- This topic is empty.
- Posts
For some reason you cannot seem to grasp the idea of an eternal father having within him an offspring ready to be begotten from him and then at one point, actually begotten from him.
I can grasp a 50 foot spaghetti monster and many other things, that is not the problem. I have a problem with people who pretend to teach things that are biblical when they clearly are not.
Biblical teaching no1. ‘There is one God the Father’.
You violate that and thus your whole platform from which you teach is faulty and not built on eternal truth.
t8 said:
Biblical teaching no1. ‘There is one God the Father’.
Aramaic Bible: To us, ours is one God The Father…and The One LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua The Messiah….
Oops! t8 overlooked that the Greek “kurios” (lord) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew YHWH.
Hello Jack, nice picture!
you said:
If the Father of Jesus is a father to him in the sense you say, then the Father MUST also have a father. Who would that be Kathi?
Why would you think that? Do you not agree that when someone is a begotten son, the default meaning would involve the bringing forth a true offspring? I understand there are other uses of the word “begotten” and context will help say if the obvious meaning is meant or not. Do you not think the Son was begotten of the Father before the ages as declared in the Nicene Creed?
My point is that a very important declaration of the Gospel is that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that to be true and literal. Do you believe it is figurative?
Nice to see you here!
Hi again,
you said to t8:
Oops! t8 overlooked that the Greek “kurios” (lord) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew YHWH.
I am wondering if kurios is always used for either the Father or the Son in scripture. Do you know?
t8
you said:
I can grasp a 50 foot spaghetti monster
That would be a waste of time now wouldn’t it.
Spend time trying to grasp that there is One God the Father and one Lord, the Son , Jesus Christ.
After you let that sink in to your heart, grasp that YHVH is that one God and one Lord…Father and Son. Jesus really is a Son, a literal, true, Son of the Father…not adopted, not designated as a son, not created as a son, not an attribute that became a son. He is a literal true Son of God the Father, always has been and always will be.
You don’t think that the Father could have a son of the same kind as Himself, do you. I do.
Think on this, t8 and get back to me with your thoughts…If you did believe that the Father actually could have a son of the same kind as Himself, how would that son be different than Jesus?
Hi Jael,
you asked:
You said something about Jesus being always perfect.
What does Hebrews 5: 8-9 say?
How does ‘AFTER…learning obedience …and being made perfect’ imply ‘was always perfect’?
That word “perfect” is used in a sense of having completed the task. It does not imply that Jesus was an imperfect person.
Read what the commentator Vincent says, maybe this will help you:
And being made perfect (καὶ τελεωθεὶς)
Comp. Hebrews 2:10. The fundamental idea in τελειοῦν is the bringing of a person or thing to the goal fixed by God. Comp. Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:1, Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 11:40; Hebrews 12:23. Here of Christ’s having reached the end which was contemplated in his divinely-appointed discipline for the priesthood. The consummation was attained in his death, Philippians 2:8; his obedience extended even unto death.
Found here: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/5-9.htm
Oops! t8 overlooked that the Greek “kurios” (lord) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew YHWH.
Not so fast KJ.
Kurios can mean sir, see Matthew 27:63:
“Sir,” [kurios] they said, “We remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ “.
It Also Means Master Or Owner in 1 Peter 3:6
Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him master [kurios].
Paul uses the plural of kurios to refer to idols in 1 Corinthians 8:5.
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth-as in fact there are many gods and many lords [kurios].
In Colossians 3:22, we have both God and man being referenced as kurios.
In Slaves, obey your earthly masters [kurios] in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord [kurios].
Now read 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.Thus 1 Corinthians 8:6 is clearly referencing God as the Father, and Lord as Jesus Christ. This is the context of the meaning you should be looking at because there is one God for us and additionally one Lord for us, the Lord Jesus Christ. And we know that this God made Jesus as Lord and that every tongue will confess this.
But you confess that he is God, so your confession is not true and you are yet to address him correctly as the Lord Jesus Christ. Not God Jesus Christ.
See Ephesians 4:4-6 for further reinforcing of the truth.
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord [kurios], one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.If God made Jesus as Lord, then there is God and there is Jesus the one whom God made as Lord. Simple and true. To fight against it is to fight the truth.
The true confession about who Jesus really is can be found in Philippians 2:11:
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.You can clearly see that Jesus is Lord, but God is above him. So Jesus is our master but the Father is God of all and over all. He is even the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. We share the same God as him. Doctrines like the Trinity completely mess with this order.
Aramaic Bible: To us, ours is one God The Father…and The One LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua The Messiah….
If you get this from one translation and a suspicious one at that, then it appears that you are getting desperate KJ.
I can give you hundreds of clear scriptures in any translation about who God really is and who Jesus really is.
The Trinity Doctrine uses as its proof, verses that are not part of the Bible, dodgy or misleading translated verses, moving commas around to suit, and most of all, indoctrination.
t8 said:
If you get this from one translation and a suspicious one at that, then it appears that you are getting desperate KJ.
The Aramaic Bible has it right t8. 1 Corinthians 8:6 which you say denies Christ’s deity says that there is “one Lord Jesus Christ.” This means that every time you see the word “Lord” after 8:6 it MUST BE Jesus Christ or else Paul contradicts himself. But Paul was consistent. In chapter 10 he applied Psalm 24:1 to Christ which is about YHWH. Note that “the Lord” is Christ throughout the context and it means “YHWH” because of Paul’s application of Psalm 24:1 to him. Therefore, the Aramaic Bible translation stands unrefuted.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord (Christ) and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s (Christ) table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord (Christ) to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?3 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the Lord’s (Christ), and all its fullness.”
LU, so you mean that it was God that made Jesus ‘perfect’ in completing his works?
Wasn’t it JESUS who WAS PERFECTED …
How does the word ‘perfect’ (perfected) suddenly come to mean ‘completed’ in the context of the verse?
LU, scriptures says that Jesus BECAME PERFECT…
But you say that it says that Jesus COMPLETED ?!!
I think you have fallen foul of the desperation of the trinitarian who, having seen that the verse absolutely shows Jesus AS NOT BEING GOD, needs to attempt to modify the meaning of the verse.
LU, why did the author of the verse simply not say: ‘Jesus was brought to the completion of the works designated by the Father’ IF that was indeed what was meant?
LU, everyone is entitled to read and uphold what they feel – but I would suggest humbly that those authors (and that one in particular) that you referred me to, should be discarded as credible interpretation authors of the holy scriptures – they are fully paid up biased trinitarian-based misinterpreters.
The Aramaic Bible has it right t8.
Like most die-hard Trinitarians, you will grasp at anything that remotely supports your triple personality God view. In this case, you choose a translation that is not like any other and say this is the one that gets it right compared to the rest. And your only evidence is wait for it….it agrees with the Trinity Doctrine the most.
You ignore the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls are some of the oldest, if not the oldest texts, and you don’t see Aramaic in the NT. The NT was written in Greek which was the international language of the day, like English is today. It was probably written in that language for wider distribution and it may have been the language that all understood to some degree rather than a local or regional language that would make it harder to get the message out.
But here is the thing. You actually do see some Aramaic quoted it in the NT and that is very telling.
- Talitha cum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
- Ephphatha meaning “Be opened.” (Mark 7:34)
- Abba meaning “Father” (Mark 14:36)
- Raca meaning “fool” (Matthew 5:22)
- Rabbouni meaning “teacher” (John 20:16)
- Eli Eli lema sabachthani meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)
- Hosanna meaning “O Lord, save us.” (Mark 11:9)
- Maranatha meaning “Lord, come!” (1 Corinthians 16:22)
Take Matthew 27:46 as one of these examples:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?If you would you have me believe that this was originally Aramaic, then why is it worded like it is. You can clearly see that it is written in a different language (in this case Greek) and quotes Jesus words in Aramaic with the meaning explained in Greek the same language as the rest of the text. If it was originally Aramaic, then that verse has been seriously tampered with as you wouldn’t need to interpret Aramaic if it was already in Aramaic. And why is the whole NT like this. Why just this verse and a few others?
You see KJ, one lie leads to more lies and difficulty in keeping a straight story.
On the other hand, if you agree that the NT was originally written in Greek, then the Aramaic version is but a translation from one language to another like our English NT. Thus it is better to go from Greek straight to English, than Greek to Aramaic then to English isn’t it? The more languages that you have to jump through means the more likelihood that you lose the original meaning. Best to start in the source language and write the new language from there. That is a no-brainer. So this version of that verse you quote has passed from Greek, to Aramaic, then to English. And you say it is more accurate? You are not making sense and that is because you adhere to a senseless doctrine that taints many other things with its senselessness.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord (Christ) and the cup of demons;
“Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”
Then an angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him.…Who gave Jesus the cup to drink? Clue is in the above verse which says “Yet not My will, but Yours be done”.
It amazes me how many times Trinitarians get their butts kicked here and come back for more. Eventually they leave, but after some years you missed these defeats and have come back for more it seems. Do you want more humiliating defeats KJ. That is in your future if you continue to peddle a gospel and doctrine that is not of the Kingdom and not of Christ. The light will expose your teachings for what they are.
t8 said:
Biblical teaching no1. ‘There is one God the Father’.
Aramaic Bible: To us, ours is one God The Father…and The One LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua The Messiah….
Oops! (1a)t8 overlooked that the Greek “kurios” (lord) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew (b)YHWH.
Hi KangarooJack (A.K.A. The Thinker),
1a) Wrong:
the Greek “kurios” (lord) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Adonai” (lord)
We’ve had this conversation before – please refrain from promoting ‘error’b) Wrong again:
God’s name transliterates into English as YHVH
(ancient Hebrew NEVER had a “W” sound)_____________
God bless
Ed JFather, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”
Then an angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him.…Who gave Jesus the cup to drink? Clue is in the above verse which says “Yet not My will, but Yours be done”.
It amazes me how many times Trinitarians get their butts kicked here and come back for more. Eventually they leave, but after some years you missed these defeats and have come back for more it seems. Do you want more humiliating defeats KJ. That is in your future if you continue to peddle a gospel and doctrine that is not of the Kingdom and not of Christ. The light will expose your teachings for what they are.
t8,
First, you have just added a second “Lord” after Paul had just said that there is only one Lord. You can’t even be consistent. For you he term “one God” in 8:6 means one God. But the term “one Lord” allows for more than one. Paul said that for us there is one God and one Lord. But for you there is one God and two Lords.
Second, Why do you go out of context? The cup of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 10 is “the communion of the body of Christ.” Yet you go out of context. That’s not exegesis my friend. Exegesis is line upon line! Furthermore, Paul had just warned them to not tempt Christ as they tempted him and were destroyed by serpents. Deuteronomy 6:16 says that it was YHWH they tempted.
Try again and this time exegete the passage. Don’t just yank some verse out of its context and superimpose it on Paul’s text.
Paul: For us there is one God and one Lord.
t8: For me there is one God and two Lords.
ED J said:
Hi KangarooJack (A.K.A. The Thinker),
1a) Wrong: the Greek “kurios” (lord) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Adonai” (lord)
WE have had this conversation before – so I ask you to please refrain from promoting ‘error’b) Wrong again: God’s name transliterates into English as YHVH (ancient Hebrew NEVER had a “W” sound)
Adonai was a substitute name of YHWH. Oops!
_____________
t8 said:
Like most die-hard Trinitarians, you will grasp at anything that remotely supports your triple personality God view. In this case, you choose a translation that is not like any other and say this is the one that gets it right compared to the rest. And your only evidence is wait for it….it agrees with the Trinity Doctrine the most.
It agrees with context. See my post above. Your solution adds another “Lord” when Paul had just said that for us there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul: For us there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.
t8: For me there is one God the Father and two Lords the Father and Jesus Christ.
KJ, there are many who are lord. If you rent or have rented a house, then you have a landlord. But if that landlord was a Believer, then Jesus is his Lord. And guess what? God is above him, so yes in this sense he is Lord over Christ and all, but the term he is given in our NT is God. Paul distinguishes the difference between the Father and the Son as God and Lord. To put this into perspective, we are told that “God made this Jesus whom you crucified as both Lord and Christ”.
Let that sink in for a minute and permeate your thinking. Try to dispel some of the myths that you hold to so you can retain some truth. You can clearly read in Paul’s writings in the least that God is greater than Lord especially if God made Jesus Lord. And did Jesus make the Father as God? No that is silly thinking, so it is that God made Jesus as Lord, thus the giver is greater than the receiver.
When both the Father and his son are mentioned, one is addressed God and the other Lord. This is to show the hierarchy of which swine trample all over. It is divine knowledge that you argue against. Whose side are you on? Why argue against some of the most holy revelations about the Kingdom of God. Why try to confuse people with man-made theology. Your life is too short to go down this road. You will be sorry one day when you realise what an enemy of the truth you have been by preaching against the identity of the one true God. I am not questioning your salvation KJ, that is between you and God. But the least in the Kingdom are those who teach against even the least of the commands. Do you really want this to be your loftiest goal?
t8: For me there is one God the Father and two Lords the Father and Jesus Christ.
You are playing with words to support a doctrine that is not taught.
Remember that lord can mean master or sir.
What do you think Jesus should be called if God gave him rule over his creation?
I think Lord is apt. But God is still above him whether you give God his correct place or not. Your view doesn’t change the truth one iota.
- “Sir,” [kurios] they said, “We remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ “.
- Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him master [kurios].
- Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth-as in fact there are many gods and many lords [kurios].
So God has lordship even over the one who is called Lord. Paul teaches clearly that there is one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ).
You teach that there is two Gods and two Lords I suppose. I make the distinction that God is higher than the one whom he made Lord of his creation.
God > Lord > Man/Angel/Creation this is what I teach. You try and twist my words to say otherwise, but if you do it intentionally or by ignorance, know that I teach this: God > Lord > Creation.
Adonai was a substitute name of YHWH. Oops!
Hi KangraooJack,
The Greek word “kurios” and the Hebrew word “Adonai” are BOTH properly
translated to English as “lord” – which is a “Title” – not a name.Title-substitutions ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE FOR ONE’S NAME.
For example: “The Tinker” DOES NOT MEAN – IN AND OF ITSELF YOU –
though you may be forwardly looked upon as a ‘Thinker’ at times.Understand that you cannot back-translate ‘The Thinker’ to mean “KangarooJack”
And like wise: you cannot back-translate “Lord” (“kurios” or “Adonai”) to mean YHVH.I hope I have made myself clear. I therefore
humbly ask you to stop promoting that ‘error’.
“kurios” DOES NOT mean YHVH – nor does “Adonai”____________
God bless
Ed J
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
