- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
T8….> when I posted you about Christ meanning Christos or the annointing, I didn't mean every where Christ is spoken of it meant that, there are times when the author was meanning Jesus. Thought I had better clear that up.
Blessings and peace to you and yours………gene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 30 2007,14:35) Nobody was trying to make them out to be the same person t8. Read the post again.
Besides t8 you are the one playing word games again by claiming that because “The “LORD” (YHWH) said unto my “Lord” ('adown) means they are two different beings is just False.
They are Father and Son but one God.
Do you think that “YHWH” is used exclusively for the Father and 'adown is used exclusively for the Son?
How about this scripture…
Isa 51:22
Thus saith thy Lord ('adown) the LORD (YHWH), and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, [even] the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:So we see that 'adown is also used for the Father just like YHWH is also used for the Son…
WJ.Yes kurios is used of many. So is elohim, theos, and probably adown too. Hey men are called “elohim” and “theos”.
However YHWH is used of the true God only as far as I know.
Now let's look at this objectively.
Let's define 2 people.
George and president.
Now let's say that you belong to a club that has a president.
OK. So if I say the president (of my club) said to George blah blah blah, then I am obviously referring to 2.
If I was trying to make these out to be the same person or entity then the text certainly isn't lending itself to that interpretation, even if George was in deed a president of greater authority.
It is the language that defines it, and playing word games with George and president could result in making the argument that because the word 'president' was used, then it must be talking about the same person/being/office.
But playing word games to change the sentence structure is not really a good idea. Trinitarians do this a lot from my observation, when trying to prove the Trinity doctrine.
You say that YHWH and Jesus the Lord are the same God. Well then what you are really saying is that God is not a person or a HIM. You are saying that God is a “they”.
So I made the point a long time ago. Why do you or others who believe that God is 3, pray to “them”.
Dear God, how are you all, etc…
Or say things like, “they are Holy”, “they are light”, “they are God”, etc.Such language is not in scripture and even Trinitarians dare not pray or talk in such a manner. Yet they believe and teach in that very manner.
Contradictory isn't it?
Surely you should live as you teach, talk as you teach, and pray as you teach.
But I do not observe such things among those who teach the triune God.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 30 2007,15:56) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 30 2007,14:35) Nobody was trying to make them out to be the same person t8. Read the post again.
Besides t8 you are the one playing word games again by claiming that because “The “LORD” (YHWH) said unto my “Lord” ('adown) means they are two different beings is just False.
They are Father and Son but one God.
Do you think that “YHWH” is used exclusively for the Father and 'adown is used exclusively for the Son?
How about this scripture…
Isa 51:22
Thus saith thy Lord ('adown) the LORD (YHWH), and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, [even] the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:So we see that 'adown is also used for the Father just like YHWH is also used for the Son…
WJ.Yes kurios is used of many. So is elohim, theos, and probably adown too. Hey men are called “elohim” and “theos”.
However YHWH is used of the true God only as far as I know.
Now let's look at this objectively.
Let's define 2 people.
George and president.
Now let's say that you belong to a club that has a president.
OK. So if I say the president (of my club) said to George blah blah blah, then I am obviously referring to 2.
If I was trying to make these out to be the same person or entity then the text certainly isn't lending itself to that interpretation, even if George was in deed a president of greater authority.
It is the language that defines it, and playing word games with George and president could result in making the argument that because the word 'president' was used, then it must be talking about the same person/being/office.
But playing word games to change the sentence structure is not really a good idea. Trinitarians do this a lot from my observation, when trying to prove the Trinity doctrine.
You say that YHWH and Jesus the Lord are the same God. Well then what you are really saying is that God is not a person or a HIM. You are saying that God is a “they”.
So I made the point a long time ago. Why do you or others who believe that God is 3, pray to “them”.
Dear God, how are you all, etc…
Or say things like, “they are Holy”, “they are light”, “they are God”, etc.Such language is not in scripture and even Trinitarians dare not pray or talk in such a manner. Yet they believe and teach in that very manner.
Contradictory isn't it?
Surely you should live as you teach, talk as you teach, and pray as you teach.
But I do not observe such things among those who teach the triune God.
The name YHWH also appears here to being used by an angel.Genesis 19
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, [b] please! 19 Your [c] servant has found favor in your [d] eyes, and you [e] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared.”
21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar. [f] )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.
The angel YHWH rained down fire from the YHWH in heaven.
Hi All,
I am going to give more than my 2 cents. I'll give you the whole account (with interest).We need to look at all Scripture through the Spirit. We can not interpret anything of ourselves.
With that being said, put yourself in His place. We knoe that Messiah was born of a woman making Him a man. We know that after He was baptized, He was fille with the Set-apart Spirit. We agree on these things.
Scripture does not contradict Himself. Scripture says when Y'shua returned from Gethsamne after being tempred by the Devil 40 days, “He retuned in the FULLNESS of the Spirit.”
Messiah overcame death, in the Spirit by this point. Now His “works” were to die for what He velieved in, and that was to do His Father's will, and not His own.
When Y'shua speaks with the authority of His Father, it is because He can. He is not His Father, but because His Father is in Him, He has righteously claimed the ability to speak as if His Father were Himself. This is the perfection that we should seek.
I pray for your understaning. The Pharisees couldn't see it because they were looking through human eyes. We who see will use our Spiritual insight.
In love for My Father in heaven and His Son, through His Spirit,
LaurelSorry about the mispelled words, I have a band-aid on the tip of my finger.
tempered+tempted
velieved=believedQuote (Laurel @ Oct. 31 2007,06:16) Sorry about the mispelled words, I have a band-aid on the tip of my finger. tempered+tempted
velieved=believed
He he.Good one.
T8 accused me of 'beating a dead horse' in showing the conflicts of the Christian bible. After 895 pages and Christians cannot agree on the nature of their god. And you don't see a problem with your bible?
Trinitarians – viewed as idol worshipers by most (but not all) Hebrew people because the equate Jesus with YHVH
Unitarians – not seen as idol worshipers because they do not worship Jesus
Henotheists – viewed by all Hebrew people as idol worshipers because G-d said to have no other gods.All of the above is supported by what you find in G-d's revelation to the children of Israel, the Tanakh.
How can you all believe these things when they obviously conflict the basis of your religion, Judaism? You might as well throw your 'old testament' away because you don't seem to be reading it.
Towshab You do not understand that all Christian grow at a different space, that is why you have so many different believes.
Peace and Love Mrs.
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 03 2007,00:46) T8 accused me of 'beating a dead horse' in showing the conflicts of the Christian bible. After 895 pages and Christians cannot agree on the nature of their god. And you don't see a problem with your bible? Trinitarians – viewed as idol worshipers by most (but not all) Hebrew people because the equate Jesus with YHVH
Unitarians – not seen as idol worshipers because they do not worship Jesus
Henotheists – viewed by all Hebrew people as idol worshipers because G-d said to have no other gods.All of the above is supported by what you find in G-d's revelation to the children of Israel, the Tanakh.
How can you all believe these things when they obviously conflict the basis of your religion, Judaism? You might as well throw your 'old testament' away because you don't seem to be reading it.
Truthfully, The Holy Bible is not in conflict with itself. When The Bible gets misinterpreted, that's when miscommunication and misunderstanding of God's Word is realized. It isn't The Bible that's flawed it's peoples' misunderstanding of God's nature and word. That's why we have so many different interpretations of it by various people. In essence, we can gain great moral clarity, understanding, and truth, etc. from reading both the New and Old Testaments. Yes it would be useless to “throw away” the Old Testament, it's lessons, morals, and teachings, etc. when it is part of God's word. I can assure you that you don't have to be Jewish to read The Old Testament, just as well as you don't have to be Christian to read The New Testament.
Towshab You come on here and through yourself around like you know it all, and accuse us of all kinds of things. How about you? You disagree with us. I am sorry, but I do not even think you are a good Jew. They do not come here and accuse us of what you do. You are so wrong when saying that we don't read the old Testament. My Husband for one is very involved with the Old Testament. He quotes from it all the time when He posts about Prophecy. I sing out of the Psalms and Charity quotes from Solomon. So think again.
You would be better of showing us a little Love rather then what you do.
Peace and Love Mrs. Quote (IM4Truth @ Nov. 03 2007,07:30) Towshab You come on here and through yourself around like you know it all, and accuse us of all kinds of things. How about you? You disagree with us. I am sorry, but I do not even think you are a good Jew. They do not come here and accuse us of what you do. You are so wrong when saying that we don't read the old Testament. My Husband for one is very involved with the Old Testament. He quotes from it all the time when He posts about Prophecy. I sing out of the Psalms and Charity quotes from Solomon. So think again.
You would be better of showing us a little Love rather then what you do.
Peace and Love Mrs.
Hi Mrs.
The simple truth is that the Jews do not believe that Jesus is our saviour. Never will until God makes them.
Towshab has been telling us why they do not believe.
Personally, I prefer to be informed rather than quiet the messenger. I have no close Jewish friends to ask about these things.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 03 2007,09:53) [/quote]
Hi Mrs.
The simple truth is that the Jews do not believe that Jesus is our saviour. Never will until God makes them.
Towshab has been telling us why they do not believe.
Personally, I prefer to be informed rather than quiet the messenger. I have no close Jewish friends to ask about these things.Tim
Hi TimIm thinking People take things way way to personal, and the replys come out with force, way way to much mix emotions, for one to even begin to hear, what was realy mean't?
It realy is okay to be just were we are, on this day, be what we are before God, resting with faith, that God, he will open our eyes to the changing power of the highest, the truth.Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 03 2007,09:53) Quote (IM4Truth @ Nov. 03 2007,07:30) Towshab You come on here and through yourself around like you know it all, and accuse us of all kinds of things. How about you? You disagree with us. I am sorry, but I do not even think you are a good Jew. They do not come here and accuse us of what you do. You are so wrong when saying that we don't read the old Testament. My Husband for one is very involved with the Old Testament. He quotes from it all the time when He posts about Prophecy. I sing out of the Psalms and Charity quotes from Solomon. So think again.
You would be better of showing us a little Love rather then what you do.
Peace and Love Mrs.
Hi Mrs.
The simple truth is that the Jews do not believe that Jesus is our saviour. Never will until God makes them.
Towshab has been telling us why they do not believe.
Personally, I prefer to be informed rather than quiet the messenger. I have no close Jewish friends to ask about these things.Tim
Hi Tim,With all due respect, you don't need to have Jewish friends to understand why they reject the Messiah. It's all apart of the grand design.
Read Romans chapter 11.
Unless of course you want to listen to the messenger who will tell you not to trust the NT for it is not of God?
Charity,
Also, it is one thing to be passionate about beliefs and theories, it is quite another to deny the one who has bought us with his blood.
To all:
With respect to the Trinity it is espoused the Jesus is not just the Son of God, but God himself. The lord gave us an insight on this issue. If God were to come himself would he represent himself as God, or if God sent someone that he wanted to appear as God would he want us to know it was God or believe that God was present in some manner himself? In the Old Testament, the Bible says in Genesis that the Lord appeared to Abraham and spake to him on numerous occasions. So God visited Abraham representing that he was God. The Lord spoke to Adam and represented that he was the Lord. The Lord appeared in some manner to Noah and told him to build an ark. The point is that if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob wanted us to believe that he was coming to us himself he would have done so as he did throughout the Old Testament. When he sent his Son into the World, he did not go himself, he sent his Son in his name, or in the authority of his Father. When a Son is sent in the name of his Father, the truth conveyed is that he is not the one that sent him, but that he has come on behalf of someone else. When Christ was sent, he came on behalf of his Father, and spoke the words of his Father. The distinction between the Father and the Son is maintained throughout the New Testament, by Christ and the Apostles.
So when a person espouses that the Word that was sent was not actually the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as John the Baptist proclaims and bears record, you can know for certain that he pre-existed. No one was ever sent that did not exist first with the person by whom they were sent. That is the essence of being sent in Judeo history. The birthright is given to the first born. All power is given to the first-born. Christ was identified as the first-born with many sons to follow. Remember, all things were made by “him” and without him was not anything made that was made. He was there in the beginning, but unrevealed until the fullness of times.
It's interesting that when they asked Jesus where he was from, he never mentioned Mary or the whole story of the immaculate conception. He barely gives any recognition to his mother at all. In John, the only two times he refers to her, he calls her woman, not even his mother. The only truth with respect to his origin was that he was from above and was returning to where he was before. It's very clear.
For those who do not believe he was there prior, but only in foreknowledge, where is he returning to, a thought in the mind of God? Is he returning to a non-existent state as the non-pre-existent Son of God?
If that were true then he no longer exists as the Son of God.Incidentally, there are some trinitarians who hold Christ was God, but did not pre-exist as the Son of God, but only as God. So if Christ was God, then they must also hold that Christ, who was returning to where he came from, no longer exists as the Son of God, but only as God. This holding of course is scripturally defective as any person, whether in Christ or not, would see is non-sensical. So Christ had to of pre-existed as the Son of God or what he taught made no sense.
Take care
Steven
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 03 2007,00:46) T8 accused me of 'beating a dead horse' in showing the conflicts of the Christian bible. After 895 pages and Christians cannot agree on the nature of their god. And you don't see a problem with your bible?
Well Towshab. It is not like all who read the Old Testament are in agreement either. There are all kinds of disputes pertaining to the messiah for example.It is inevitable that imperfect man trying to grasp perfection will stumble time and time again.
It is wise to see why and not to throw away the baby with the bath water.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Nov. 03 2007,11:24) To all: With respect to the Trinity it is espoused the Jesus is not just the Son of God, but God himself. The lord gave us an insight on this issue. If God were to come himself would he represent himself as God, or if God sent someone that he wanted to appear as God would he want us to know it was God or believe that God was present in some manner himself? In the Old Testament, the Bible says in Genesis that the Lord appeared to Abraham and spake to him on numerous occasions. So God visited Abraham representing that he was God. The Lord spoke to Adam and represented that he was the Lord. The Lord appeared in some manner to Noah and told him to build an ark. The point is that if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob wanted us to believe that he was coming to us himself he would have done so as he did throughout the Old Testament. When he sent his Son into the World, he did not go himself, he sent his Son in his name, or in the authority of his Father. When a Son is sent in the name of his Father, the truth conveyed is that he is not the one that sent him, but that he has come on behalf of someone else. When Christ was sent, he came on behalf of his Father, and spoke the words of his Father. The distinction between the Father and the Son is maintained throughout the New Testament, by Christ and the Apostles.
So when a person espouses that the Word that was sent was not actually the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as John the Baptist proclaims and bears record, you can know for certain that he pre-existed. No one was ever sent that did not exist first with the person by whom they were sent. That is the essence of being sent in Judeo history. The birthright is given to the first born. All power is given to the first-born. Christ was identified as the first-born with many sons to follow. Remember, all things were made by “him” and without him was not anything made that was made. He was there in the beginning, but unrevealed until the fullness of times.
It's interesting that when they asked Jesus where he was from, he never mentioned Mary or the whole story of the immaculate conception. He barely gives any recognition to his mother at all. In John, the only two times he refers to her, he calls her woman, not even his mother. The only truth with respect to his origin was that he was from above and was returning to where he was before. It's very clear.
For those who do not believe he was there prior, but only in foreknowledge, where is he returning to, a thought in the mind of God? Is he returning to a non-existent state as the non-pre-existent Son of God?
If that were true then he no longer exists as the Son of God.Incidentally, there are some trinitarians who hold Christ was God, but did not pre-exist as the Son of God, but only as God. So if Christ was God, then they must also hold that Christ, who was returning to where he came from, no longer exists as the Son of God, but only as God. This holding of course is scripturally defective as any person, whether in Christ or not, would see is non-sensical. So Christ had to of pre-existed as the Son of God or what he taught made no sense.
Take care
Steven
I believe it is was Jesus all through out the old testament that was seen and heard by the patriarchs and prophets.Speaking through at all time on behalf of his unseen or heard Father as the Word of God.
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 03 2007,12:09) Quote (Mr. Steve @ Nov. 03 2007,11:24) To all: With respect to the Trinity it is espoused the Jesus is not just the Son of God, but God himself. The lord gave us an insight on this issue. If God were to come himself would he represent himself as God, or if God sent someone that he wanted to appear as God would he want us to know it was God or believe that God was present in some manner himself? In the Old Testament, the Bible says in Genesis that the Lord appeared to Abraham and spake to him on numerous occasions. So God visited Abraham representing that he was God. The Lord spoke to Adam and represented that he was the Lord. The Lord appeared in some manner to Noah and told him to build an ark. The point is that if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob wanted us to believe that he was coming to us himself he would have done so as he did throughout the Old Testament. When he sent his Son into the World, he did not go himself, he sent his Son in his name, or in the authority of his Father. When a Son is sent in the name of his Father, the truth conveyed is that he is not the one that sent him, but that he has come on behalf of someone else. When Christ was sent, he came on behalf of his Father, and spoke the words of his Father. The distinction between the Father and the Son is maintained throughout the New Testament, by Christ and the Apostles.
So when a person espouses that the Word that was sent was not actually the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as John the Baptist proclaims and bears record, you can know for certain that he pre-existed. No one was ever sent that did not exist first with the person by whom they were sent. That is the essence of being sent in Judeo history. The birthright is given to the first born. All power is given to the first-born. Christ was identified as the first-born with many sons to follow. Remember, all things were made by “him” and without him was not anything made that was made. He was there in the beginning, but unrevealed until the fullness of times.
It's interesting that when they asked Jesus where he was from, he never mentioned Mary or the whole story of the immaculate conception. He barely gives any recognition to his mother at all. In John, the only two times he refers to her, he calls her woman, not even his mother. The only truth with respect to his origin was that he was from above and was returning to where he was before. It's very clear.
For those who do not believe he was there prior, but only in foreknowledge, where is he returning to, a thought in the mind of God? Is he returning to a non-existent state as the non-pre-existent Son of God?
If that were true then he no longer exists as the Son of God.Incidentally, there are some trinitarians who hold Christ was God, but did not pre-exist as the Son of God, but only as God. So if Christ was God, then they must also hold that Christ, who was returning to where he came from, no longer exists as the Son of God, but only as God. This holding of course is scripturally defective as any person, whether in Christ or not, would see is non-sensical. So Christ had to of pre-existed as the Son of God or what he taught made no sense.
Take care
Steven
I believe it is was Jesus all through out the old testament that was seen and heard by the patriarchs and prophets.Speaking through at all time on behalf of his unseen or heard Father as the Word of God.
after all just who was it that Moses saw?The Father who nobody has ever seen?
or the Angel of the Lord whom Jacob called his God?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
