- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,04:54) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 08 2010,18:48) TO ALL: Please note that in 1 Corinthians 10:9 the “oldest” and “good” manuscripts say that the people tempted CHRIST. Deuteronomy 6:16 says that they tempted YHWH. Therefore, Christ is the YHWH of Deuteronomy 6:16.
Quote 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 9. tempt Christ-So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read “Lord”; and one manuscript only “God.” If “Lord” be read, it will mean Christ. As “Christ” was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1Co 10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Nu 21:5 it is “spake against God” (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1Co 10:9, “God,” to harmonize it with Nu 21:5). As either “Christ” or “Lord” is the genuine reading, “Christ” must be “God.” Compare “Why do ye tempt the Lord?” (Ex 17:2, 7. Compare Ro 14:11, with Isa 45:22, 23). Israel's discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the “Angel” of the covenant (Ex 23:20, 21; 32:34; Isa 63:9). Though they drank of “that Rock . Christ” (1Co 10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Ex 17:2, 7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, “the true manna,” “the bread of life”), they yet murmured, “Our soul loatheth this light bread.” In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Joh 8:56; Heb 11:26). The Greek for “tempt” means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare Ps 95:8, 9; Nu 14:22). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God's long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.
http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/1_corinthians/10.htmPlease note that the reading “Jehovah” in the NWT (1 Cor. 10:9) does not appear in any of the manuscripts. The NWT translators rewrote God's holy scripture.
The word “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4, “YHWH your God is one” is from “achad” which means “to unify.” More than one numerically is required for a unity to be true. That Paul said that it was CHRIST whom the people tempted proves it!
the Roo
JackExactly.
Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”).
Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God. Source
WJ
Keith,Excellent source! I noticed in reading the source that the Jews deleted the word “echad” and substituted it with “yachid.” This shows that “echad” does not mean a solitary one. Why else would they need to rewrite the Shema!
Seems like those Jews were incipient JW's.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 11 2010,04:33) TO ALL: In my debate with Mikeboll he included Adam Clarke in his list of “legitimate” scholars. So Mike should consider Clarke's commentary above which says that Christ is YHWH.
Hi Jack,I won't even bother reading it. When YOU agree with him that Ez 34:24 is about Jesus, I'll look into what he says about this issue. Fair enough?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,04:54) Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”). Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God. Source
WJ
Hi WJ,
First of all, will a man not be put to death on the testimony of “a unity” of man? Or on the testimony of “ONE” man?And God did say they would be ONE flesh, not a “unity of flesh”.
Why don't one of you guys actually answer my post? I have posts in about 8 threads now that have gone unanswered. Should I bump them for you?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 11 2010,05:18) What Mike said about “echad” is NOT true. The word “echad” comes from the word “achad” which means “to unify” (see Strong's# 259-259). At least two persons are needed in order for a unification to take place.
Sorry Charlie, you are incorrect sir.What about Deut 17:6 that I posted but you ignored? It says,
At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.Is this ONE man referred to “at least two persons……so a unification can take place”?
You probably think yes. You are good at trying to make singular things plural.
So Jack, what do you say in the face of this scripture that totally refutes your statement?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,14:33) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 11 2010,05:18) What Mike said about “echad” is NOT true. The word “echad” comes from the word “achad” which means “to unify” (see Strong's# 259-259). At least two persons are needed in order for a unification to take place.
Sorry Charlie, you are incorrect sir.What about Deut 17:6 that I posted but you ignored? It says,
At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.Is this ONE man referred to “at least two persons……so a unification can take place”?
You probably think yes. You are good at trying to make singular things plural.
So Jack, what do you say in the face of this scripture that totally refutes your statement?
mike
So what! Keith and I have never said that echad ALWAYS refers to a plural unity. But it refers to a plural unity quite often as we have shown. Seeing that the YHWH of verse 16 is Christ according to Paul your theory falls.So if echad does mean a solitary one then Christ is the YHWH of verse 4. It's that simple.
the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2010,22:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,04:54) Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”). Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God. Source
WJ
Hi WJ, First of all, will a man not be put to death on the testimony of “a unity” of man? Or on the testimony of “ONE” man?And God did say they would be ONE flesh, not a “unity of flesh”.
Why don't one of you guys actually answer my post? I have posts in about 8 threads now that have gone unanswered. Should I bump them for you?
mike
MikeI haven’t had as much time lately and respond to what I feel to respond to.
To be honest we are sick of going in circles with you. You insist that you are right and keep on making what you call unambiguous claims, for instance your total denial that the word “begotten” or “Gennao” the equivalent of Yalad has other meanings rather than “procreation”, even though the Apostle Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews who had access to the LXX and spoke the language contradicts you and your counterpart Kathi agrees the words have different meanings.
You appeal to ambiguous language of the Trinitarian Forefathers who obviously believes that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one being which obviously disagrees with your so-called claim that they agree with you, and your own counterpart Kathi on the word begotten.
You make the statement that “monogenes” only means “procreation” when in fact it is not used of John in reference to Jesus until the incarnation in John 1:14 and not in John 1:1. So obviously it proves that “Monogenes” when applied to Jesus is after the incarnation and not before. You have no scripture where monogenes is applied to Jesus before the incarnation and you have admitted that yourself, yet you still make the claim that it means “procreation” as in a beginning before the ages. But Jesus preexisted the incarnation and is called the monogenes “single, of its kind only' Son of God.
You have not a single scripture that calls Jesus the Son before the incarnation, but try to force the text of Pss 2:7 as being Jesus before the ages when in fact it is quoted by the Apostles in light of his resurrection, not to mention the fact that it says “This day” I have begotten you, and we know Jesus was there in the beginning before day 1 or time.
So keep on with your ambiguous claims though there are those of your own camp that reject your views like Kathi and JA.
Haven't you wondered why Kathi hasn't argued from scripture using Pss 2:7 as her proof text that Jesus was “begotten” or born from before the ages or time?
And as far as JA, you should listen to him for in this case he is right.
WJ
I am not about to read all of the post made here, all I am going to say to this is:” When it says in the Old Test. LORD notice that LORD is in all capital letters. Why that was done is because the Translators did not want to take God's name in vain and used LORD instead. In the New Test. it says Lord and that is Jesus. Lord of Lords and King o f Kings Rev, 19:16 The Word of God who became flesh John 1:1 and verse 14.
Deut. 4:36 and Deut. 6:4 both use LORD.
KJ and WJ talk about the plurality, well if you know that Jesus always does what the Father wants Him to say, that makes them one in thought and deeds. Just like a man and a woman become one, but are two persons. That does not make them equal….That does not make it a trinity at all.
Deut. 6:4 and Deut. 4:35 both say LORD. And that is Jehovah God. At that time Jesus was the Word of God spoken of in John 1:1, nobody has heard Jehovah God's voice or seen His form John 5:37.
Only He who was with Him The Word of God who became flesh Jesus….
We also know who came up with the trinity and the first Christians did not keep it…. It was was Tertullian who first came up with it…. And Constantine in the third century issued an edit and it became law in the Universal Church which later became the Roman Catholic Church….The Christian then compramised much, and agreed with all, just like today. Most people don't even question it….Only those who God calls out. I know that WJ and KJ will not agree with this, but for me, this is Gospel Truth….One more thing, if the Holy Spirit is a person then He will be the Father of Jeus, and that is not so, because the Holy Spirit is the essence of God the Father…His Holy Spirit…All very interesting to me…. it really does not make any difference if they are united in thought and deed… that does not make them one God, but two persons. The Son of God and The Jehovah God His Father…..I also disagree with those that think Jesus is not called God, Hebrew 1:8 and John 1:1 shows us that He is. That will never make Him equal to Jehovah God at all…. He was and is The Word of God and King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And not LORD Jehovah…. No, I am not a J.W. either. I have been accused of it….
Peace and Love IreneThe Word of God is the highest possible perception of YHVH.
YHVH is too great and to vast to be perceived by anyone, including angels or whatever you like to come up with.The Word of God is in fact, the perfect reflection of YHVH the unknowable.
This is confusing because it makes us perceive The Word of God as God himself, when in actuallity it is and isn't.
It's paradoxical.
The Word of God is definately God himself expressed to creation to be perceived.
but YHVH himself, is the source of all things…he isn't just a being or a spirit…HE SIMPLY IS.
He is the source of all things.
The Source could never be perceived by anything.
So his expression or revelation of himself is the closest thing we can possibly come to realizing YHVH.
That same Word of God, is whom we've come to know as Jesus Christ.
——–
This illustrates that The Word of God isn't YHVH the source himself, yet it is…
understanding that
it makes Jesus Christ not necessarily YHVH in flesh, but the flection or expression of YHVH in flesh….
The same reflection or expression that created the worlds.
This understanding proves that Jesus is in fact, God in flesh.
but does, in no way support a trinity.
Quote (RokkaMan @ Aug. 12 2010,08:09) The Word of God is the highest possible perception of YHVH.
YHVH is too great and to vast to be perceived by anyone, including angels or whatever you like to come up with.The Word of God is in fact, the perfect reflection of YHVH the unknowable.
This is confusing because it makes us perceive The Word of God as God himself, when in actuallity it is and isn't.
It's paradoxical.
The Word of God is definately God himself expressed to creation to be perceived.
but YHVH himself, is the source of all things…he isn't just a being or a spirit…HE SIMPLY IS.
He is the source of all things.
The Source could never be perceived by anything.
So his expression or revelation of himself is the closest thing we can possibly come to realizing YHVH.
That same Word of God, is whom we've come to know as Jesus Christ.
——–
This illustrates that The Word of God isn't YHVH the source himself, yet it is…
understanding that
it makes Jesus Christ not necessarily YHVH in flesh, but the flection or expression of YHVH in flesh….
The same reflection or expression that created the worlds.
This understanding proves that Jesus is in fact, God in flesh.
but does, in no way support a trinity.
I disagree with you when you say that The Word of God is the literal word of God, and not Jesus' You need to read in Rev, 19:13-16 in it says that The Word of God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lord. And He has a robe on dipped in blood, that only can be Jesus….. IreneQuote (Arnold @ Aug. 12 2010,08:14) Quote (RokkaMan @ Aug. 12 2010,08:09) The Word of God is the highest possible perception of YHVH.
YHVH is too great and to vast to be perceived by anyone, including angels or whatever you like to come up with.The Word of God is in fact, the perfect reflection of YHVH the unknowable.
This is confusing because it makes us perceive The Word of God as God himself, when in actuallity it is and isn't.
It's paradoxical.
The Word of God is definately God himself expressed to creation to be perceived.
but YHVH himself, is the source of all things…he isn't just a being or a spirit…HE SIMPLY IS.
He is the source of all things.
The Source could never be perceived by anything.
So his expression or revelation of himself is the closest thing we can possibly come to realizing YHVH.
That same Word of God, is whom we've come to know as Jesus Christ.
——–
This illustrates that The Word of God isn't YHVH the source himself, yet it is…
understanding that
it makes Jesus Christ not necessarily YHVH in flesh, but the flection or expression of YHVH in flesh….
The same reflection or expression that created the worlds.
This understanding proves that Jesus is in fact, God in flesh.
but does, in no way support a trinity.
I disagree with you when you say that The Word of God is the literal word of God, and not Jesus' You need to read in Rev, 19:13-16 in it says that The Word of God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lord. And He has a robe on dipped in blood, that only can be Jesus….. Irene
I never said The Word of God was not Jesus.I completely agree, understand, and believe The Word of God…is in fact Jesus Christ.
It is The Literal Word of God that took form and became creator of all things.
Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 11 2010,15:50) One more thing, if the Holy Spirit is a person then He will be the Father of Jeus, and that is not so, because the Holy Spirit is the essence of God the Father…His Holy Spirit
So if the Holy Spirit is not a person then a thing or impersonal force or power concieved Jesus in the womb, right?Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, do you believe this and if you do then the Holy Spirit is a person right?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,07:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2010,22:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,04:54) Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”). Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God. Source
WJ
Hi WJ, First of all, will a man not be put to death on the testimony of “a unity” of man? Or on the testimony of “ONE” man?And God did say they would be ONE flesh, not a “unity of flesh”.
Why don't one of you guys actually answer my post? I have posts in about 8 threads now that have gone unanswered. Should I bump them for you?
mike
MikeI haven’t had as much time lately and respond to what I feel to respond to.
To be honest we are sick of going in circles with you. You insist that you are right and keep on making what you call unambiguous claims, for instance your total denial that the word “begotten” or “Gennao” the equivalent of Yalad has other meanings rather than “procreation”, even though the Apostle Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews who had access to the LXX and spoke the language contradicts you and your counterpart Kathi agrees the words have different meanings.
You appeal to ambiguous language of the Trinitarian Forefathers who obviously believes that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one being which obviously disagrees with your so-called claim that they agree with you, and your own counterpart Kathi on the word begotten.
You make the statement that “monogenes” only means “procreation” when in fact it is not used of John in reference to Jesus until the incarnation in John 1:14 and not in John 1:1. So obviously it proves that “Monogenes” when applied to Jesus is after the incarnation and not before. You have no scripture where monogenes is applied to Jesus before the incarnation and you have admitted that yourself, yet you still make the claim that it means “procreation” as in a beginning before the ages. But Jesus preexisted the incarnation and is called the monogenes “single, of its kind only' Son of God.
You have not a single scripture that calls Jesus the Son before the incarnation, but try to force the text of Pss 2:7 as being Jesus before the ages when in fact it is quoted by the Apostles in light of his resurrection, not to mention the fact that it says “This day” I have begotten you, and we know Jesus was there in the beginning before day 1 or time.
So keep on with your ambiguous claims though there are those of your own camp that reject your views like Kathi and JA.
Haven't you wondered why Kathi hasn't argued from scripture using Pss 2:7 as her proof text that Jesus was “begotten” or born from before the ages or time?
And as far as JA, you should listen to him for in this case he is right.
WJ
Keith,Don't you just get sick of these uneducated novices? Mike's treatment of “gennao” is an explicit denial of Isaiah 43:10 which says that no God came into being before or AFTER God. Therefore, Jesus is no God at all and Mike should side with Gene. At least Gene is consistent!
The LXX uses the word “yinomai” from which “gennao” is derived. Isaiah 43:10 is essentially saying that there was no God begotten before or AFTER God.
Psalm 2 is about Jesus resurrection and coronation as King-Son. It's clear!
“I will appoint My King upon my holy Hill. I will declare the decree: You are My Son; today I have begotten you.”
This is how the apostle Paul took it but Mike expects us to take his word for it. A man without any formal Bible training corrects the apostle and us?
Mike also denies that “echad” is from the word “achad” which means “to unify.” We admit that it sometimes means a solitary one. But Mike cannot admit that it often means a plural one. It clearly means a plural one in Deuteronomy 6:4 because verse 16 is a reference to Jehovah Jesus having been tempted. So if “echad” does mean a solitary one in verse 4, then Jesus is Jehovah in verse 4.
Oh, I forgot, Mike is not interested in immediate context.
Jack
Hi WJ,
You said:
Quote Mike I haven’t had as much time lately and respond to what I feel to respond to.
To be honest we are sick of going in circles with you. You insist that you are right and keep on making what you call unambiguous claims, for instance your total denial that the word “begotten” or “Gennao” the equivalent of Yalad has other meanings rather than “procreation”, even though the Apostle Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews who had access to the LXX and spoke the language contradicts you and your counterpart Kathi agrees the words have different meanings.
Everything you posted here is a bunch of bunk and you know it. Prove where “yalad” doesn't refer to child birth.
Prove how the TWO and only TWO times Paul used “gennao” figuratively have anything at all to do with Jesus being begotten or even imply that “gennao” doesn't mean “born”.
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results
Result of search for “gennao”:
1080. gennao ghen-nah'-o from a variation of 1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:–bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.Do you see “procreate”? Do you see that it can be used LITERALLY or figuratively. Let's see if we can tell the difference in scripture.
I just skimmed through every one of the 195 times “gennao” is used in the NT. And guess what? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM can be translated as “born” or “begotten”. There are a couple where they are used figuratively, such as this one,
2 Tim 2:23
But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting.It is infighting that is spoken of as being “born”, but it is the metaphor that is a little “out of the ordinary”, not the actual word “gennao”.
Which bears the question: Can you show me where the word “gennao” doesn't actually mean “born” or “begotten”?
Do you see what I did there? I used the word “bears” (as in “gives birth”) metaphorically. I made it sound like “the question” I just asked was actually “born”. Hmmm…….does than mean in the English language that the word “bear” no longer refers to childbirth?
Instead of running away with claims of “going in circles”, why don't you actually stand up to my claims or admit you cannot refute them?
I'll be waiting for your scripture where “gennao” doesn't mean “born”. Put up or shut up Keith.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,08:47) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 11 2010,15:50) One more thing, if the Holy Spirit is a person then He will be the Father of Jeus, and that is not so, because the Holy Spirit is the essence of God the Father…His Holy Spirit
So if the Holy Spirit is not a person then a thing or impersonal force or power concieved Jesus in the womb, right?Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, do you believe this and if you do then the Holy Spirit is a person right?
WJ
You know Irene,You bring up an excellent point. We know the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus inside Mary's womb. Why does Jesus never call the Holy Spirit “Father”?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2010,14:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,08:47) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 11 2010,15:50) One more thing, if the Holy Spirit is a person then He will be the Father of Jeus, and that is not so, because the Holy Spirit is the essence of God the Father…His Holy Spirit
So if the Holy Spirit is not a person then a thing or impersonal force or power concieved Jesus in the womb, right?Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, do you believe this and if you do then the Holy Spirit is a person right?
WJ
You know Irene,You bring up an excellent point. We know the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus inside Mary's womb. Why does Jesus never call the Holy Spirit “Father”?
mike
because it's all the same person.all the roles of God are just that… Roles.
The holy spirit is a specific role of God, and isn't identified as YHVH The Father…because YHVH The father is the source of all things.
The Holy Spirit is his specified wisdom, and truth, that guides and directs.
You don't walk into a business meeting and call your boss, Father.
He very well may be a father, but you address him accordingly with what role he plays.
When refering to The Source and Authority of all things… He is called Father.
When addressing his personal wisdom and truth we call him, Holy Spirit.
When we address his reflected expression unto creation, manifested in the form of a man…we call him Jesus Christ.
His wisdom and truth, and reflected expression, are both subjected to The Source they came from…YHVH The Father.
Jack, Jack, Jack,
You are the most humorous of all the clowns.
You said:
Quote The LXX uses the word “yinomai” from which “gennao” is derived. Isaiah 43:10 is essentially saying that there was no God begotten before or AFTER God.
When did I ever say there was more than one God? There are many gods, but only one God. So whatever word you use for Is 43:10, I concur. But come on Jack, God Himself talks of many other gods. Jesus is one of those. He even said Jesus would be called mighty god. And guess what? He also said that He BEGAT him.You said:
Quote Psalm 2 is about Jesus resurrection and coronation as King-Son. It's clear!
It's absolutely clear to you and WJ and JA……..but no one else.
Not me, not Kathi, not Nick, Ed J, t8, Eusebius, Ignatius, Calvin, Tertullian……..just you guys. You said:
Quote Mike also denies that “echad” is from the word “achad” which means “to unify.” We admit that it sometimes means a solitary one. But Mike cannot admit that it often means a plural one. It clearly means a plural one in Deuteronomy 6:4 because verse 16 is a reference to Jehovah Jesus having been tempted. So if “echad” does mean a solitary one in verse 4, then Jesus is Jehovah in verse 4.
I'm not even sure which book you're speaking of. But I will tell you this for a fact. When I started debating scripture here I was scared of you and WJ. I was always worried about the scriptures and education you had “on your side”. But now I don't even worry. I can jump into this “echad” thing without even knowing what scripture you're talking about an know right from the jump that you are mistaken. Why? Is it because I've gotten so “good” since I came here? No way Jose. But because I have come to know from my God that no trinity exists. I have been “told” not even to sweat it. I am always “given the words to speak” in the hour that I need them.For example Jack, I had no clue about the plural of majesty being used in the scriptures when we started our debate. Who do you think led me to them? Who do you think led me to Ezekiel in the first place? I read 34:24 a night or two before SF posted our openings. Ask him. He'll tell you that I sent him the Ezekiel part at the last minute even thought he had the rest for a couple of weeks. And after you started “refuting” Ez, I had moved on to Micah during my daily Bible reading. And when you started with the “NT writers have to confirm it” stuff, I was reading Matthew.
And by not fearing anymore, I can delve right in to whatever you guys claim to prove a trinity with not even a little doubt about my God leading me to the right info at the right time. And now I'm coming to find out that most of the stuff you guys claim that I was so ignorant and scared about before is just smoke and mirrors. Just like “gennao”. Just like “yalad” (who pointed me to “yalad” to shoot down your “gennao” claims?) And I have faith that my God will lead me to whatever I need to shoot down your “two YHVH's” claim you seem to be making now, even though I haven't even looked into it yet.
Don't take all of this wrong……I'm still me and I will still get some things wrong at first and act like a fool sometimes, but I'm getting there.
peace and love and “bring it on guys”,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2010,14:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,08:47) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 11 2010,15:50) One more thing, if the Holy Spirit is a person then He will be the Father of Jeus, and that is not so, because the Holy Spirit is the essence of God the Father…His Holy Spirit
So if the Holy Spirit is not a person then a thing or impersonal force or power concieved Jesus in the womb, right?Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, do you believe this and if you do then the Holy Spirit is a person right?
WJ
You know Irene,You bring up an excellent point. We know the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus inside Mary's womb. Why does Jesus never call the Holy Spirit “Father”?
mike
Hi Mike:God our Father is a living being, with a mind, a will, and emotions, the Holy Spirit is His Spirit. The Spirit is the life that He lives.
Psalm 139 may help
6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Heaven is His throne, but He can be every where by His Spirit.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Aug. 13 2010,10:18) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2010,14:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,08:47) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 11 2010,15:50) One more thing, if the Holy Spirit is a person then He will be the Father of Jeus, and that is not so, because the Holy Spirit is the essence of God the Father…His Holy Spirit
So if the Holy Spirit is not a person then a thing or impersonal force or power concieved Jesus in the womb, right?Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, do you believe this and if you do then the Holy Spirit is a person right?
WJ
You know Irene,You bring up an excellent point. We know the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus inside Mary's womb. Why does Jesus never call the Holy Spirit “Father”?
mike
Hi Mike:God our Father is a living being, with a mind, a will, and emotions, the Holy Spirit is His Spirit. The Spirit is the life that He lives.
Psalm 139 may help
6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Heaven is His throne, but He can be every where by His Spirit.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Hi Marty,My point was against the trinity. Jesus knew who fathered him……the One he called Father and God. He knew the holy spirit is OF God, not a separate entity – that's why he never called the holy spirit his father.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2010,22:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,08:47) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 11 2010,15:50) One more thing, if the Holy Spirit is a person then He will be the Father of Jeus, and that is not so, because the Holy Spirit is the essence of God the Father…His Holy Spirit
So if the Holy Spirit is not a person then a thing or impersonal force or power concieved Jesus in the womb, right?Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, do you believe this and if you do then the Holy Spirit is a person right?
WJ
You know Irene,You bring up an excellent point. We know the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus inside Mary's womb. Why does Jesus never call the Holy Spirit “Father”?
mike
Hi Mike,Jesus doesn't call the Holy Spirit “Father” but the Holy Spirit is feminine. He said he would send us the Comforter, Counselor, Helper and She would dwell in us.
The Holy Spirit has as one of her traits, YHWH's Spirit. Thus when you receive the Holy Spirit you receive YHWH.
And Jesus who received the Holy Spirit at his baptism sends us this same Spirit so all are one together in unity.
The Professor
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
