- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2009,05:32) Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:11) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2009,11:12) Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2009,14:16) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 14 2009,12:09) Hi BD,
Where doe it say he had GOD”S GLORY or did you add this bit?He had his own glory as Jn1 tells us.
” The glory of the ONLY BEGOTTEN..”
God is not begotten of anyone.
This is the single most ignored issue of the entire bible, when dealing with discussion with trinitarians. NONE has responded with anything other than doctrine, or rehash of old errors.NO ONE deals with the meaning of the Greek “gennao” as regards Jesus, the son of Mary. And the reason is just as simple. Because they are confused by reading John 1:1 PRIOR to understanding the logos, as explained in this thread;
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=2403Excellent point.
Hi PDBut your long exegesis can't even get past the first 3 verses of John ch 1.
Especially this part…
“And the Word was God” or “God was the Word”!
WJ
All you have said is an admission that you dismissed the entire post in order to hang on to the devil's own gospel of the kingdom.John was NOT written before the books and letters of Paul, and James, and Peter. So there can be NO understanding of logos from John's writings prior to when they were written.
You have decided to hang on to your trinity despite what the scriptures teach, and think it is clever to outright dismiss any response that threatens that stance.
By taking that attitude, you lose. You could be in the position of helping to better understand the real teaching of scriptures, instead of trying so desparately to hang on to a doctrine developed over several centuries of inventing words to make clear what was meant to begin with.
I only pray God will show you how this makes sense, because trinity certainly does NOT.
Hi PDIt doesnt matter when John wrote John 1 because the scripture says “The Word was God” or “God was the Word” and according to John 1:14 that Word/God became flesh which confirms many other scriptures!
What part of “the Word was God” is not clear to you?
WJ
The part where trinitarians take over and change everything.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2009,05:38) Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2009,11:20) Quote (thethinker @ July 14 2009,19:10) Paladin said: Quote You see thinker, this is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post. I give you a verse that tells you something important, and you offer a sound bite that could mean any of several things, supposedly as rebuttal. I have already answered this with Psalm 110:5. In verses 1-4 David receives the announcement of Messiah's reign. It is announced that the Messiah will sit at Jehovah's right hand. Verse 5-7 contain David's reply to what had been announced to him. He said,
Quote Adonai is at Your right hand…. The Hebrew Adonai is the proper name for God. Therefore, God is at Jehovah's right hand. Or do you deny that Christ is Representative God? You say that my post is a rehash of old arguments. Yet you force me to rehash on Psalm 110. Come up with something new and original for a change.
thinker
Hi JackTrue!
PD says…
Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2009,14:16) NONE has responded with anything other than doctrine, or rehash of old errors.
Yet he himself acts as if he is not rehashing old Unitarian doctrine with a different slant.WJ
“Old but different” is not the same. THAT is what is called “NEW” in almost any language on earth.It is “new” because it returns to the original chronology of how scripture was published by the Holy Spirit. It returns to when scripture was “NEW.”
You really ought to try it sometime. You will be amazed at how many doctrines of men fall by the way.
You will find no “unitarian doctrine” ANYWHERE that teaches what I teach, because I am not a Unitarian, nor a trinitarian, I am a Christian. And Christians are told to “handle aright the word of truth.”
The whole scholar-driven religious experience tries to convince people to do it otherwise, following Satan's aggenda; beginning Christian studies with the “Life of Christ” ergo, John 1:1. It is a grave mistake.
Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26) “Old but different” is not the same. THAT is what is called “NEW” in almost any language on earth. Not so, because the end result is still the same, Jesus had no preexistense and is not God even though the scriptures declare that he was and is.
Still Unitarian, still Old!
WJ
So at the judgment you willnot claim “ignorance?” Only “Stubbornness!”Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2009,11:20) Quote (thethinker @ July 14 2009,19:10) Paladin said: Quote You see thinker, this is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post. I give you a verse that tells you something important, and you offer a sound bite that could mean any of several things, supposedly as rebuttal. I have already answered this with Psalm 110:5. In verses 1-4 David receives the announcement of Messiah's reign. It is announced that the Messiah will sit at Jehovah's right hand. Verse 5-7 contain David's reply to what had been announced to him. He said,
Quote Adonai is at Your right hand…. The Hebrew Adonai is the proper name for God. Therefore, God is at Jehovah's right hand. Or do you deny that Christ is Representative God? You say that my post is a rehash of old arguments. Yet you force me to rehash on Psalm 110. Come up with something new and original for a change.
thinker
Hi JackTrue!
PD says…
Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2009,14:16) NONE has responded with anything other than doctrine, or rehash of old errors.
Yet he himself acts as if he is not rehashing old Unitarian doctrine with a different slant.WJ
“Old but different” is not the same. THAT is what is called “NEW” in almost any language on earth.It is “new” because it returns to the original chronology of how scripture was published by the Holy Spirit. It returns to when scripture was “NEW.”
You really ought to try it sometime. You will be amazed at how many doctrines of men fall by the way.
You will find no “unitarian doctrine” ANYWHERE that teaches what I teach, because I am not a Unitarian, nor a trinitarian, I am a Christian. And Christians are told to “handle aright the word of truth.”
The whole scholar-driven religious experience tries to convince people to do it otherwise, following Satan's aggenda; beginning Christian studies with the “Life of Christ” ergo, John 1:1. It is a grave mistake.
Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26)
The whole scholar-driven religious experience tries to convince people to do it otherwise, following Satan's aggenda; beginning Christian studies with the “Life of Christ” ergo, John 1:1. It is a grave mistake.You act as if you are the only one that hears from the Spirit of God! It is satans tactic to deny any scripture.
You talk about scholar driven religious experience, yet you have come here with your own “scholar-driven religious experience” and try to make claim that yours is unambiguous truth.
The scriptures claim Jesus as God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit! But you have chosen to explain it all away with your own interpretations that you claim is the Spirit!
Why should we believe someone who claims to know more than Strong or AT Robertson? Who do you think you are?
You have proven nothing, but instead have denied that certain scriptures are true.
You cant take a simple scripture for what it says without giving us pages of oppologetics!
WJ
Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,13:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2009,05:32) Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:11) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2009,11:12) Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2009,14:16) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 14 2009,12:09) Hi BD,
Where doe it say he had GOD”S GLORY or did you add this bit?He had his own glory as Jn1 tells us.
” The glory of the ONLY BEGOTTEN..”
God is not begotten of anyone.
This is the single most ignored issue of the entire bible, when dealing with discussion with trinitarians. NONE has responded with anything other than doctrine, or rehash of old errors.NO ONE deals with the meaning of the Greek “gennao” as regards Jesus, the son of Mary. And the reason is just as simple. Because they are confused by reading John 1:1 PRIOR to understanding the logos, as explained in this thread;
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=2403Excellent point.
Hi PDBut your long exegesis can't even get past the first 3 verses of John ch 1.
Especially this part…
“And the Word was God” or “God was the Word”!
WJ
All you have said is an admission that you dismissed the entire post in order to hang on to the devil's own gospel of the kingdom.John was NOT written before the books and letters of Paul, and James, and Peter. So there can be NO understanding of logos from John's writings prior to when they were written.
You have decided to hang on to your trinity despite what the scriptures teach, and think it is clever to outright dismiss any response that threatens that stance.
By taking that attitude, you lose. You could be in the position of helping to better understand the real teaching of scriptures, instead of trying so desparately to hang on to a doctrine developed over several centuries of inventing words to make clear what was meant to begin with.
I only pray God will show you how this makes sense, because trinity certainly does NOT.
Hi PDIt doesnt matter when John wrote John 1 because the scripture says “The Word was God” or “God was the Word” and according to John 1:14 that Word/God became flesh which confirms many other scriptures!
What part of “the Word was God” is not clear to you?
WJ
The part where trinitarians take over and change everything.
Hi PDNo, the part where Trinitarians defeat the lies of satan that seek to diminish our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ to just being another anointed man or prophet!
WJ
Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,13:56) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2009,05:38) Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2009,11:20) Quote (thethinker @ July 14 2009,19:10) Paladin said: Quote You see thinker, this is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post. I give you a verse that tells you something important, and you offer a sound bite that could mean any of several things, supposedly as rebuttal. I have already answered this with Psalm 110:5. In verses 1-4 David receives the announcement of Messiah's reign. It is announced that the Messiah will sit at Jehovah's right hand. Verse 5-7 contain David's reply to what had been announced to him. He said,
Quote Adonai is at Your right hand…. The Hebrew Adonai is the proper name for God. Therefore, God is at Jehovah's right hand. Or do you deny that Christ is Representative God? You say that my post is a rehash of old arguments. Yet you force me to rehash on Psalm 110. Come up with something new and original for a change.
thinker
Hi JackTrue!
PD says…
Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2009,14:16) NONE has responded with anything other than doctrine, or rehash of old errors.
Yet he himself acts as if he is not rehashing old Unitarian doctrine with a different slant.WJ
“Old but different” is not the same. THAT is what is called “NEW” in almost any language on earth.It is “new” because it returns to the original chronology of how scripture was published by the Holy Spirit. It returns to when scripture was “NEW.”
You really ought to try it sometime. You will be amazed at how many doctrines of men fall by the way.
You will find no “unitarian doctrine” ANYWHERE that teaches what I teach, because I am not a Unitarian, nor a trinitarian, I am a Christian. And Christians are told to “handle aright the word of truth.”
The whole scholar-driven religious experience tries to convince people to do it otherwise, following Satan's aggenda; beginning Christian studies with the “Life of Christ” ergo, John 1:1. It is a grave mistake.
Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26) “Old but different” is not the same. THAT is what is called “NEW” in almost any language on earth. Not so, because the end result is still the same, Jesus had no preexistense and is not God even though the scriptures declare that he was and is.
Still Unitarian, still Old!
WJ
So at the judgment you willnot claim “ignorance?” Only “Stubbornness!”
Are you looking in the mirror?WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2009,05:57) Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2009,11:20) Quote (thethinker @ July 14 2009,19:10) Paladin said: Quote You see thinker, this is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post. I give you a verse that tells you something important, and you offer a sound bite that could mean any of several things, supposedly as rebuttal. I have already answered this with Psalm 110:5. In verses 1-4 David receives the announcement of Messiah's reign. It is announced that the Messiah will sit at Jehovah's right hand. Verse 5-7 contain David's reply to what had been announced to him. He said,
Quote Adonai is at Your right hand…. The Hebrew Adonai is the proper name for God. Therefore, God is at Jehovah's right hand. Or do you deny that Christ is Representative God? You say that my post is a rehash of old arguments. Yet you force me to rehash on Psalm 110. Come up with something new and original for a change.
thinker
Hi JackTrue!
PD says…
Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2009,14:16) NONE has responded with anything other than doctrine, or rehash of old errors.
Yet he himself acts as if he is not rehashing old Unitarian doctrine with a different slant.WJ
“Old but different” is not the same. THAT is what is called “NEW” in almost any language on earth.It is “new” because it returns to the original chronology of how scripture was published by the Holy Spirit. It returns to when scripture was “NEW.”
You really ought to try it sometime. You will be amazed at how many doctrines of men fall by the way.
You will find no “unitarian doctrine” ANYWHERE that teaches what I teach, because I am not a Unitarian, nor a trinitarian, I am a Christian. And Christians are told to “handle aright the word of truth.”
The whole scholar-driven religious experience tries to convince people to do it otherwise, following Satan's aggenda; beginning Christian studies with the “Life of Christ” ergo, John 1:1. It is a grave mistake.
Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,08:26)
The whole scholar-driven religious experience tries to convince people to do it otherwise, following Satan's aggenda; beginning Christian studies with the “Life of Christ” ergo, John 1:1. It is a grave mistake.You act as if you are the only one that hears from the Spirit of God! It is satans tactic to deny any scripture.
You talk about scholar driven religious experience, yet you have come here with your own “scholar-driven religious experience” and try to make claim that yours is unambiguous truth.
The scriptures claim Jesus as God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit! But you have chosen to explain it all away with your own interpretations that you claim is the Spirit!
Why should we believe someone who claims to know more than Strong or AT Robertson? Who do you think you are?
You have proven nothing, but instead have denied that certain scriptures are true.
You cant take a simple scripture for what it says without giving us pages of oppologetics!
WJ
And exactly how would you describe those “pages” of man made doctrine trinitarians used to develope their triune God?Apologetics.
And how many years did it take for the full blown version to be developed?
400 years.
There was no trinity until trinitarians plugged in their “apologetics” into every word God used to describe himself, and then they attacked and killed every saint who disagreed with them, labelling them “heretics” or “arians” or some other epithet used to make others hate them.
Quote You talk about scholar driven religious experience, yet you have come here with your own “scholar-driven religious experience” and try to make claim that yours is unambiguous truth. Which scholar did I quote?
Paladin said:
Quote I am not one of “those.” Jesus “became a man” in the same way Eve became a woman.” Eve was made from Adam's rib. Jesus was “made from a woman.” [Gal 4:4] This is the meaning of Jesus' words when he said “I came down from heaven.” Remember when he spoke of John's baptism? He said “Whence is it, from heaven or of men?” He was speaking about its source of authority. It was ALWAYS about authority when he said “I came down from heaven.” Jesus was indded made of a woman according to His human nature. But metaphysically he was not made of dust. paul said,
Quote The first man was of the earth, made of dust. The second Man was the lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:47) So “from heaven” means exactly what it says. Jesus was from heaven. The first man was made of dust. The second man was conceived by the Spirit of God.
thinker
Paladin said:
Quote So at the judgment you willnot claim “ignorance?” Only “Stubbornness!” To All,
Jesus is our righteous Judge. Not Paladin.thinker
WorshippingJesus said to Paladin:
Quote You act as if you are the only one that hears from the Spirit of God! It is satans tactic to deny any scripture. You talk about scholar driven religious experience, yet you have come here with your own “scholar-driven religious experience” and try to make claim that yours is unambiguous truth.
The scriptures claim Jesus as God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit! But you have chosen to explain it all away with your own interpretations that you claim is the Spirit!
Why should we believe someone who claims to know more than Strong or AT Robertson? Who do you think you are?
You have proven nothing, but instead have denied that certain scriptures are true.
WJ,
Paladin lost all credibility with me when he denied that the Greek has a past tense verb. And also because when I showed him that the aorist indicative is the past tense verb he was stubborn about it. Yet he says,Quote So at the judgment you willnot claim “ignorance?” Only “Stubbornness!” Pot calling kettle black.
thinker
Hi TT,
How many natures did Jesus have?
Did he have more natures than any other man who hopes to follow him?Was the nature of God also IN him?
Was he not really a man at all despite scripture?Hi PD
Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,13:53) I am not one of “those.” Jesus “became a man” in the same way Eve became a woman.” Eve was made from Adam's rib. Jesus was “made from a woman.” [Gal 4:4] This is the meaning of Jesus' words when he said “I came down from heaven.”
Sorry, but that is a bunch of apologetic hoo doo, and is proof of the normal practices of the anti-trinitarian!So I suppose when Jesus said…
What if you see the Son of Man ascend to “where he was before“! John 6:62
Then he will ascend back into Mary's womb?
And just before this in the same context Jesus says…
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; “only he has seen the Father“. John 6:46
So when did Jesus “see” the Father unless it was when he was “with the Father in heaven” and came “from the Father” as he said? For John in 2 places said “no man” has seen the Father!
So how many apologetic words will it take to explain away these very simple truths?
WJ
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 15 2009,15:46) Hi TT,
How many natures did Jesus have?
Did he have more natures than any other man who hopes to follow him?Was the nature of God also IN him?
Was he not really a man at all despite scripture?
Hi NHDo you have human nature?
Do you share the divine nature?
Why is it so hard for you to see that Jesus nature is the nature that we share and that it is his “Divine nature”?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2009,08:08) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 15 2009,13:53) I am not one of “those.” Jesus “became a man” in the same way Eve became a woman.” Eve was made from Adam's rib. Jesus was “made from a woman.” [Gal 4:4] This is the meaning of Jesus' words when he said “I came down from heaven.”
Sorry, but that is a bunch of apologetic hoo doo, and is proof of the normal practices of the anti-trinitarian!So I suppose when Jesus said…
What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! John 6:62
Then he will ascend back into Mary's womb?
And just before this in the same context Jesus says…
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; “only he has seen the Father“. John 6:46
So when did Jesus “see” the Father unless it was when he was “with the Father in heaven” and came “from the Father” as he said? For John in 2 places said “no man” has seen the Father!
So how many apologetic words will it take to explain away these very simple truths?
WJ
I really am tempted to leave you to your insults, but I will hesitate long enough to show just how ignorant you really are.
John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
TRINITY ARGUMENT: Since Jesus said that he was going to return back up to where he was before, he must have been in heaven, and therefore, must have been God.
REBUTTAL: Jesus did not say he was going “back” to anything, or anywhere. Paul tells us that before he ascended, he descended, not to Earth from Heaven, but from earth to the lower parts of Earth, or the grave. His reference is to his death, burial, visit to the “spirits in prison,” and finally his resurrection. His ascention into Heaven came later. Jesus himself told the Jews that they would see this “sign of Jonas,” which took place at his resurrection.
John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
NOTE: This cannot refer to some pre-existant state, because his designation of “Son of Man” only applies to his being a man. Therefore, what, about his being a man, was changed, then changed back? Or, to put it another way, what descended, and was raised back to its previous state?
Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
A SIGN TO THE NINEVITES:…A SIGN TO THIS GENERATION:
Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. 30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting, desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
THE CHANGE THAT WAS CHANGED BACK; THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION:
Mark 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.1 Cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;… 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 16 2009,07:46) Hi TT,
How many natures did Jesus have?
Did he have more natures than any other man who hopes to follow him?Was the nature of God also IN him?
Was he not really a man at all despite scripture?
Nick,
Jesus had two natures just like anyone else. He had a fleshly body like us. But metaphysically He was pneumatic while we were psychical (1 Cor. 15).thinker
WorshippingJesus said to Paladin:
Quote So I suppose when Jesus said… What if you see the Son of Man ascend to “where he was before”! John 6:62
Then he will ascend back into Mary's womb?
thinker
Paladin said:
Quote Jesus did not say he was going “back” to anything, or anywhere. Paul tells us that before he ascended, he descended, not to Earth from Heaven, but from earth to the lower parts of Earth, or the grave. His reference is to his death, burial, visit to the “spirits in prison,” and finally his resurrection. His ascention into Heaven came later. Jesus himself told the Jews that they would see this “sign of Jonas,” which took place at his resurrection. WJ,
Can you make sense of the above?Paladin said:
Quote Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? Okay…. So how does this disprove that He came down from heaven in the first place?
Paladin said:
Quote This cannot refer to some pre-existant state, because his designation of “Son of Man” only applies to his being a man. Therefore, what, about his being a man, was changed, then changed back? Or, to put it another way, what descended, and was raised back to its previous state? Then who was in the fiery furnace with the two Hebrews? Paul said that Jesus was the man from heaven and that He was not made of dust like the first man.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 16 2009,08:53) Hi TT,
Was Mary not his mother then?
Mary was Jesus' mother according to the flesh.thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
