has the formula and that means thousands. Even if they were to find one that didn't have Matthew 28:19 in its tripart formula it would be considered corrupt because all the other thousands of Manuscripts match.
If you start teaching there is corruption in the translations we have now since the dead sea scrolls then you have lost the debate my friend.
WJ
Hi WJ:Given 1 Corinthians 2:7-13 is the Holy Spirit a Third Person of a Tri-une God or not. What does the scripture state relative to the Holy Spirit.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyThis is a diversion. Because as usual you are being selective with the scritpures by picking what you want and denying the others.
But okay lets look at a couple of those scriptures…
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 1 Cor 2:10
Does the Father search the deep things of himself? Does an “it” search anything? Can an “it reveal anything? Or is it a person that does these things?
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1 Cor 2:11
Does an “it” know the things of God or is it a person that knows the things of God?
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1 Cor 2:13
Does an “it” teach us anything or is it a “person” that teaches Spiritual things?
Why did Paul mention God and the Holy Spirit Marty, if they are one and the same person?
The scriptures has plenty to say about the Spirit. In fact the scriptures says…
Now “THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT”: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 1 Cor 3:17
Is the Lord a person? Does an “it” bring us liberty? Now back to Mattew 28:19 does an “it” share the same name as the Father and Jesus or is it a person with all the attributes and characteristics of a person?
The Holy Spirit has all the Characteristics of a person Marty.
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 24 2011,11:43) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,03:36) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 24 2011,11:24) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,03:16) Ed wrote:[quote=SimplyForgiven,Jan. 24 2011,17:36]The Concept of Truth is beyond our understanding.
Hi SF,Why would you say this?
Ed J
Maybe because of statements like this…For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isa 55:9
Jesus spoke many things in secret or in parables. Only those who have the Spirit of Truth will know and understand the truth as it is revealed to them.
Some here think that they can know him who is the Truth just by reading the Bible, but Jesus said…
“Search the scriptures; for in them 'ye think” ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And “ye will not come to me“, that ye might have life. John 5:39, 40
The very fact that Jesus says you must “Come to him” for life is overlooked and not understood. Why did Jesus not say come to the Father for life? It is because he is the “Life” and apart from him you cannot have life nor the Father.
In Hebrew culture that would be no less than “idolatry” for a man to claim that all men must come to him for life. But the Jesus is not God crowd stumble over this truth and do not connect the dots.
Jesus says the scriptures are about him and that men were to give him the “Same” honour they give the Father or God. The Bible is a Biography of God and Jesus takes claim to it. But many will not come to him, and therefore will not know the truths that are revealed in the scriptures.
WJ
Hi WJ,So do you believe truth is beyond our understanding then?
Quote
EdI believe that Gods Spiritual Truth is only understood by Revelation of the Spirit of Truth.
For instance Peter nor the disciples knew that Jesus was the “Son of God” until it was revealed by the Father.
People still do not know that Jesus is the Son of God though they say they do. For the Spirit has not revealed to them what that means.
WJ
Hi WJ,I didn't see the answer to my question in your Post? I will repeat it…
So do you believe truth is beyond our understanding then?
EDThis is why people don't like to dialogue with you. Are these words not clear enough for an answer..
I believe that Gods Spiritual Truth is only understood by Revelation of the Spirit of Truth.
Is there anything in my statement that implies that truth is beyond our understanding?
Gods Spiritual Truth without the Spirit is beyond our understanding.
WJ
mikeboll64,Jan. wrote:[/quote]
Mike said:Quote Jesus is STILL the servant of the One he STILL calls “MY God”.
Jesus said, “My God” and not “My Despot.”Quote And I don't know of a scripture that calls Jesus “the true god”, but I agree that he is.
I don't know of a scripture that says that the Father is our 'only despotes' but I agree that He is. I don't know of a scripture that says that the Father is the 'true light' but I agree that He is.Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 05 2011,15:50) Istari, The point is the Father can be called 'Father' before the Son is actually begotten/brought forth.
Kathi said:
Quote Dennison,
I am not saying that God always had the potential to be a father but that He always was a father. He just hadn't begotten the Son yet until sometime before creation.
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 05 2011,16:54) Goodnight for now Istari. It's been nice discussing with you.
Something else to think about…to be the exact representation of God's nature, one would have to have an always existent nature.
Catch ya later!
Now I am really confused as to what kathi believes about Christ.
Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,12:13) Hi WJ: Also, your source states:
Quote It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[3] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others,[4] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon. The mode of baptism does not agree with how the Apostles baptized, does it?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyIt says the “Didache” was rejected as part of the Canon, but it doesn't say Mattew 28:19 was rejected. I was only showing this because it is believed to date back to the first century and that it agrees with every extant manuscript which is thousands.
They obviously didn't reject the Didache because of the “Tripart formula”.
WJ
Francis said to Mike:
Quote I've learned that it is very easy to lose focus and get sidetracked and confused during a long drawn out protracted debate/discussion. This is why you must set terms before you debate with Mike. he willkeep you going until you wear out.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,06:38) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,12:13) Hi WJ: Also, your source states:
Quote It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[3] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others,[4] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon. The mode of baptism does not agree with how the Apostles baptized, does it?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyIt says the “Didache” was rejected as part of the Canon, but it doesn't say Mattew 28:19 was rejected. I was only showing this because it is believed to date back to the first century and that it agrees with every extant manuscript which is thousands.
They obviously didn't reject the Didache because of the “Tripart formula”.
WJ
Hi WJ:Were the Apostles then disobedient to Jesus command to baptize in Tri-formula? The only baptized in the name of Jesus.
You pointed to the fact that the Didache included the Tri-forumula for baptism, but if is not canon, then what does that prove.
I have read the Didache, and although it has been a long time since I read it, I did not believe then or now that it was inspired by God.
I will have to get back to you on your discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:7-13.
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty wrote:
Quote Were the Apostles then disobedient to Jesus command to baptize in Tri-formula? The only baptized in the name of Jesus.
Marty,Prove that Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize with water in Matthew 28:19.
People erroneously think water every time they see the word “baptize.” If Jesus was not commanding them to baptize with water, then your argument fails. The disciples were never commanded by Jesus to baptize with water. They were just continuing the Mosaic ordinance in Jesus' name.
KJ
Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,15:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,06:38) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,12:13) Hi WJ: Also, your source states:
Quote It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[3] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others,[4] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon. The mode of baptism does not agree with how the Apostles baptized, does it?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyIt says the “Didache” was rejected as part of the Canon, but it doesn't say Mattew 28:19 was rejected. I was only showing this because it is believed to date back to the first century and that it agrees with every extant manuscript which is thousands.
They obviously didn't reject the Didache because of the “Tripart formula”.
WJ
Hi WJ:Were the Apostles then disobedient to Jesus command to baptize in Tri-formula? The only baptized in the name of Jesus.
You pointed to the fact that the Didache included the Tri-forumula for baptism, but if is not canon, then what does that prove.
I have read the Didache, and although it has been a long time since I read it, I did not believe then or now that it was inspired by God.
I will have to get back to you on your discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:7-13.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyThe Apostles understood that in Matt 28:18 Jesus was given all authority and power. Therfore it was in his name they Baptised. And there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved.
As you know Hebrew names defined the nature and the character of the person that held it.
Jesus said he came in the Fathers name but did he ever speak it that we know of?
Yeshua means “YHVH” is salvation.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit shared the singular name and shared all the attributes and characteristics of that one name.
Since all the authority and power was in Jesus it stands to reason that when they baptised in the name of Jesus they were fulfilling the commission.
WJ
Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,15:21) You pointed to the fact that the Didache included the Tri-forumula for baptism, but if is not canon, then what does that prove.
MartyThere is much in history that can help us understand how to interpret the scriptures. Why do you think we need Hebrew and Greek Lexicons? So that we can search these things out for ourselves.
Many of our Forefathers have much to say about the scriptures and they were closer to the time of the Apostles than we are. We should be able to learn from them since all of what we calle scripture was preserved by them.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,08:43) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,15:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,06:38) Quote (942767 @ Jan. 24 2011,12:13) Hi WJ: Also, your source states:
Quote It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[3] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others,[4] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon. The mode of baptism does not agree with how the Apostles baptized, does it?
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyIt says the “Didache” was rejected as part of the Canon, but it doesn't say Mattew 28:19 was rejected. I was only showing this because it is believed to date back to the first century and that it agrees with every extant manuscript which is thousands.
They obviously didn't reject the Didache because of the “Tripart formula”.
WJ
Hi WJ:Were the Apostles then disobedient to Jesus command to baptize in Tri-formula? The only baptized in the name of Jesus.
You pointed to the fact that the Didache included the Tri-forumula for baptism, but if is not canon, then what does that prove.
I have read the Didache, and although it has been a long time since I read it, I did not believe then or now that it was inspired by God.
I will have to get back to you on your discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:7-13.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyThe Apostles understood that in Matt 28:18 Jesus was given all authority and power. Therfore it was in his name they Baptised. And there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved.
As you know Hebrew names defined the nature and the character of the person that held it.
Jesus said he came in the Fathers name but did he ever speak it that we know of?
Yeshua means “YHVH” is salvation.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit shared the singular name and shared all the attributes and characteristics of that one name.
Since all the authority and power was in Jesus it stands to reason that when they baptised in the name of Jesus they were fulfilling the commission.
WJ
It doesn't work Keith. Jesus commanded them to teach all nations baptizing them UNTO the Tri-une name. Even Albert Barnes says that the expression does not mean “in the authority of.”Water baptism is not at all in view in the mandate. They were to baptize, UNTO meaning to make people followers of the Tri-une name. Trintiarians can't win if it is about water baptism.
Jack
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 24 2011,16:06)
No Mike, as i said before everything is based on Context even Theos.
And God.
I can say that “James bond” is the God of the ladies, but doenst make James bond a true God at all.Get what im saying?
I DO get what you're saying, D.
So as soon as I hear from Francis, we'll be able to start delving into the CONTEXT of Hebrews 1, okay?mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 24 2011,16:22)
Actually is not just Reference in of God almighty but the reference if a “supreme being” was mentioned.
For example the calf was called a “elohim”, which the subject meant they were calling the calf a “supreme being”.
When Paul was presenting the “unknown god” he used theos to present a “supreme being”. Also he notice thier suppposed “supreme beings”get what im saying?
I think I get what you're saying. But do you know the LXX has the word “theos” for the Hebrew “elohim”……..even when Deborah is called “elohim”. So in Greek, Deborah is “theos”. So I think you're saying that you've come to terms with “elohim” not always referring to a “supreme being”, but you were thinking “theos” does. But all the “elohim” in the Hebrew text are translated as “theos” in the Greek LXX, so if “elohim” doesn't always mean “god”, then neither does “theos”. And all the “theos” from the Greek NT are translated as “elohim” in the Hebrew translation of the NT.So do YOU get what I'M saying?
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 24 2011,16:22)
Thats actually not true. Jesus said alot of things and people didnt get it at all. Jesus said he was the bread of life, and the people thought they had to “eat him” lol.
So God used alot of examples that we didnt understand.
So the Hebrew people could not understand the word “bread”? Or “life”? Or “eat”? You're proving MY point, D. God and Jesus and the prophets all spoke in common terms that the people could understand – even if they didn't understand the metaphoric CONCEPT of “eating Jesus' flesh” at the time.Do you think God knew what “son” meant? And “father”? Do you think God knew how human beings UNDERSTOOD the concept of a father/son relationship? I do.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 24 2011,16:22)
Actually i think God reveals his truth to whom he wants to.
Just like when Peter had revelation from the FAther of who Jesus really is.
So YHVH called His “co-God” by the title “Son” and Himself by the title “Father” just to confuse everyone except for the ones He personally sent His Spirit to explain that, “When I say father and son, I really mean co-equal God, so don't be confused by it, okay?” Wow! 
And you bring up Peter's revelation from the Father telling him who Jesus really is. Well………….WHO did Peter say he is? Did Peter say he was God? Or co-God? Or a member of a Godhead? Or did Peter say he was the SON OF GOD?
How do you think Peter understood the words “Son OF God”? I have asked twice now for a DIRECT answer to this question:
DOES GOD ALMIGHTY HAVE A GOD?This is your second “attempt” at answering “DIRECTLY”:
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 24 2011,16:22)
Lol MIKE, your question is on the premise that you view Jesus as a seperate person from God.
God Almighty that includes Jesus does not have seperate person over them.
D, if “God Almighty that includes Jesus” does not have a God, then why does Jesus call someone “my God”?D, please answer the bolded question with a YES or a NO.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 24 2011,16:22)
This Alias of Simplyforgiven on a forum is only a symbol of who i am, and holds the same exact beliefs and writings that I have as a person, so its still Dennison.
Ahhh……….so I can throw some acid at your avitar, and your own eyes will get burned, because the avitar really truly IS Dennison? Interesting. Can you show me any other example in scripture or even secular writings where someone was the “spitting image” of someone, but both “someones” were the same being?Or maybe you could show me any occasion in the history of mankind where a representation OF something or someone actually WAS that something or someone?
Yeah, do that and I will be able to see that you might just be on to something. Do it not, and admit I'm right that a representation OF someone can not actually BE that someone.
You know D, this is the crap I was venting to Francis about. These are the kinds of assinine games I put up with from you and Jack and Keith all the time. It shouldn't be so hard to just post an HONEST answer to an HONEST question.
Like, “Does God Almighty have a God”? That is a no brainer, and you should have just honestly said, “No Mike, God does not have a God, for He is the God OF gods”. Yet, two times I asked DIRECTLY, and two times you spouted nonsense. Just ANSWER THE FLIPPIN' QUESTION for Pete's sake! PLEASE!
And I'll be waiting for your multiple examples where a representation of something actually IS that thing.
peace and love,
mikeHi Mike,
Quote But do you know the LXX has the word “theos” for the Hebrew “elohim”……..even when Deborah is called “elohim”. So in Greek, Deborah is “theos”. So I think you're saying that you've come to terms with “elohim” not always referring to a “supreme being”, but you were thinking “theos” does. But all the “elohim” in the Hebrew text are translated as “theos” in the Greek LXX, so if “elohim” doesn't always mean “god”, then neither does “theos”. And all the “theos” from the Greek NT are translated as “elohim” in the Hebrew translation of the NT. So do YOU get what I'M saying?
Theos has 3rd and 4th possible definitions which depend on context. So thats not what im saying, there are many possilble definitions for the word, but what i was saying before is that the context, or the SUBJECT of the event in question is what defines the word.Again as an Example, When Paul was reffering to the Unknown theo amoung thier many “Theos” all of them were in reference to “supreme beings” but one “almighty being”
Now do YOU get what im saying?
Quote So the Hebrew people could not understand the word “bread”? Or “life”? Or “eat”? You're proving MY point, D. God and Jesus and the prophets all spoke in common terms that the people could understand – even if they didn't understand the metaphoric CONCEPT of “eating Jesus' flesh” at the time.
Umm it seemed like they Didnt, when they laughed and were about to stone Jesus.
Im not proving your point, people dont understand the Spiritual things of God.
Its as simple as that.Quote Do you think God knew what “son” meant? And “father”? Do you think God knew how human beings UNDERSTOOD the concept of a father/son relationship? I do.
Of course God knows, the question is whether YOU know.
What does God care about human concepts, he reveals things by his Revelation upon whom he chooses and when he chooses.
If that werent the case why would Jesus say that he is the “bread of life” yet people STILL didnt get it?
he said he is going to DIE for our sins, and be ressureted and PEOPLE still didnt get it.So obviously how are you SO SURE that you understand the words “father” and “son” when it comes to God.
Quote So YHVH called His “co-God” by the title “Son” and Himself by the title “Father” just to confuse everyone except for the ones He personally sent His Spirit to explain that, “When I say father and son, I really mean co-equal God, so don't be confused by it, okay?” Wow!
Speculation mike, and a very ignorant comment by the way.
instead of trying to understand the concept you trying to make a joke? lol the jokes on you mike.
Loook at the ignorant comment u just made, and the jokes is on you lol. It just goes to show how much u dont understand the concepts we speak of.Yet many people wanted to stone Jesus for making himself equal to God, and even Thomas said MY lord, MY God.
How are you so sure that Peter didnt believe that The son of God is actually GOD in flesh.
Mike lol, I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR DUMB QUESTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!My Gosh, we have joined a club as francis has said where all of us have to repeatly have to answer your questions again and again.
God Almighty which includes Jesus does not have a God.
Quote D, if “God Almighty that includes Jesus” does not have a God, then why does Jesus call someone “my God”? D, please answer the bolded question with a YES or a NO.
ANd why does God, CAll Jesus God?? (yes Im diverting the same question back at you because it works BOTH ways)I DID ALREADY SO MANY TIMES! look, to answer that question fairly first we have to deal with whether “Jesus is God or not”
Becuase its obvious that i believe that Jesus is God so my answer will reflect that, but your questions is BIASED and based on the premise that you believe Jesus and God to be seperate identities.Quote Ahhh……….so I can throw some acid at your avitar, and your own eyes will get burned, because the avitar really truly IS Dennison? Interesting. Can you show me any other example in scripture or even secular writings where someone was the “spitting image” of someone, but both “someones” were the same being?
Can u really throw acid at my avatar? because Its online… and i wouldnt advize you to ruin your computer.
IT wouldnt do my avatar any damage and neither myself.
Your going beyond the concept and into ignorance again.um Avatar the movie?
Quote Or maybe you could show me any occasion in the history of mankind where a representation OF something or someone actually WAS that something or someone?
But we are not talking about mankind, we are talking about GOD!Quote Yeah, do that and I will be able to see that you might just be on to something. Do it not, and admit I'm right that a representation OF someone can not actually BE that someone.
Lol, ookkkk dude lol, when we ask u to prove your points or refute points we have made, you are silent and ignore so many points. if your going to pull that than im RIGHT about alot of points taht you have ignored!Quote You know D, this is the crap I was venting to Francis about. These are the kinds of assinine games I put up with from you and Jack and Keith all the time. It shouldn't be so hard to just post an HONEST answer to an HONEST question.
Lol Crap bc ur wrong?
WE ANSWER HONESTLY, YOU JUST DONT LIKE OUR ANSWER!
you cannot ACCEPT OUR ANSWER.
Why do u want to tempt us to LIE!
Dude grow up.Quote Like, “Does God Almighty have a God”? That is a no brainer, and you should have just honestly said, “No Mike, God does not have a God, for He is the God OF gods”. Yet, two times I asked DIRECTLY, and two times you spouted nonsense. Just ANSWER THE FLIPPIN' QUESTION for Pete's sake! PLEASE! And I'll be waiting for your multiple examples where a representation of something actually IS that thing.
peace and love,
mike
Lol! Dude our understanding of God is different my answer will ALWAYS include Jesus while you EXCLUDE JESUS.
Do you NOT understand this?
lol your arguements are nonesense!
I mean look how desperate you are.
Francis already has you cornered yet again about ur senseless arguements.Mike lol its you who has to prove otherwise.
We have given u so much proof, and so many points!you have a problem with “Red herring” which is a common debate fallacy with you. Im glad Francis called u out on it.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,06:24) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 24 2011,11:43) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2011,03:36) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 24 2011,11:24) WorshippingJesus,Jan. wrote:[quote=Ed J,Jan. 24 2011,02:01]
SimplyForgiven,Jan. wrote:The Concept of Truth is beyond our understanding.
Hi SF,Why would you say this?
Ed J
Maybe because of statements like this…For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isa 55:9
Jesus spoke many things in secret or in parables. Only those who have the Spirit of Truth will know and understand the truth as it is revealed to them.
Some here think that they can know him who is the Truth just by reading the Bible, but Jesus said…
“Search the scriptures; for in them 'ye think” ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And “ye will not come to me“, that ye might have life. John 5:39, 40
The very fact that Jesus says you must “Come to him” for life is overlooked and not understood. Why did Jesus not say come to the Father for life? It is because he is the “Life” and apart from him you cannot have life nor the Father.
In Hebrew culture that would be no less than “idolatry” for a man to claim that all men must come to him for life. But the Jesus is not God crowd stumble over this truth and do not connect the dots.
Jesus says the scriptures are about him and that men were to give him the “Same” honour they give the Father or God. The Bible is a Biography of God and Jesus takes claim to it. But many will not come to him, and therefore will not know the truths that are revealed in the scriptures.
WJ
Hi WJ,So do you believe truth is beyond our understanding then?
Quote
EdI believe that Gods Spiritual Truth is only understood by Revelation of the Spirit of Truth.
For instance Peter nor the disciples knew that Jesus was the “Son of God” until it was revealed by the Father.
People still do not know that Jesus is the Son of God though they say they do. For the Spirit has not revealed to them what that means.
WJ
Hi WJ,I didn't see the answer to my question in your Post? I will repeat it…
So do you believe truth is beyond our understanding then?Quote
EDThis is why people don't like to dialogue with you. Are these words not clear enough for an answer..
I believe that Gods Spiritual Truth is only understood by Revelation of the Spirit of Truth.
Is there anything in my statement that implies that truth is beyond our understanding?
Gods Spiritual Truth without the Spirit is beyond our understanding.
WJ
Hi WJ,OK, great; thanks for the clarification.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
