- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 07 2011,10:48) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance…. Quote Permission? Quote Granted please also post what you are going to post elsewhere here if you would, I would appreciate that.
O.K. Bodhitharta, my friend, would you put your name to this? If not I will just borrow your theme and take the blame myself for any errors.When trinitarians insist a man cannot qualify to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, and only God will do, as a proof Jesus is God, the trinitarians invariably fail to recognize the trap into which they have fallen, nay, freely jumped.
(TKN)
TKN;1360823 wrote:….a mere man, no matter if he is a sinner or a saint, could never have redeemed us. A sinner cannot save himself, much less save someone else; a perfect saint, if there were such a thing, would indeed be saved having fulfilled the Law, but he would have no superfluous merit, which he could pass on to someone else. “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever)” (Ps. 49:7-8).[/quote]
Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail. The necessary consequence of this is, when Jesus died for our sins, it was not his flesh that took on sin, for God cannot be divided; and if Jesus is God, and is fully God and fully man, He cannot be divided into a God-half and a man-half, for that would eliminate the “fully” aspect of both. He would then be “half-God and half-man.” So, since Jesus cannot be divided from being fully God, and since God's essence is one, indivisible and undivided, All of God “became sin on our behalf.”
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons.[/quote They are so filled with attempting to defend their “three persons in one being” doctrine, that they do not comprehend the enormity of their error when they insist upon moving from their “3-in-1” attack on the grammar, to the “Hypostatic Union” doctrine to explain how it is Jesus is fully God and fully Man, And move on again to prove God is “one essence” comprised of three divine persons. It is all one argument, though separately argued.
My friend Boditharta, on another board gave me the idea, which I want to expand upon, and since he gave me the idea, I will share this theme with him, unless he finds a fault with it, in which case I will accept all the blame for any error.
If this is true
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons, then it is also true that since the essence is both undivided and indivisible, one “distinct person is not “divided” from another “Person” of God; the result being, when one “person” of an undivided entity “became sin on our behalf,” and it has already been testified
Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail;
So it comes down to this – If only God could pay the ransom, and only God could reconcile man to God, and reconciliation took place when sin was taken on by the sinless, it must therefore be concluded that only God could take on sin; and since God took on sin, and his essence is undivided, all of God became sin on our behalf, because God's essence is not divided and cannot be divided.
All attempts of debunking the trinity focus on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not matter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE, even 1 person from among the 10,000 would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE to which man should aspire.
If The trinitarian “triune God” position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not “Holy and incapable of Sin.”
If the trinitarian “triune God” position” is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would, like Job, be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
To all trinitarians, please try to understand that all manmade doctrines have built-in consequences, because man is not smart enough to cover all possibilities when it come to the imaginations of other men.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 08 2011,09:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 08 2011,09:15) American King James Version
Hi BD,It's the “Authorized King James Version”!
God's Signature
The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)YHVH bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The American King James version was accomplished by Michael P. Engelbrite and is based on the original KJV and is a simple word for word update of the King James English spelling and vocabulary.Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 08 2011,18:41) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 07 2011,10:48) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance…. Quote Permission? Quote Granted please also post what you are going to post elsewhere here if you would, I would appreciate that.
O.K. Bodhitharta, my friend, would you put your name to this? If not I will just borrow your theme and take the blame myself for any errors.When trinitarians insist a man cannot qualify to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, and only God will do, as a proof Jesus is God, the trinitarians invariably fail to recognize the trap into which they have fallen, nay, freely jumped.
(TKN)
TKN;1360823 wrote:….a mere man, no matter if he is a sinner or a saint, could never have redeemed us. A sinner cannot save himself, much less save someone else; a perfect saint, if there were such a thing, would indeed be saved having fulfilled the Law, but he would have no superfluous merit, which he could pass on to someone else. “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever)” (Ps. 49:7-8).[/quote]
Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail. The necessary consequence of this is, when Jesus died for our sins, it was not his flesh that took on sin, for God cannot be divided; and if Jesus is God, and is fully God and fully man, He cannot be divided into a God-half and a man-half, for that would eliminate the “fully” aspect of both. He would then be “half-God and half-man.” So, since Jesus cannot be divided from being fully God, and since God's essence is one, indivisible and undivided, All of God “became sin on our behalf.”
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons.[/quote They are so filled with attempting to defend their “three persons in one being” doctrine, that they do not comprehend the enormity of their error when they insist upon moving from their “3-in-1” attack on the grammar, to the “Hypostatic Union” doctrine to explain how it is Jesus is fully God and fully Man, And move on again to prove God is “one essence” comprised of three divine persons. It is all one argument, though separately argued.
My friend Boditharta, on another board gave me the idea, which I want to expand upon, and since he gave me the idea, I will share this theme with him, unless he finds a fault with it, in which case I will accept all the blame for any error.
If this is true
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons, then it is also true that since the essence is both undivided and indivisible, one “distinct person is not “divided” from another “Person” of God; the result being, when one “person” of an undivided entity “became sin on our behalf,” and it has already been testified
Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail;
So it comes down to this – If only God could pay the ransom, and only God could reconcile man to God, and reconciliation took place when sin was taken on by the sinless, it must therefore be concluded that only God could take on sin; and since God took on sin, and his essence is undivided, all of God became sin on our behalf, because God's essence is not divided and cannot be divided.
All attempts of debunking the trinity focus on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not matter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE, even 1 person from among the 10,000 would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE to which man should aspire.
If The trinitarian “triune God” position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not “Holy and incapable of Sin.”
If the trinitarian “triune God” position” is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would, like Job, be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
To all trinitarians, please try to understand that all manmade doctrines have built-in consequences, because man is not smart enough to cover all possibilities when it come to the imaginations of other men.
I concurQuote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 09 2011,07:39) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 08 2011,18:41) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 07 2011,10:48) bodhitharta,Sep. wrote:the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance….
Quote Permission? Quote Granted please also post what you are going to post elsewhere here if you would, I would appreciate that.
O.K. Bodhitharta, my friend, would you put your name to this? If not I will just borrow your theme and take the blame myself for any errors.When trinitarians insist a man cannot qualify to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, and only God will do, as a proof Jesus is God, the trinitarians invariably fail to recognize the trap into which they have fallen, nay, freely jumped.
(TKN)
Quote (TKN;1360823]….a mere man @ no matter if he is a sinner or a saint, could never have redeemed us. A sinner cannot save himself, much less save someone else; a perfect saint, if there were such a thing, would indeed be saved having fulfilled the Law, but he would have no superfluous merit, which he could pass on to someone else. “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever)” (Ps. 49:7-8).[/quote) Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail. The necessary consequence of this is, when Jesus died for our sins, it was not his flesh that took on sin, for God cannot be divided; and if Jesus is God, and is fully God and fully man, He cannot be divided into a God-half and a man-half, for that would eliminate the “fully” aspect of both. He would then be “half-God and half-man.” So, since Jesus cannot be divided from being fully God, and since God's essence is one, indivisible and undivided, All of God “became sin on our behalf.”
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons.[/quote They are so filled with attempting to defend their “three persons in one being” doctrine, that they do not comprehend the enormity of their error when they insist upon moving from their “3-in-1” attack on the grammar, to the “Hypostatic Union” doctrine to explain how it is Jesus is fully God and fully Man, And move on again to prove God is “one essence” comprised of three divine persons. It is all one argument, though separately argued.
My friend Boditharta, on another board gave me the idea, which I want to expand upon, and since he gave me the idea, I will share this theme with him, unless he finds a fault with it, in which case I will accept all the blame for any error.
If this is true
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons, then it is also true that since the essence is both undivided and indivisible, one “distinct person is not “divided” from another “Person” of God; the result being, when one “person” of an undivided entity “became sin on our behalf,” and it has already been testified
Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail;
So it comes down to this – If only God could pay the ransom, and only God could reconcile man to God, and reconciliation took place when sin was taken on by the sinless, it must therefore be concluded that only God could take on sin; and since God took on sin, and his essence is undivided, all of God became sin on our behalf, because God's essence is not divided and cannot be divided.
All attempts of debunking the trinity focus on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not matter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE, even 1 person from among the 10,000 would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE to which man should aspire.
If The trinitarian “triune God” position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not “Holy and incapable of Sin.”
If the trinitarian “triune God” position” is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would, like Job, be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
To all trinitarians, please try to understand that all manmade doctrines have built-in consequences, because man is not smart enough to cover all possibilities when it come to the imaginations of other men.
I concur
Thanks my friend.Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 09 2011,07:52) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 09 2011,07:39) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 08 2011,18:41) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 07 2011,10:48) bodhitharta,Sep. wrote:the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance….
Quote Permission? Quote Granted please also post what you are going to post elsewhere here if you would, I would appreciate that.
O.K. Bodhitharta, my friend, would you put your name to this? If not I will just borrow your theme and take the blame myself for any errors.When trinitarians insist a man cannot qualify to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, and only God will do, as a proof Jesus is God, the trinitarians invariably fail to recognize the trap into which they have fallen, nay, freely jumped.
(TKN)
Quote (TKN;1360823]….a mere man @ no matter if he is a sinner or a saint, could never have redeemed us. A sinner cannot save himself, much less save someone else; a perfect saint, if there were such a thing, would indeed be saved having fulfilled the Law, but he would have no superfluous merit, which he could pass on to someone else. “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever)” (Ps. 49:7-8).[/quote) Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail. The necessary consequence of this is, when Jesus died for our sins, it was not his flesh that took on sin, for God cannot be divided; and if Jesus is God, and is fully God and fully man, He cannot be divided into a God-half and a man-half, for that would eliminate the “fully” aspect of both. He would then be “half-God and half-man.” So, since Jesus cannot be divided from being fully God, and since God's essence is one, indivisible and undivided, All of God “became sin on our behalf.”
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons.[/quote They are so filled with attempting to defend their “three persons in one being” doctrine, that they do not comprehend the enormity of their error when they insist upon moving from their “3-in-1” attack on the grammar, to the “Hypostatic Union” doctrine to explain how it is Jesus is fully God and fully Man, And move on again to prove God is “one essence” comprised of three divine persons. It is all one argument, though separately argued.
My friend Boditharta, on another board gave me the idea, which I want to expand upon, and since he gave me the idea, I will share this theme with him, unless he finds a fault with it, in which case I will accept all the blame for any error.
If this is true
Quote There is one divine Essence which is called and which is God. In the undivided and indivisible Essence of God there are three distinct Persons, then it is also true that since the essence is both undivided and indivisible, one “distinct person is not “divided” from another “Person” of God; the result being, when one “person” of an undivided entity “became sin on our behalf,” and it has already been testified
Quote Since man was to be reconciled to God, none other than God Himself could furnish a ransom that would fully meet the demands of divine holiness and justice. Only God could render full satisfaction to God. For this reason any reconciliation attempted by one who is less than God must necessarily fail;
So it comes down to this – If only God could pay the ransom, and only God could reconcile man to God, and reconciliation took place when sin was taken on by the sinless, it must therefore be concluded that only God could take on sin; and since God took on sin, and his essence is undivided, all of God became sin on our behalf, because God's essence is not divided and cannot be divided.
All attempts of debunking the trinity focus on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not matter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE, even 1 person from among the 10,000 would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE to which man should aspire.
If The trinitarian “triune God” position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not “Holy and incapable of Sin.”
If the trinitarian “triune God” position” is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would, like Job, be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
To all trinitarians
, please try to understand that all manmade doctrines have built-in consequences, because man is not smart enough to cover all possibilities when it come to the imaginations of other men.
I concur
Thanks my friend.
No, Thank you!
It took hundreds of words in the last three replies to communicate 8 new words.
See how easy it is to follow my comment, when you don't unnecessarily quote all of the above?
Tell you what. You wouldn't want to print a topic in Heaven Net, (unless you wanted a big carbon credit bill or didn't mind reading each post about 5 times).
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:52) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,18:46) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Actually I didn't I simply made a logical statement.If I said a part of a whole can be disassociated from the whole then it would simply change the quantitive value which for the purpose of the argument has already been deemed inarguable from both of our stand points.
By the way, wouldn't it make sense to talk about a concept or property we can comprehend?
You did not just make a logical statement. The whole thread is about you boasting (again), this time that you have been “able to debunk” a particular view of this god.I didn't ask you what made sense, actually I asked you why you are insisting it should make sense.
Stuart
It makes sense because God is not a God of confusion.Never the less just because I fail to understand something does not mean it does not make sense.
The doctrine of trinity is logically inconsistent and not something I fail to understand because I lack knowledge.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 09 2011,15:13) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:52) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,18:46) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Actually I didn't I simply made a logical statement.If I said a part of a whole can be disassociated from the whole then it would simply change the quantitive value which for the purpose of the argument has already been deemed inarguable from both of our stand points.
By the way, wouldn't it make sense to talk about a concept or property we can comprehend?
You did not just make a logical statement. The whole thread is about you boasting (again), this time that you have been “able to debunk” a particular view of this god.I didn't ask you what made sense, actually I asked you why you are insisting it should make sense.
Stuart
It makes sense because God is not a God of confusion.Never the less just because I fail to understand something does not mean it does not make sense.
The doctrine of trinity is logically inconsistent and not something I fail to understand because I lack knowledge.
I suppose the god in your head can have whatever properties you want it to have.If you don't understand a claim you are making for your god then it is not of much consequence to anyone else, is it.
Stuart
Stuart,
If I do not understand then I attempt to be upfront about my lack of understanding because I fear spreading error to others.
Somethings are easy to understand and the fact that God cannot be tempted by evil is one. To believe otherwise is to believe in another God but the Righteous One.
I cannot, as yet, prove that the “God” that exists is righteous as I choose to believe in him because I desire to be loving even as he is loving.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 09 2011,18:07) Stuart, If I do not understand then I attempt to be upfront about my lack of understanding because I fear spreading error to others.
Somethings are easy to understand and the fact that God cannot be tempted by evil is one. To believe otherwise is to believe in another God but the Righteous One.
I cannot, as yet, prove that the “God” that exists is righteous as I choose to believe in him because I desire to be loving even as he is loving.
No gods actually exist Kerwin, apart from those in your head.I am happy to accept the properties you confer on your Imaginary Friend, but that is what it is in the end: imaginary.
So, god can be this and that. Very nice. None of it is of any consequence to anyone else though, is it. And actually you would disagree with much of the christian world regarding what you think is one god.
Otherwise christians would welcome atheists offering to share the good news of Jesus. They don't, in my experience.
Stuart
So Stuart. What is the first cause of all if it is not a creator?
Before you shoot down a possible, you have to have a definite.
Again, what was first before anything else?
If you have no answer (we both know you do not), then you are being silly if you shoot down possibilities.
At least others (even prophet Hawking) have thought much more deeply on this subject than you can imagine. Giving shallow rebuttals from shallow research is nothing but shallowness Stu.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 09 2011,19:16) So Stuart. What is the first cause of all if it is not a creator? Before you shoot down a possible, you have to have a definite.
Again, what was first before anything else?
If you have no answer (we both know you do not), then you are being silly if you shoot down possibilities.
At least others (even prophet Hawking) have thought much more deeply on this subject than you can imagine. Giving shallow rebuttals from shallow research is nothing but shallowness Stu.
Did you make a point of any kind in that post t8?I couldn't find it.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 09 2011,14:22) It took hundreds of words in the last three replies to communicate 8 new words. See how easy it is to follow my comment, when you don't unnecessarily quote all of the above?
Tell you what. You wouldn't want to print a topic in Heaven Net, (unless you wanted a big carbon credit bill or didn't mind reading each post about 5 times).
I apologize, it was not my intent to cause you any problems but I don't have editing rights so if I am in a rush and hit the submit button there is nothing I can do about it. You can delete whatever you don't want it's your site.Thnx
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2011,16:05) I suppose the god in your head can have whatever properties you want it to have. If you don't understand a claim you are making for your god then it is not of much consequence to anyone else, is it.
Stuart
If, God is not in your head would that mean God is not in anyone elses head?Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 10 2011,01:57) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2011,16:05) I suppose the god in your head can have whatever properties you want it to have. If you don't understand a claim you are making for your god then it is not of much consequence to anyone else, is it.
Stuart
If, God is not in your head would that mean God is not in anyone elses head?
It prompts two questions:Why do some people have gods in their heads and yet others do not?
How would it be just that a god that is offering the “prize” of an eternity after death, possibly with a supply of virgins (do women get the virgins too?) implants itself in some heads and not in others?
Genetics appears to be answering both questions.
So where does that leave the god believed in?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2011,18:32) Quote No gods actually exist Kerwin, apart from those in your head. I am happy to accept the properties you confer on your Imaginary Friend, but that is what it is in the end: imaginary. So, god can be this and that. Very nice. None of it is of any consequence to anyone else though, is it. And actually you would disagree with much of the christian world regarding what you think is one god. Otherwise christians would welcome atheists offering to share the good news of Jesus. They don't, in my experience. Stuart WoW! Now THAT'S SAD
My God is real, and not “in my mind.” Rather, my mind is “on God.”
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 08 2011,18:41) He would then be “half-God and half-man.”
Hi Paladin,Are you saying this based on Jesus lineage (according to “The Bible”)?
Jesus lineage illustrate
“Son of Man”: 25%; Mary's mother's lineage was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5, 1:36)
“Son of Man”: 25%: Mary's father's lineage was (Judah) through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31)
“Son of God”: 50%: Jesus' Father was the “HolySpirit”; NOT Joseph! (Mathew 1:18 / Mathew 1:20 / Luke 1:35)Birth: Jesus was 50% HolySpirit(God)(Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35), 25% Levite(Priest) and 25% Judah(King)!
Baptism by John the baptizer, Jesus was filled with the HolySpirit(God) beyond measure! (John 3:34 / John 1:14)Here is why Jesus is called both the “Son of Man” and the “Son of God”…
Mother Father
Mary HolySpirit
50% 50%
\ /
\ /
Jesus
/ \
/ \
/ \
Son of Man Son of God
(Mark 6:3) (Luke 1:35)Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 11 2011,04:03) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 08 2011,18:41) He would then be “half-God and half-man.”
Hi Paladin,Are you saying this based on Jesus lineage (according to “The Bible”)?
Jesus lineage illustrate
“Son of Man”: 25%; Mary's mother's lineage was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5, 1:36)
“Son of Man”: 25%: Mary's father's lineage was (Judah) through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31)
“Son of God”: 50%: Jesus' Father was the “HolySpirit”; NOT Joseph! (Mathew 1:18 / Mathew 1:20 / Luke 1:35)Birth: Jesus was 50% HolySpirit(God)(Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35), 25% Levite(Priest) and 25% Judah(King)!
Baptism by John the baptizer, Jesus was filled with the HolySpirit(God) beyond measure! (John 3:34 / John 1:14)Here is why Jesus is called both the “Son of Man” and the “Son of God”…
Mother Father
Mary HolySpirit
50% 50%
\ /
\ /
Jesus
/ \
/ \
/ \
Son of Man Son of God
(Mark 6:3) (Luke 1:35)Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
ED,Jesus was CREATED by THE POWER of GOD not by the “seed” of God. Do you really consider even thinking that God procreates like a mortal man or beast having semen to impregnate a woman or do you believe the Truth that God simply says “Be” and it is. Jesus was “Be” gotten by the Word of God and The Word of God became Flesh. This is the Truth
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2011,16:15) It prompts two questions: Why do some people have gods in their heads and yet others do not?
How would it be just that a god that is offering the “prize” of an eternity after death, possibly with a supply of virgins (do women get the virgins too?) implants itself in some heads and not in others?
Genetics appears to be answering both questions.
So where does that leave the god believed in?
Stuart
Matthew 13:47-49 (King James Version)47Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Romans 9:20-22 (King James Version)
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
This makes perfect sense it is only contrast that shows the truth of a difference.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 11 2011,06:19) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 11 2011,04:03) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 08 2011,18:41) He would then be “half-God and half-man.”
Hi Paladin,Are you saying this based on Jesus lineage (according to “The Bible”)?
Jesus lineage illustrate
“Son of Man”: 25%; Mary's mother's lineage was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5, 1:36)
“Son of Man”: 25%: Mary's father's lineage was (Judah) through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31)
“Son of God”: 50%: Jesus' Father was the “HolySpirit”; NOT Joseph! (Mathew 1:18 / Mathew 1:20 / Luke 1:35)Birth: Jesus was 50% HolySpirit(God)(Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35), 25% Levite(Priest) and 25% Judah(King)!
Baptism by John the baptizer, Jesus was filled with the HolySpirit(God) beyond measure! (John 3:34 / John 1:14)Here is why Jesus is called both the “Son of Man” and the “Son of God”…
Mother Father
Mary HolySpirit
50% 50%
\ /
\ /
Jesus
/ \
/ \
/ \
Son of Man Son of God
(Mark 6:3) (Luke 1:35)Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
ED,Jesus was CREATED by THE POWER of GOD not by the “seed” of God. Do you really consider even thinking that God procreates like a mortal man or beast having semen to impregnate a woman or do you believe the Truth that God simply says “Be” and it is. Jesus was “Be” gotten by the Word of God and The Word of God became Flesh. This is the Truth
Hi BD,I never said nor implied sperm was involved. But the
“Y” chromosome is needed for the progeny to be male.
And the “blood” initially comes from the father's genome!It's the shedding of Jesus(74) “God Blood”(74) that cleanses us! (Rev.1:5)
And also redeems us back to “God The Father” by his HolySpirit! (Acts 20:28)Holy Spirit is “The Word” of reconciliation!
2Cor.5:19 To wit, that [HolySpirit] was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us
“The Word” of reconciliation.YHVH bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
