- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ July 29 2010,12:57) [Are you fimular with “The Three” Major Feasts of YHVH(out of seven total)?
Sure there are plenty of numbers in the Bible. But that doesn't mean there is some secret Bible code by using a Gemetria System for interpretation does it?Jesus didn't say tarry in Jerusalem until you will recieve the secret Bible code through Gemetria that will lead you into all truth.
He said he would give us the Spirit of Truth which would guide us and lead us into all truth.
Your Gemetria system is flawed as it has already been pointed out to you.
Anybody can make up a bunch of numbers to make them say what ever they want.
God the Father = 117
Made up Bible code = 117Burn in hell = 115
Ed Jay post = 115WJ
Quote (Ed J @ July 29 2010,12:57) God's Name [יהוה] translates DIRECTLY into English as “YHVH”=63
But what does it translate into Spanish or French? Wouldn't the numbers change which means the intire system breaks down
WJ
Hi WJ,
Despite all your bluster there is no trinity found in the mouth of Jesus.
What will he say to you?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2010,06:06) Quote (Ed J @ July 29 2010,12:57) God's Name [יהוה] translates DIRECTLY into English as “YHVH”=63
But what does it translate into Spanish or French? Wouldn't the numbers change which means the intire system breaks downWJ
Hi WJ,Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them (In The AKJV Bible) from this generation for ever.
Isaiah 28:11: For with stammering lips and another tongue(That is English) will he speak to this people.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Nick Hassan @ July 30 2010,08:16) Hi ED,
You interpretations are additions to those pure words.
Desist for your sake.
Hi Nick,Does me expressing my view for clarity upset you?
Would you consider notes in someones bible a problem?
Where do you draw the line? Is it wrong to underline words?
What would you consider added Bible verse references to my Bible?
Acts 5:29 …We (all) ought to obey God rather than men. (Mathew 7:1-5)Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi EDE,
Clarity cannot come by man's additions and personal interpretations.
Let flesh be silent and let God speak
Scripture is spiritual.All Trinitarians I will ask you two questions.
Is Jesus good?
Is Jesus God?
One verse from Jesus' own mouth tells us the answer
18 ¶ A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
In Luke 18:19 Jesus tells us He is NOT good and that only God alone is good. If He is not that means Jesus is NOT God.Quote (uoflfan @ Aug. 07 2010,22:26) All Trinitarians I will ask you two questions.
Is Jesus good?
Is Jesus God?
One verse from Jesus' own mouth tells us the answer
18 ¶ A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
In Luke 18:19 Jesus tells us He is NOT good and that only God alone is good. If He is not that means Jesus is NOT God.
Greetings,Mat 15:9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES (Trinity) THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'”
God exalted Jesus.
God gave Jesus all authority.
Jesus died.
Jesus is SON of God. Cannot be God whom he comes from. Son comes into existence in time AFTER his parents. Son cannot be Father…physically impossible.
Thousands of verses repeatedly say how Jesus is NOT God.
One verse from one confused person who “may have said” that Jesus was “God” (but highly unlikely and translated that way to deceive people). This same person didn't even believe that Jesus rose from the dead regardless of dozens of people witnessing that fact and Jesus foretelling that it was going to happen.
To those people who are going to let themselves “be deceived” in lieu of years of being presented the truth from the Bible, who are they following? The Father of lies.
They have the facts: knowledge, but they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,,,,Rom 1:25
John 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Jhn 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come “from God” (I am not God but I come FROM God-added), for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He “sent” Me.
Jhn 8:43 “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
Jhn 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
To the novice the Trinity (making Jesus to be “GOD” the Son; and not the son of God) may be “harmless” at first sight but to those that have been studying the Scriptures for years and change what is written to accomodate the doctrine of men, they will have to answer to God for changing His words.
Jhn 8:47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
Jhn 8:54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father (and God-added) who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God';
Jhn 9:4 “We must work the works of Him (God) who “sent” Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work.
Jhn 9:5 “While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.”
Jhn 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
The Professor
Keith,
Quote The Eternal Sonship of Christ Some Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, J. Oliver Buswell, and the late Walter Martin, have been abandoning the Trinitarian faith as defined by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Their abandonment of orthodox Trinitarianism consists in denying the eternal Sonship of Christ, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity. Instead, they claim that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. Apart from the incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the second Person.
This teaching destroys the internal relationships within the Trinity, because if the Son was not eternally begotten by the Father then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. It also destroys the Fatherhood of the first person, since without a Son there is no Father. Thus the fundamental familial relations among the persons of the Godhead are destroyed and replaced by mere social relationships, a bare existence of three persons in the Godhead. Prior to the incarnation, there is no longer the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but simply Number One, Number Two, and Number Three—the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation.
The Church Fathers who wrote the creeds had a different view. They recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.
The same truth is taught under a different analogy in John 1:1,14 where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly,
a Son proceeds from his Father. Under both analogies, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity.Of special interest among the following passages are those in which the early Christians wrote of God as Father prior to the incarnation. Such passages imply the role of the second person as Son before the incarnation, since as we have noted, without a Son there is no Father.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.aspAs posted in another thread, John MacArthur has changed his position on eternal Sonship.
Keith, is this your belief or not:
“Instead, they claim that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. Apart from the incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the second Person.”If that is your belief, this article says that you have abandoned orthodox Trinitarianism.
Question: If we will be like Jesus and he calls us brothers, then does that support Jesus being the son of God or God?
Answer: Son of God.Because if we are to be like God and God calls us brother, then we are too God.
But if he is the son, then we are sons, and we will be his brother.Just another clear indicator that Jesus is the son of God and not one member of a Trinity God.
Hopefully this will be well received.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 17 2011,16:46) Question: If we will be like Jesus and he calls us brothers, then does that support Jesus being the son of God or God?
Answer: Son of God.Because if we are to be like God and God calls us brother, then we are too God.
But if he is the son, then we are sons, and we will be his brother.Just another clear indicator that Jesus is the son of God and not one member of a Trinity God.
Hopefully this will be well received.
t8Being a brother to Jesus is linked to his humanity because he came in the flesh.
So the question is back to you.
“Before Jesus came in the flesh was he a brother to humanity?“
In the Kingdom of God there are no brothers or sisters are there t8?
Is there gender in heaven, or will we be like the Angels?
So in other words Jesus becoming a brother to humanity has no bearing on him being the Son of God since the Son of God does not have to be human right?
Burn that straw man down. t8 I am amazed at this last lame attempt you made, it seems below you.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 11 2010,20:16) Keith, Quote The Eternal Sonship of Christ Some Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, J. Oliver Buswell, and the late Walter Martin, have been abandoning the Trinitarian faith as defined by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Their abandonment of orthodox Trinitarianism consists in denying the eternal Sonship of Christ, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity. Instead, they claim that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. Apart from the incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the second Person.
This teaching destroys the internal relationships within the Trinity, because if the Son was not eternally begotten by the Father then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. It also destroys the Fatherhood of the first person, since without a Son there is no Father. Thus the fundamental familial relations among the persons of the Godhead are destroyed and replaced by mere social relationships, a bare existence of three persons in the Godhead. Prior to the incarnation, there is no longer the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but simply Number One, Number Two, and Number Three—the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation.
The Church Fathers who wrote the creeds had a different view. They recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.
The same truth is taught under a different analogy in John 1:1,14 where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly,
a Son proceeds from his Father. Under both analogies, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity.Of special interest among the following passages are those in which the early Christians wrote of God as Father prior to the incarnation. Such passages imply the role of the second person as Son before the incarnation, since as we have noted, without a Son there is no Father.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.aspAs posted in another thread, John MacArthur has changed his position on eternal Sonship.
Keith, is this your belief or not:
“Instead, they claim that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. Apart from the incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the second Person.”If that is your belief, this article says that you have abandoned orthodox Trinitarianism.
Hi KathiI didn't see this.
I believe in the eternal Sonship of Christ, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity.
The Father is eternal, likewise the Son and the Holy Spirit is eternal.
WJ
WJ…………….Jesus did not exist before he was born in the flesh except in the forknowledge of GOD as spoken of in Genesis. Just that simple WJ.
peace and love………………………………………gene
I have tried to read through your information and to be totally honest, it is extremely confusing. If the coming of Jesus and the New Testament was intended to provide a sincere, simple, honest acceptance of him as the Savior of the World; we should accept it as that.
1. If a simple sinner that desires to be saved has to acquire years of study and intense seperation of time lines, books of the Bible that are OK, books of the Bible that were intended for certain groups, books of the Bible that were altered by others (Catholics as you say), dear God man…..we should have just stayed in the Old Testament.
2. I have even heard some directives from the Oneness perspective that the book of Romans was only intended for the Romans. Then what is it doing in the Bible if it has no revelance to modern day Christians? If we say we are New Testament Christians, we can't pick and pluck from the New Testament what we want and don't want. If it is specifically directed at them; I don't think any Romans of that time period are alive today. Romans 10:9 says in paraphrase that if we confess with our mouth Jesus Christ and believe that GOD has raised him up from the dead, then we'll be saved. It is either fact or lie. If it is lie; then the whole Bible is a messed up piece of political posturing!!!!!!….:)1. Lucky Romans, I guess they were the only ones in the Bible that was given special priviledge to be saved by speaking the words in Romans 10:9….and they didn't even have to get wet by being baptized!….That would most definitely be respect of persons which is a plainly stated sin in James. Furthermore; if it was to the Romans only, what's it doing in the New Testament. Romans would not have any revelance to current day New Testament Christians.
2. Who was Jesus praying to in the Garden before going to the cross?……..Hisself?……Don't think so. That would have been just down right dumb.
3. The thief on the cross wasn't baptized and Jesus told him that he would be in paradise with him that very day!
4. Who was Jesus talking to when he said Father, let this cup pass from me…while on the cross? Hisself again…? He is starting to have a problem with talking to himself I guess?
5. Hypothetically; what happens to a military man in war that's been shot bleeding to death and asks for forgiveness? Same situation as the thief on the cross……..no water around to be baptized?
6. If it takes years of study to “rightly divide the Word of God”….(Since apparently I am a novice at it and can't properly seperate all of the time lines, directives, etc. to be saved)…….my perception of a little child in Mark is out the window?
7. You know…then there's the voice from Heaven when Jesus was baptized scripture…. for God so loved the world that he gave HIS ONLY begotten son scripture…and dozens and dozens more. Is this a Catholic conspiracy too? Why didn't Martin Luther change it back during the Reformation when he had the chance if it was wrong? He definitely wasn't a Catholic cronie because he dispised their political directives and man made implementations of scripture to fit their wants.
8…..and what about Stephen when he was stoned in the Bible…he said he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the father?
?????????????
9. Come on man…..you got to dumb this thing down!!!!! You are going to have it so complicated with Fathers, God, Jesus, Word, God, Father, etc. that you are going to impact a person wanting what you have!! When you tell them that they may have to study for the next few years to get everything in place scripturally; they are going to run out of the room screaming!
10. Just so you know, I was raised Trinity Fire Baptized Holiness which is even today much much stricter in their lifestyle than Oneness people are today. So we are both on the same plain, we just have a different view of Oneness or Trinity.
11. Furthermore; if the Bible is full of political altercations as you seem to imply bringing Catholics into the mix, then it is no better than the Koran or the Torah. Both of those had man made additions for Islam and Jewish beliefs. That would make it faluable!!…..and not infaluable!!!……..in other words, we have as big a mess to read as they do if you are going to take that position.I do believe that they operate as a One Family unit, but they are 3 spiritual individuals. If they wasn't; why would it be a unpardonable sin to blaspheme the Holy Ghost if he was the same person as Jesus? Jesus even said you could talk about him in paraphrase; but don't talk against the Holy Ghost. Come on man……did you struggle with Crayola Crayons when you were small distinguishing between a Red Crayon and a Blue. Did you struggle in math?
……and…….Jesus just should have stayed down here when he said that he must go away so the Comforter would come? DUUUHHH!!! With your perspective; he left the earth, changed spiritual clothes, and come right back down here as a spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Now I ask you; if he come right back down here as you say it is just ONE; then who was building Heaven for us to go to? Remember, he said he went to prepare us a place so we could be there also. How could he carry on 2 simultaneous efforts if it is only ONE?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
