- This topic is empty.
- Posts
LU, just because you have fallen for this deception of a multiple personality God, doesn't mean we will too. Would have thought you would have worked this out by now. I mean, how long have you been ranting now. Years? And who here agrees with you? No one I think. Although the odd Trinitarian might on some points team up with you if it serves them at the time. But essentially, we have all rejected your message. Thought I might as well tell you that, in case you were unable to work that out.
Surely by now it is well overdue for you to dust your feet. Or do you love us that much that you stick around and try to force us to be saved by Kathi?
I don't believe in a multiple personality God. You are confused again.
Who here agrees with me? Are you talking about the dozen or so people that regularly post here? How many of them agree with you? On the other hand, how many would agree with me in the churches? How many would agree with you in the churches? If I went on a forum led by heretics and made up of mostly heretics, hopefully none of the heretics would agree with me. I'm not concerned with how many agree with me. That is not a measure of what is true. How many Pharisees agreed with Jesus?
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,22:14) John 17:8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. The words bolded are Strong's #1831.
Luke 5:8
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”The bolded words above are also Stong's 1831, but that doesn't mean Jesus was inside of Peter when he said those words.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe Jesus was brought into existence “from within” his God and Creator – just as all things were.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,22:14) NO, of course not if He always existed ready to be begotten.
Well then your doctrine is silly, IMO. You claim that a separate entity has lived as long as God Almighty, making them equal in that respect. But then, at some point in time, the one entity popped the other entity out of himself – and for some odd reason, even though they were complete equals, this other entity is the “begotten son” and “servant” of the one who popped him out.
Kathi, WHY the words “firstborn”, “son”, “father”, and “begotten” – if that was the case? And WHY would one of these TWO eternally existent entities have been INSIDE OF the other one from eternity?
It smacks of nonsense to me.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,22:14) How many of the angels were conceived, Mike?
Every single one of them, Kathi. The word “conceive” simply means “to form”, “to originate”, “to beget”. (These are all from Dictionary.com)Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,22:14) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) There is no scriptural evidence that the name YHWH “states eternal existence”. The Israelites were called by that name, and they weren't “eternally existent”. It is common knowledge…you want to argue about anything.
Also, the Israelites were called by YHVH, not called YHVH. The Son is called YHVH to those who can see.
I argue against untrue or unscriptural things. Sometimes I argue against words that are true – if the other person is trying to use those true words as support to an unscriptural claim. Take Strong's 1831 for example; the words you are saying are true enough, but the claim you are trying to use those words to prove is unscriptural, ie: Jesus alone came “out from” the Father, and this somehow proves that Jesus has existed within his own Father from eternity.As for the claim that Jesus has the name “YHWH”, there is no scriptural support for it. The Father's name is Jehovah, and the Son's name is Jesus.
But like I keep telling you, the words “father” and “son” would really have no meaning if this was the case. The ONLY way “father” and “son” could mean what they clearly imply is if the Father existed FIRST, and THEN, at some point, He conceived/formed/originated/begat a son.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,22:14) Yes, the majority of translations say the message of the cross is the power of God. And Christ, the power of God, dying on it according to the flesh, is why.
And is “the message of the cross” literally “the power of God”? Or is it more sensible to understand that God's power was REPRESENTED BY “the message of the cross”, ie: “His salvation for us sinners”? Of course the latter is more sensible, and the obvious understanding. But since you see those words, “Christ, the power of God” in the scriptures, you don't really care what is “sensible”, do you? Instead, to you it is just another wording in scripture that you can TWIST to further your cause.Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,22:14) If Christ was the power of God merely because the power and wisdom of God were displayed through Jesus, and the message of the cross, then the cross of the martyrs would also be called the power of God……
And what “power” did God display by those other guys being crucified? Were any of them the savior God sent into the world? Did any of them have the one name by which we can be saved? That name, by the way, is JESUS, not YHWH.Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 14 2013,22:14) See how dense you can be?? If I said the Father had no power, then the Son would be the first and only power of YHVH and not the second power of YHVH.
I see. So YOU think 1 Cor 1:24 should say, “Christ, the SECOND power of God”?Quote (t8 @ Feb. 16 2013,17:03) Mike, I am glad you are committed to refuting them. It solves the problem. But if we cannot keep up with the spam of false doctrine, I will look at implimenting something in that case. It is not as if I am casting false teachers into prison, because there are plenty of places where they can teach their doctrines including here.
But I am against letting false teachers take over. I don't want to be responsible before God for letting people become deceived because I gave these false teachers the platform for making their own disciples.
So long as there are people that will refute their teachings, then that is good. I know that I personally cannot keep up, but combined with other genuine teachers here, we can refute their every lie. And that is one of the purposes of the forum.
Good words, t8……….. all of them.I don't want to be responsible before God for letting people become deceived because I gave these false teachers the platform for making their own disciples.
I understand. But you are also giving US the platform to EASILY and SCRIPTURALLY refute all these “grandfathered in” false trinity teachings. If there are no Trinitarians making the false claims here, then no one will be reading how EASILY those claims are SCRIPTURALLY refuted.
Food for thought.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 17 2013,00:27) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 17 2013,18:49) Quote (t @ 8) “Do you not know that you can partake in divine nature”. Do you not know that you can partake in chocolate cake? Does that mean you become a chocolate cake?
The chocolate cake example was not a good one because you do not join a chocolate cake, rather you eat it.
Agreed. The comparison is not even close. That being said, perhaps Kathi will now give you a SERIOUS answer to your scriptural point?Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 16 2013,22:52) Quote If you believe you are right, use the word “THEY” please. Be consistent. I do.
Are you saying that you change the scriptures, like the ones t8 quoted, to say “THEM” instead of “HE” when you quote them? I haven't seen that from you?Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 17 2013,00:56) I believe the divine council of the sons of God were regarding heavenly beings not earthly judges.
I agree.Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 17 2013,00:56) The earthly judges were never called elohim.
I and scriptures disagree with you on this one.Kathi, can't you see how WEAK this point is anyway? t8, Jesus is called “the theos”, therefore just FORGET all the scriptures that say he is the Son, Servant, Messiah, Prophet, Lamb, and Priest OF God, and start believing he IS the very God he is all those things OF!
WOW, Kathi! You are SO on to something here! Jesus is called “the theos”? In that case, he MUST BE God Almighty!
Tell me Kathi, when he is called “the theos”, is the word “OF” included in the phrase?
Mike,
Have you ever read how important the article is to t8 to indicate who is the true theos? I am just making sure he knows that the article belongs to Jesus too. That's all.Quote Tell me Kathi, when he is called “the theos”, is the word “OF” included in the phrase? Sometimes…like 'church of God' refers to God Jesus. But then there is Jesus is 'God over all' and 'oh the God' spoken by the Father and 'was God' and 'the only begotten God, etc.
It just adds to the magnificence of it all.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 18 2013,19:21) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 16 2013,17:03) Mike, I am glad you are committed to refuting them. It solves the problem. But if we cannot keep up with the spam of false doctrine, I will look at implimenting something in that case. It is not as if I am casting false teachers into prison, because there are plenty of places where they can teach their doctrines including here.
But I am against letting false teachers take over. I don't want to be responsible before God for letting people become deceived because I gave these false teachers the platform for making their own disciples.
So long as there are people that will refute their teachings, then that is good. I know that I personally cannot keep up, but combined with other genuine teachers here, we can refute their every lie. And that is one of the purposes of the forum.
Good words, t8……….. all of them.I don't want to be responsible before God for letting people become deceived because I gave these false teachers the platform for making their own disciples.
I understand. But you are also giving US the platform to EASILY and SCRIPTURALLY refute all these “grandfathered in” false trinity teachings. If there are no Trinitarians making the false claims here, then no one will be reading how EASILY those claims are SCRIPTURALLY refuted.
Food for thought.
I believe that you guys are going to be eating crow and I just hope God gives us the right words to help you think MAYBE Jesus is Almighty God so there will be a glimmer of reconsidering and loosening up that stiffened neck of yours.From what I am learning lately…you ought to reconsider sooner than later.
Hi Mike,
Quote Luke 5:8
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”The bolded words above are also Stong's 1831, but that doesn't mean Jesus was inside of Peter when he said those words.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe Jesus was brought into existence “from within” his God and Creator – just as all things were.
Of course there is this thing called context, Mike.
Quote Well then your doctrine is silly, IMO. You claim that a separate entity has lived as long as God Almighty, making them equal in that respect. But then, at some point in time, the one entity popped the other entity out of himself – and for some odd reason, even though they were complete equals, this other entity is the “begotten son” and “servant” of the one who popped him out. I am learning some interesting things lately and I am meditating on them and how to express what I am learning. But yes, the begotten Son is God Almighty and servant of God Almighty if the servant you are implying is Jesus.
Quote
As for the claim that Jesus has the name “YHWH”, there is no scriptural support for it. The Father's name is Jehovah, and the Son's name is Jesus.I realize that is what you believe. You are going to be surprised!!
Quote But like I keep telling you, the words “father” and “son” would really have no meaning if this was the case. The ONLY way “father” and “son” could mean what they clearly imply is if the Father existed FIRST, and THEN, at some point, He conceived/formed/originated/begat a son. I realize this is also a hurdle for you. Well I am hoping to be able to clear that up for you soon.
Quote And is “the message of the cross” literally “the power of God”? Or is it more sensible to understand that God's power was REPRESENTED BY “the message of the cross”, ie: “His salvation for us sinners”? Of course the latter is more sensible, and the obvious understanding. But since you see those words, “Christ, the power of God” in the scriptures, you don't really care what is “sensible”, do you? Instead, to you it is just another wording in scripture that you can TWIST to further your cause. I understand that what you say is sensible but God is beyond our sensible possibilities.
Quote And what “power” did God display by those other guys being crucified? Were any of them the savior God sent into the world? Did any of them have the one name by which we can be saved? That name, by the way, is JESUS, not YHWH. Other words you will have to eat.
Quote I see. So YOU think 1 Cor 1:24 should say, “Christ, the SECOND power of God”? Well, He is at the right hand of God. Could Joseph be considered the second power of Egypt?
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 17 2013,21:17) I don't believe in a multiple personality God. You are confused again.
I thought you were a Trinity Minus One person.Three persons minus one person = 2 persons one substance.
Okay, so if Jesus is not a person then do you believe that he is a thought of God or attribute of God?
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 19 2013,16:44) Well, He is at the right hand of God. Could Joseph be considered the second power of Egypt?
I would have thought so.He was able to do things in the name of Pharaoh, so long as it was his will I suppose.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 19 2013,16:16) I believe that you guys are going to be eating crow and I just hope God gives us the right words to help you think MAYBE Jesus is Almighty God
We don't have crows in New Zealand I think.
We have Kiwis and my fav is the Tui.If God to you isn't a substance with 2 persons, then how can both Jesus and the Father be Almighty God.
To be a person or have a personality means you are a unique person, not just an internal extension of another person such as their spirit.
Are you swaying toward the Jesus being the Logos and the Logos being what Gene says, just a thought and word of God that is in God?
Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you believed that the Father and Jesus were 2 persons and they were one God substance/echad. Apologies, but yeah I thought that was weird. A God substance made up of 2 persons that both existed forever and one coming from the other for all eternity forever and ever and ever.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 19 2013,16:16) I believe that you guys are going to be eating crow and I just hope God gives us the right words to help you think MAYBE Jesus is Almighty God so there will be a glimmer of reconsidering and loosening up that stiffened neck of yours. From what I am learning lately…you ought to reconsider sooner than later.
Hey Mike. We thought that believing that Jesus was the Son OF God and the Lamb OF God, and the messiah was to believe the truth about who Jesus is.But no, there is another truth that we must embrace sooner rather than later, and if we don't accept it, it sounds to me that believing the other stuff doesn't matter.
How's your neck BTW, mine seems fine.
Are there crows where you live?
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,05:00) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 19 2013,16:44) Well, He is at the right hand of God. Could Joseph be considered the second power of Egypt?
I would have thought so.He was able to do things in the name of Pharaoh, so long as it was his will I suppose.
I agree too. And Jesus is the second power of YHVH. The Father is the first power of YHVH.Pharaoh was the first power of Egypt, Joseph was the second power of Egypt.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2013,05:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 19 2013,16:16) I believe that you guys are going to be eating crow and I just hope God gives us the right words to help you think MAYBE Jesus is Almighty God so there will be a glimmer of reconsidering and loosening up that stiffened neck of yours. From what I am learning lately…you ought to reconsider sooner than later.
Hey Mike. We thought that believing that Jesus was the Son OF God and the Lamb OF God, and the messiah was to believe the truth about who Jesus is.But no, there is another truth that we must embrace sooner rather than later, and if we don't accept it, it sounds to me that believing the other stuff doesn't matter.
How's your neck BTW, mine seems fine.
Are there crows where you live?
You only have Jesus in part if that is all you believe about Him. Maybe you should look up some CROW STEW recipes,I'll bet they can be flown in to your table.
Quote If God to you isn't a substance with 2 persons, then how can both Jesus and the Father be Almighty God. How can a root also be a shoot? Ask the LORD to show you the answer to that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
