- This topic has 579 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hi LU,
You:
Do you have any simpler way to explain the unity of the Father and the Son? If so, I would love to read it.
Me
I don’t have much time at the moment, but what I can say is that Jesus is ONE WITH THE FATHER (I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE) and this has always been and the most wonderful thing is that Jesus by his faith in his Father (being in the flesh) did not break this blessed UNITY with HIM although he was tempted in every way as we are.
To be continued
God protect us
Hi Kathi. I’ve been trying like heck to get these two questions answered for weeks, to no avail. Please answer them directly and honestly now. The red arrow identifies the start of the first question, and the green arrow identifies the start of the second one…
I’m working a 14 hour day tomorrow (Saturday), but will devote Sunday to addressing your most recent posts. Hopefully I’ll log on Sunday to see that you’ve actually ANSWERED those two questions I’ve been asking for quite a while now.
Mike,
First question:
Yes.
Second question:
Yes, if the angel is also “the Word” that was with God in the beginning.
Mike,
You said:
The English word “angel” refers to a messenger who is also a supernatural spirit son of God. Jesus is exactly that. It’s just that in the Bible, they are called “messengers” and “gods” – not ever “angels”.
Not so…
Strong’s Concordance
aggelos: an angel, messenger
Original Word: ἄγγελος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aggelos
Phonetic Spelling: (ang’-el-os)
Definition: a messenger, angel
Usage: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men.HELPS Word-studies
32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.32 (ággelos) is used 176 times in the NT (usually of heavenly angels), but only the context determines whether a human or celestial messenger is intended. For example, 32 (ággelos) in Rev 1:20 can refer to heavenly angels or key leaders (perhaps pastors) of the seven churches.
[32 (ággelos) can refer to “a human messenger” (cf. John the Baptist, Mt 11:10, quoting Mal 3:1; see also Lk 7:24, 9:52). 32 /ággelos (plural, angeloi) refers to heavenly angels over 150 times in the NT, i.e. spiritual beings created by God to serve His plan.
In Rev 2, 3, “angels” seems to refer to heavenly angels that serve God in conjunction with these seven local churches.
(Rev 2:1) – “Probably ‘the angels of the churches’ (Rev 1:20, 2:1, etc.) – i.e. really angels, and not pastors” (DNTT, Vol 1, 103).]
Mike: Exodus 23:20-22… Behold, I am sending an angel before you… Pay attention to him….since My Name is in him… If you will listen carefully to his voice and do everything I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies…
Kathi, do you think the word “name” in this passage refers to God’s literal name?
LU: Yes
Mike: Does this passage (especially the part where it is the angel’s voice, but God saying stuff) mean this angel of God is also a part of the “Yahweh Unity”?
LU: Yes, if the angel is also “the Word” that was with God in the beginning.
So now we have to break off into two versions of the same questions. First, let’s assume that the angel is NOT the Word. Let’s assume it was Michael instead.
In that case, your understanding and answer to the first question means that Yahweh’s literal name was in Michael. Would Michael sharing the name “Yahweh” with his Father and God mean that Michael is in the “Yahweh Unity”? If not, why not?
And would these words… “If you will listen carefully to his voice and do everything I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies…” also mean that Michael was in the “Yahweh Unity”? If not, why not?
In the other version, where the angel of Yahweh is “the Word that was with God in the beginning”… are you acknowledging the scriptural fact that Jesus is one of Yahweh’s/God’s many angels?
Mike: The English word “angel” refers to a messenger who is also a supernatural spirit son of God. Jesus is exactly that. It’s just that in the Bible, they are called “messengers” and “gods” – not ever “angels”.
LU: Not so…
Strong’s Concordance
aggelos: an angel, messenger
Original Word: ἄγγελος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aggelos
Phonetic Spelling: (ang’-el-os)
Definition: a messenger, angel
Usage: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men.HELPS Word-studies
32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.32 (ággelos) is used 176 times in the NT (usually of heavenly angels), but only the context determines whether a human or celestial messenger is intended. For example, 32 (ággelos) in Rev 1:20 can refer to heavenly angels or key leaders (perhaps pastors) of the seven churches.
[32 (ággelos) can refer to “a human messenger” (cf. John the Baptist, Mt 11:10, quoting Mal 3:1; see also Lk 7:24, 9:52). 32 /ággelos (plural, angeloi) refers to heavenly angels over 150 times in the NT, i.e. spiritual beings created by God to serve His plan.
In Rev 2, 3, “angels” seems to refer to heavenly angels that serve God in conjunction with these seven local churches.
(Rev 2:1) – “Probably ‘the angels of the churches’ (Rev 1:20, 2:1, etc.) – i.e. really angels, and not pastors” (DNTT, Vol 1, 103).]
Please explain your “Not so” comment. What are you seeing in your copy/paste that refutes what I have said? I have highlighted some parts of it that say exactly what I’ve said on HN for a decade, ie: Both the Hebrew word “malak” and the Greek word “aggelos” mean messenger. Nothing more, nothing less. When translators think that the messenger in question is a spirit entity, they use the English word “angel”. But the word “aggelos” (and malak) still simply mean “messenger”.
So please explain what YOU think that info means, and why it merits a “Not so”. Thanks.
LU: The Son of God can very well be a member of a unity that consists of a Father and a Son. That Son can also be a servant to that unity.
Maybe in Bizarro World, but not in the real world. If the definition of “God” is “Unity of Father and Son”, then a son or servant OF that Unity cannot possibly also be a member of it.
LU: If a YHVH God is both Father and Son in unity then they are not different gods, they are both the YHWH God.
This is the point I’m making above. If YHWH God is defined as “both Father and Son in unity”, then any son OF “both Father and Son in unity” must be someone OTHER THAN “both Father and Son in unity”.
Maybe this will help…
Kathi, if “God” IS a unity of Osiris, Horus, and Isis, then one could not logically or rightfully say that Horus is a son OF “God” – since Horus is PART of “God”. Horus could not possibly be the son OF Osiris/Isis/Horus. He cannot be HIS OWN son, Kathi. Nor could he be the son of a unity which contains him as one of the members.
Can you really not understand this? Please answer the following directly and honestly…
Assuming that the one true God is a trinity of Osiris, Horus, and Isis, could Isis be the daughter OF the one true God? Yes or No?
Could Horus be the son OF the one true God? Yes or No?
Could Osiris be the son OF the one true God? Yes or No?
LU: No, I believe that their god is their belly and their belly is their god.
Then you certainly also know that you can’t define the word “god” AS “belly” in that verse. If the MEANING of “god” is “belly”, then the statement reads, “their BELLY is their BELLY”.
Please try again. Give me the definition of the word “god” in that verse.
Maybe these will help…
Jesus is Kathi’s god. Kathi, please DEFINE the word “god” in that statement. What does the word “god” actually mean? (Note: It can’t actually MEAN “Jesus” – or the statement becomes “Jesus is Kathi’s Jesus”. Understand?)
Psalm 8:5… You made him a little lower than the gods, and crowned him with glory and honor.…
Kathi, please DEFINE the word “gods” in the above verse. What does the word “gods” actually mean?
Mike: So your argument that Jesus came to earth to say, “Hey, btw, your God’s name is Yahweh” is ridiculous.
LU: That is not my argument.
Since you have claimed that the statement, “I have made your name known” means that Jesus taught God’s literal personal name to people who already knew it, then that is indeed your argument. And it is indeed a ridiculous one.
LU: Jesus is saying that the God, that is the God of Israel, that specific God who’s name is YHVH, is His biological Father, He is YHVH’s only begotten Son and that His Father gave Him His name, YHVH.
Jesus never said ANY of those things you’ve claimed he said in the entirety of scripture, Kathi. Nor does any of that have to do with what we WERE discussing – which is whether or not Jesus meant God’s LITERAL PERSONAL NAME when he said, “I have made your name known”, and whether or not there is any evidence in the NT that Jesus did indeed go around telling people who already knew God’s name, “Btw, God’s name is Yahweh”.
Kathi, are you familiar with this highlighted definition of name…
Kathi, is it even remotely possible that when Jesus said, “I have made your name known”, he was using this highlighted definition? After all, we’re told as much in scripture…
John 1:18… No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known.
Another way of saying that last part its, “he has made His name known” (ie: His reputation, character, repute, standing, stature, honor, etc).
Of course it’s either that… or YOUR understanding that Jesus told a bunch of Jews who already knew God’s name what God’s name was. Which makes more sense?
Mike: Does the fact that Yahweh (in Deut 10:17) and Jesus (in Rev 17:14) are both called the Lord of lords NECESSARILY mean that they are part of some “Unity Entity” comprised of two persons? Yes or No?
LU: No
There you have it. Your doctrine is largely based on the fact that both Jesus and God (and a bunch of other people throughout history) happen to be lords of other lords – and your BIAS towards your own made-up doctrine that you want so badly to be true prompts you to take this innocuous scriptural fact and FORCE it into teaching something that it doesn’t even clearly teach.
Thanks for your honest and direct answer. 👍
LU: Mike,
Who is El Elyon or El Shaddai ?
Shaddai, from https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-words/meaning-of-el-shaddai.htm …
The Hebrew word שדי (shaddai) also has the meaning of a “teat.” Just as the goat provides nourishment to its kids through the milk, God nourishes his children through his milk and provides all the necessities of life. This imagery can be seen in the following passage:
“And I will come down to snatch them [Israel] from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up from that land to a good and wide land to a land flowing with milk and honey.” Exodus 3:8
The word שדי (teat) is often coupled with the word אל (mighty, strong) creating the phrase אל שדי (el shaddai) literally meaning the “mighty teat,” hence we can see the translator’s reluctance to literally translate this phrase in this manner and instead using the more sanitized “God Almighty.”
Elyon, from https://israelmyglory.org/article/el-elyon-the-most-high-god/ …
The name El Elyon is translated in the Bible, “the most high God” (Gen. 14:18, 20, 22). “El” is a shortened form of Elohim and speaks of God’s strength. Elyon is like the superlative of “El” and could be translated “strongest.” El Elyon, therefore, is the strongest strong One, or “the most high God.”
LU: Can YOU call Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God?
Yes, but I might now be speaking in past tense if I do so. (Others may have been begotten by God since Jesus was begotten by God when he was raised from the dead.) Consider…
John 1:12-13… But to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children begotten not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but begotten of God.
All of us were given the right to become begotten children of God, and some may have already become such. But at the time Jesus was raised from the dead, he was literally the ONLY begotten Son of God at that time – as far as I can tell.
LU: Can You call Jesus your Savior?
Absolutely. He is one of many saviors that God has sent to His people, and the only savior whose actions directly effect me personally – as far as I know. (For example, God may have sent other saviors who have acted to steer me clear of danger off and on throughout my lifetime.) But Jesus is certainly the savior that God sent on behalf of mankind as a whole – to give them the opportunity to avoid certain second death.
Mike: Can YOU call Michael your God and Savior, Kathi?
LU: Does anyone in the Bible call Michael their God and Savior?
Nobody in the Bible calls Jesus their God and Savior either. Michael and Jesus are both saviors whom God sent to save His people. And as spirit beings, they are both gods. So why wouldn’t you call Michael what you are willing to call Jesus – when they are both gods and both saviors of God’s people?
I saved the best for last…
LU: For example…in this passage Jesus kept talking about “my Father” this and “My Father” that, referring to God, and the surrounding Jews basically thought that by calling YHVH as your very own biological father, you are making yourself out to be a begotten god.
33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
Kathi, are you saying that you recognize “God” in John 10:33 as a faulty translation, and that it should be translated as “a god”? 🙏🙏🙏
Mike,
To sum up all your posts today, you don’t believe that the only begotten God, Jesus, shares the name of YHVH. I do. That very point is blinding you to the gospel of God. In that way, the God of this age (Peter’s righteous God and Savior, Jesus Christ) has blinded you. This is not so different to the light came into the world and some preferred the darkness rather than the light. Imo, it is your hard heart that keeps you on your side of the fence.
The fact that you do not accept “El” as one of the literal names of God, shows this.
The fact that you compare Jesus’ “Kingship” with Neb et al., shows this. I don’t believe Neb was called “The Lord of lords” btw.
The fact that you think that since Jerusalem is called “YHVH is our righteousness” supposedly means that Jesus isn’t different than a city or that the city isn’t named after Jesus as YHVH our Righteousness, shows this.
The fact that you claim that the word translated as “angel” really means messenger and cannot be properly translated as angel, shows this. You make room for it to mean “god”??
So I realize that I am having a conversation with a cement wall here, I realize the chances of getting through to that cement wall are nill apart from you softening your heart, I find some value in your questions and that is why I bother with your questions. I am selective with the questions because I sift through the ridiculous to get to a question or concept that I could develop my understanding in. So in that way, I am grateful for you.
As to this comment from you:
This is the point I’m making above. If YHWH God is defined as “both Father and Son in unity”, then any son OF “both Father and Son in unity” must be someone OTHER THAN “both Father and Son in unity”.
If I say the FULLNESS of YHVH God is both Father and Son in Unity and each member of this unity shares the name YHVH because the character of YHVH is reflected in both not to mention that the Father gave His name YHVH to His Son. Maybe that will help you understand what I am saying better.
I realize these concepts about name can be complicated. For example, the name “Adam.” It can be a literal name of a person or it can be a general name of a type of person. El is a literal name or a general name.
This concept is also complicated…There is one spirit, yet in a certain sense, there are many. Or, there is one church, yet in a certain sense, there are many. There is one God, yet in a certain sense, there area many gods. There is one Lord, yet in a certain sense, there are many lords.
If you can accept that the head of Christ is God and that Jesus is our righteous God and Savior who is the head of the church, you can begin to stop coming against the ONE who also believes this and learn what the true Gospel of God is.
Jesus, the only biological son, i.e. the only begotten God, of the unbegotten God,
whom all created things were made through
and also bears the name of His Father, YHVH,
willingly came from the glory that He shared with His Father who sent Him,
to become a bondslave man in order to redeem man from their sins through the shedding of His innocent blood on a cross,
providing the ultimate sacrifice so that
all men could come into an eternal relationship with His Father and Himself through their Holy Spirit
and live with Them forever instead of being destroyed by death.
“For God (the Unbegotten God) so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son (the Only Begotten God), that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
That LIGHT is available to all. The Bible tells us that the true light can come into the world including this message board and still some will choose their darkness. You are an example of that person who chooses darkness, imo. You do not accept that Jesus is the only begotten biological child of God, begotten before the ages, when in fact, Jesus holds all authority over heaven and on earth in this age, including satan. You easily have given satan the title of “the god of this age.”
LU
Hi Kathi. I just read every word of your novel, and wanted to point something out. Here are a couple snippets of things Proclaimer has said recently…
Proclaimer: Take gadam for example. He has come to the conclusion that the Bible is myth and Mike just adds more myth and gadam eats it up. They bounce off each other but the sad part is Mike is helping gadam to lose his soul because he is providing the ammunition that gadam needs in order to reject the Bible and it’s central message. Very sad.
Proclaimer: To some degree I was persecuted by Trinitarians at a church I use to attend. These ignorant men love their own tradition and philosophy, even more than the truth too. They refuse correction when they are wrong. Possessed by a spirit of disobedience because they love other things more than the truth.
Do you recognize these kinds of statements, Kathi? They are called ad hominems (“at the man” instead of at the argument you are supposed to be refuting). Socrates wrote: When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Sadly, this is often the case, and I’ve dealt with it for many years. I make what I believe are good, strong, rational, scripturally backed arguments that stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately, when certain people realize that they can’t actually refute the arguments themselves, they attack me personally instead.
Proclaimer says I’m helping Adam lose his soul. You say I’m an example of a person who chooses darkness over light, that I am a cement wall with a hardened heart, and that I make ridiculous arguments.
Can you see the similarities? I recognize your and Proclaimer’s statements for what they are (acknowledgements of defeat), and so I rejoice when I read them. Perhaps you could just address the many points I made (which are all in response to things YOU claimed in the first place)? Or slander me personally. Either way, my arguments still remain unrefuted – which means your doctrine still remains untenable and unscriptural.
Now I will go through you novel and address a few particular things you said. But first, one simple question that should lay it all out in the open for all to see…
1. Kathi, who exactly is the “God” that you worship and serve as the Creator of heaven, earth, sea, and all that is in them?
1. KATHI, WHO EXACTLY IS THE “GOD” THAT YOU WORSHIP AND SERVE AS THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN, EARTH, SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM?
YAHWEH, THE GOD OF GODS AND THE LORD OF LORDS.Mike, who exactly do you think is the theos of this age that blinds the mind of the unbelievers?
LU: …you don’t believe that the only begotten God, Jesus, shares the name of YHVH. I do. That very point is blinding you to the gospel of God.
Does anyone in the NT call Jesus “Yahweh”? Since not, are Jesus’ apostles who wrote the NT also blinded to the gospel? (They do, however, call him the servant OF the God who created all things, right? Do YOU call him that, Kathi?)
LU: In that way, the God of this age (Peter’s righteous God and Savior, Jesus Christ) has blinded you.
The god in 2 Cor 4:4 is Satan… and Peter doesn’t call Jesus “God and Savior” in the Bible.
LU: The fact that you do not accept “El” as one of the literal names of God, shows this.
El is the singular Hebrew term for god… ANY god. It is not a formal name. It can be used AS a formal name (such as calling Biden “the President”), but as with the word “president”, it is NOT a formal name.
LU: The fact that you claim that the word translated as “angel” really means messenger and cannot be properly translated as angel, shows this. You make room for it to mean “god”??
Correction… I claim that BOTH words (Hebrew “malak” and Greek “aggelos”) literally mean messenger – and nothing else. I have never claimed that either of those two words mean “god”. What I have helped the scriptures themselves teach you is that spirit sons of God, all throughout the Bible, are called gods because they are gods.
Your own copy/paste highlighted the fact that “aggelos” literally means messenger, and based on context, it is translated into English as “angel” when the messenger in question is thought to be from heaven. Go look up a few verses in Young’s Literal Translation. He stays true to the actual meaning of “malak” and “aggelos” throughout. (Start with Hebrews 1 in the YLT. It’ll open your eyes a little.)
At any rate, the above is what I claim. Can you REFUTE what I claim? If so, do so.
LU: I say the FULLNESS of YHVH God is both Father and Son in Unity…
Good, let that be your answer to my question in the last post then.
LU: Jesus, the only biological son, i.e. the only begotten God, of the unbegotten God…
No scripture ever mentions “biological son” in reference to Jesus and God. And as I’ve pointed out many times (one of my arguments that you haven’t been able to rationally address), if there is ONE begotten God AND ONE unbegotten God, it adds up to TWO Gods! There is NO way around this simple fact – no matter how many times you define and redefine your understanding of “The Yahweh Unity”.
Mike,
You asked:
Can you see the similarities?
I see two people here that have given you a lot of their time trying to help you and we are both telling you similar things. Maybe you should ask YHVH if there is any truth to it instead of just dismissing it.
Today the pastor was sharing about how he was planning on doing something in ministry years ago and had 6 pastors independently counsel him to not do it. He did it anyway and realizes that he should have listened to them.
If you are wrong about the flat earth, then Mike, you are definitely misleading people because you are hell bent on preaching a flat earth. If you are wrong about Jesus being a created being, then you are definitely misleading people because you are also hell bent on preaching a created Jesus. So, from my point of view, you are misleading or attempting to mislead anyone you can cunningly convince or at least plant doubt in. You parade yourself as one who cleverly devises questions which expose the beliefs of others but I think you are the one being exposed as the puppet of the master deceiver. It isn’t even hard for him. You are an easy puppet, you play your part well and are very predictable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
