- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The #4 proof text in the Trinity debate from t8:
This discussion will start with a post from myself, followed by a post from Isaiah. After Isaiah has made his post, other members are free to give feedback on this scripture or the arguments made by myself or Isaiah.
Isaiah can PM me when he is ready to post his rebuttal.
Thanks.
t8
Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.
He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,OK. Let’s look at who was involved in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
God > Jesus the Christ > his angel > John > who then wrote this down for the churches.
So I count 4 identities or beings from God to John.
Clearly God is not Jesus Christ. God can only be the Father, and God is identified later on in Revelation, as the Father.
Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.Now Isaiah believes that Jesus Christ is God, therefore he really sees 3 beings involved by reason of the doctrine that he holds to.
God (one being, who comprises of 3) > his angel, > John.
Now the Book of Revelation is an interesting book, because of all the books in the bible, I think it is the only one to contain this warning:
Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.Now let us see how Isaiah decides to try and disprove that God and Jesus Christ are different identities or beings. Let us watch him add or take away from the words in Revelation 1:1 in order to try and make his Trinity doctrine credible.
Of course I hope that rather than add or take way from the text or what John 1:1 is saying, that he is wise enough to leave that verse and any other verses in Revelation as they were meant to be written and understood.
It’s up to him.
So I count 4 identities or beings from God to John.
Is 1: 18
The argument being extended here is the exact same one used by t8 in his second proof text; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. In that post t8 intimated that because the Father was designated “God” and Jesus was not that was substantive evidence against the proposition that Yeshua is YHWH. To this I replied:
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,21:04) 1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.This proof text is, I think, excellent evidence against modalism but could not be considered a solid refutation of the trinity doctrine. Here is why:1. Although two persons are mentioned in the text (“God the Father” and “Christ”) there is no mention of, or allusion to, their respective ontologies.2. Although one (Christ) is clearly portrayed in a position of submission to the other (God the Father), this is perfectly compatible with trinitarian dogma.So again we have a proof text that has been purported to debunk the trinity doctrine but falls well short of the mark. Okay, I guess I should expand on both of these points:-
In expansion of point #1 I’ll write this:Let’s be clear about this, the requisite evidence to disprove trinitarianism must strike at the foundation of what they believe, which, in a nut shell, is this:
YHWH is plurality within ontological unity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, each sharing the substance/essence/nature that makes God God.
Is there anything in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 text that challenged this statement? If so, I don’t recognise it. Yes, Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, which does appear to invalidate the modalist’s concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage, but it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the trinity. And let’s remember this, we are explicitly told in Phil. 2:6 that the Logos existed (perpetually) in the form (nature) of God, in John 1:1c that the Logos “was God”, and in Heb 1:3 that the Son’s essence/substance (Gr. “hypostasis”) is an exact representation of the Father’s, so on what grounds could it possibly be argued that His very being was inferior? It can’t.
So what of Paul’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Christ” (or “Son” in some MSS – e.g. textus receptus) to designate Yeshua? Well a cursory examination of Paul’s writings will reveal that usually “theos” is used by him in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So Paul’s ascription of theos to the Father in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 passage and “Christos” to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to his explicit affirmation in Titus 2:13), it’s simply Paul’s way of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.
The same counter-argument can be tendered in response to this proof text. The fact is there is no explicit or implicit grammatical evidence of a contrast being drawn between the Father’s or Son’s respective “beings” in the Revelation 1:1 text. And it is this very information that t8 must produce in order to show a disparity in their respective ontologies. Revelation 1:1 does not strike at the foundation of what trinitarians affirm in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Once more t8 has missed the mark.Blessings
The argument being extended here is the exact same one used by t8 in his second proof text; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. In that post t8 intimated that because the Father was designated “God” and Jesus was not that was substantive evidence against the proposition that Yeshua is YHWH. To this I replied:
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,21:04) 1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.This proof text is, I think, excellent evidence against modalism but could not be considered a solid refutation of the trinity doctrine. Here is why:
1. Although two persons are mentioned in the text (“God the Father” and “Christ”) there is no mention of, or allusion to, their respective ontologies.
2. Although one (Christ) is clearly portrayed in a position of submission to the other (God the Father), this is perfectly compatible with trinitarian dogma.
So again we have a proof text that has been purported to debunk the trinity doctrine but falls well short of the mark. Okay, I guess I should expand on both of these points:-
In expansion of point #1 I’ll write this:Let’s be clear about this, the requisite evidence to disprove trinitarianism must strike at the foundation of what they believe, which, in a nut shell, is this:
YHWH is plurality within ontological unity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, each sharing the substance/essence/nature that makes God God.
Is there anything in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 text that challenged this statement? If so, I don’t recognise it. Yes, Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, which does appear to invalidate the modalist’s concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage, but it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the trinity. And let's remember this, we are explicitly told in Phil. 2:6 that the Logos existed (perpetually) in the form (nature) of God, in John 1:1c that the Logos “was God”, and in Heb 1:3 that the Son’s essence/substance (Gr. “hypostasis”) is an exact representation of the Father’s, so on what grounds could it possibly be argued that His very being was inferior? It can’t.
So what of Paul’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Christ” (or “Son” in some MSS – e.g. textus receptus) to designate Yeshua? Well a cursory examination of Paul’s writings will reveal that usually “theos” is used by him in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So Paul’s ascription of theos to the Father in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 passage and “Christos” to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to his explicit affirmation in Titus 2:13), it’s simply Paul’s way of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.
The same counter-argument can be tendered in response to this proof text. The fact is there is no explicit or implicit grammatical evidence of a contrast being drawn between the Father’s or Son's respective “beings” in the Revelation 1:1 text. And it is this very information that t8 must produce in order to show a disparity in their respective ontologies. Revelation 1:1 does not strike at the foundation of what trinitarians affirm in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Once more t8 has missed the mark.Blessings
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:06) The argument being extended here is the exact same one used by t8 in his second proof text; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. In that post t8 intimated that because the Father was designated “God” and Jesus was not that was substantive evidence against the proposition that Yeshua is YHWH. To this I replied: Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,21:04) 1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.This proof text is, I think, excellent evidence against modalism but could not be considered a solid refutation of the trinity doctrine. Here is why:
1. Although two persons are mentioned in the text (“God the Father” and “Christ”) there is no mention of, or allusion to, their respective ontologies.
2. Although one (Christ) is clearly portrayed in a position of submission to the other (God the Father), this is perfectly compatible with trinitarian dogma.
So again we have a proof text that has been purported to debunk the trinity doctrine but falls well short of the mark. Okay, I guess I should expand on both of these points:-
In expansion of point #1 I’ll write this:Let’s be clear about this, the requisite evidence to disprove trinitarianism must strike at the foundation of what they believe, which, in a nut shell, is this:
YHWH is plurality within ontological unity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, each sharing the substance/essence/nature that makes God God.
Is there anything in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 text that challenged this statement? If so, I don’t recognise it. Yes, Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, which does appear to invalidate the modalist’s concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage, but it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the trinity. And let's remember this, we are explicitly told in Phil. 2:6 that the Logos existed (perpetually) in the form (nature) of God, in John 1:1c that the Logos “was God”, and in Heb 1:3 that the Son’s essence/substance (Gr. “hypostasis”) is an exact representation of the Father’s, so on what grounds could it possibly be argued that His very being was inferior? It can’t.
So what of Paul’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Christ” (or “Son” in some MSS – e.g. textus receptus) to designate Yeshua? Well a cursory examination of Paul’s writings will reveal that usually “theos” is used by him in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So Paul’s ascription of theos to the Father in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 passage and “Christos” to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to his explicit affirmation in Titus 2:13), it’s simply Paul’s way of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.
The same counter-argument can be tendered in response to this proof text. The fact is there is no explicit or implicit grammatical evidence of a contrast being drawn between the Father’s or Son's respective “beings” in the Revelation 1:1 text. And it is this very information that t8 must produce in order to show a disparity in their respective ontologies. Revelation 1:1 does not strike at the foundation of what trinitarians affirm in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Once more t8 has missed the mark.Blessings
Isa 1:18True.
The amazing thing is while he accuses you of saying God (theos) is not exclusive of the Father, he himself when it is convenient trys to force a text to mean that it is exclusive of the Father, while at the same time he believes differently.
So when he says…
Quote God > Jesus the Christ > his angel > John > who then wrote this down for the churches. He should also write…
God > a god (Jesus) > a god (his angel) > a god (John) who then wrote this down for the churches.
It can be easily proved that God and Jesus are spoken of as 2, not as the same being.
The vast majority of “theos” (ignoring idols) is the Father. Only in a few instances is theos used of Yeshua, man, and angels.
So if the “theos” of the bible and in Revelation 1:1 is the Father, then why try and change, add or takeaway from that?
Is that not a reckless thing to do?
Here are 100 verses showing that the Father is God and Jesus being someone different to God.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm
So Revelation teaches us that God and Jesus are different identities. Simple to understand and reckless to try and change that truth.
But both Isaiah and WJ try their best to change this fact. This means that they are trying to change the meaning of Revelation 1:1.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,10:44) He should also write… God > a god (Jesus) > a god (his angel) > a god (John) who then wrote this down for the churches.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:50) It can be easily proved that God and Jesus are spoken of as 2, not as the same being. The vast majority of “theos” (ignoring idols) is the Father. Only in a few instances is theos used of Yeshua, man, and angels.
So if the “theos” of the bible and in Revelation 1:1 is the Father, then why try and change, add or takeaway from that?
Is that not a reckless thing to do?
Here are 100 verses showing that the Father is God and Jesus being someone different to God.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm
So Revelation teaches us that God and Jesus are different identities. Simple to understand and reckless to try and change that truth.
But both Isaiah and WJ try their best to change this fact. This means that they are trying to change the meaning of Revelation 1:1.
T8, you're using an argument that should be directed to modalists here. We are not modalists.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:06) The same counter-argument can be tendered in response to this proof text. The fact is there is no explicit or implicit grammatical evidence of a contrast being drawn between the Father’s or Son's respective “beings” in the Revelation 1:1 text. And it is this very information that t8 must produce in order to show a disparity in their respective ontologies. Revelation 1:1 does not strike at the foundation of what trinitarians affirm in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Once more t8 has missed the mark.
In other words you admit that God and Jesus are at least 2 different identities. If you can't admit that, then it does bear some relation to Yeshua's following words:John 8:42
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:56) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:50) It can be easily proved that God and Jesus are spoken of as 2, not as the same being. The vast majority of “theos” (ignoring idols) is the Father. Only in a few instances is theos used of Yeshua, man, and angels.
So if the “theos” of the bible and in Revelation 1:1 is the Father, then why try and change, add or takeaway from that?
Is that not a reckless thing to do?
Here are 100 verses showing that the Father is God and Jesus being someone different to God.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm
So Revelation teaches us that God and Jesus are different identities. Simple to understand and reckless to try and change that truth.
But both Isaiah and WJ try their best to change this fact. This means that they are trying to change the meaning of Revelation 1:1.
T8, you're using an argument that should be directed to modalists here. We are not modalists.
No it is very relevant to those who are deceived by the Trinity doctrine.The God in the bible is the Father. Your God includes the Father but also includes others.
Why would I believe your version of God over the one spoken of in scripture?
Your opinion is not scriptural. Hundreds of verses say that God is the Father. Hundreds of verses speak of Yeshua and God.
Yet you say that Yeshua is God.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:58) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:06) The same counter-argument can be tendered in response to this proof text. The fact is there is no explicit or implicit grammatical evidence of a contrast being drawn between the Father’s or Son's respective “beings” in the Revelation 1:1 text. And it is this very information that t8 must produce in order to show a disparity in their respective ontologies. Revelation 1:1 does not strike at the foundation of what trinitarians affirm in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Once more t8 has missed the mark.
In other words you admit that God and Jesus are at least 2 different identities. If you can't admit that, then it does bear some relation to Yeshua's following words:John 8:42
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
How many times have I told you that I believe Yeshua and the Father to be different persons?When is the penny going to drop for you??
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:50) It can be easily proved that God and Jesus are spoken of as 2, not as the same being. The vast majority of “theos” (ignoring idols) is the Father. Only in a few instances is theos used of Yeshua, man, and angels.
So if the “theos” of the bible and in Revelation 1:1 is the Father, then why try and change, add or takeaway from that?
Is that not a reckless thing to do?
Here are 100 verses showing that the Father is God and Jesus being someone different to God.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm
So Revelation teaches us that God and Jesus are different identities. Simple to understand and reckless to try and change that truth.
But both Isaiah and WJ try their best to change this fact. This means that they are trying to change the meaning of Revelation 1:1.
t8And you try to change the meaning of John 1:1 and Jn 20:28 and 1 Jn 5:20 which John the revelator also wrote.
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The “Word” cannot change!
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.Do you believe Johns words t8? John confirms this here…
1 Jn 5:20 NET
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.This is confirmed who the “Eternal life” is that was with the Father in the first chapter of this epistle…
1 Jn 1:1 NET
This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life –
2 and and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us).
3 What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship7 with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ).So why try and change these scriptures, just to mention a few? Is that not also wreckless?
BTW. You have “Identities” and “Nature” mixed up.
My Father has a different Identity than I do, but we have the same human “Nature”!
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:53) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,10:44) He should also write… God > a god (Jesus) > a god (his angel) > a god (John) who then wrote this down for the churches.
Well as I pointed out to WJ before. There is no “a god” in Greek.
There is just “theos” and it can apply to “theos” in identity or “theos” in quality.So then it is not hard to understand. A person of moderate intelligence would have no problem understanding the uses of “theos”.
In identity the Most High Theos is the Father.
in quality, resemblence, or authority others can be “theos”.
Just as there is a Devil, a Father (of lies) and there can be devils. Or beings with his quality, nature, or under his authority.
It is simply just understanding how a word can be used. The bible uses “theos” to define God as in Revelation 1:1 and in quality in some (not many) in other verses, when not speaking of the Father. This is a fact, and saying that all “theos” is God himself is clearly not true. But that doesn't stop Isaiah and WJ from playing word games.
But believers should be reasonable and able to let scripture teach them, rather than apply an external doctrine and try desperately to make scripture fit it.
t8
You say…
Quote
The God in the bible is the Father. Your God includes the Father but also includes others.And your God does not include other gods?
You put Yeshua in the same class as angels and men.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:53) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,10:44) He should also write… God > a god (Jesus) > a god (his angel) > a god (John) who then wrote this down for the churches.
Well as I pointed out to WJ before. There is no “a god” in Greek.
There is just “theos” and it can apply to “theos” in identity or “theos” in quality.So then it is not hard to understand. A person of moderate intelligence would have no problem understanding the uses of “theos”.
In identity the Most High Theos is the Father.
in quality, resemblence, or authority others can be “theos”.
Just as there is a Devil, a Father (of lies) and there can be devils. Or beings with his quality, nature, or under his authority.
It is simply just understanding how a word can be used. The bible uses “theos” to define God as in Revelation 1:1 and in quality in some (not many) in other verses, when not speaking of the Father. This is a fact, and saying that all “theos” is God himself is clearly not true. But that doesn't stop Isaiah and WJ from playing word games.
But believers should be reasonable and able to let scripture teach them, rather than apply an external doctrine and try desperately to make scripture fit it.
I have a question for you. Are 'identity' and 'nature' mutually inclusive or exclusive? Can I have an answer with you rationale please.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,11:05) And you try to change the meaning of John 1:1
OK.Lets see if this is true.
God (the Father) > Jesus > angel > John.
That is what I say. So where is the error?What do you say it is then?
Trinity > Jesus > angel > John or what?Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:04) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:58) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,10:06) The same counter-argument can be tendered in response to this proof text. The fact is there is no explicit or implicit grammatical evidence of a contrast being drawn between the Father’s or Son's respective “beings” in the Revelation 1:1 text. And it is this very information that t8 must produce in order to show a disparity in their respective ontologies. Revelation 1:1 does not strike at the foundation of what trinitarians affirm in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Once more t8 has missed the mark.
In other words you admit that God and Jesus are at least 2 different identities. If you can't admit that, then it does bear some relation to Yeshua's following words:John 8:42
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
How many times have I told you that I believe Yeshua and the Father to be different persons?When is the penny going to drop for you??
Yes you believe correctly that Yeshua and the Father are different.But what about God and Jesus.
This is the whole point here. You seem to not be able to grasp (or you are just avoiding the issue) that God and Jesus are different.
The bible is full of verses that say God and Jesus. I am not talking about the verses that say the Father and Jesus.
GOD AND JESUS.
What about God and Jesus. Are they different?
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:11) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,11:05) And you try to change the meaning of John 1:1
OK.Lets see if this is true.
God (the Father) > Jesus > angel > John.
That is what I say. So where is the error?What do you say it is then?
Trinity > Jesus > angel > John or what?
I can easily show you the error of this is your stance.
t8No.
It is God the Father > God the Son > angel > man
Just as John 1:1 says The Word was with God and the Word was God.
But it sure isnt…
God > a god (Jesus) > a god (his angel) > a god (John) who then wrote this down for the churches.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:11) I have a question for you. Are 'identity' and 'nature' mutually inclusive or exclusive? Can I have an answer with you rationale please.
I will let you answer your own question.The Devil is the Father (of lies and murder).
Nevertheless he is a father. This being called the Devil is identified as Satan.Now there are also devils. They have the quality of their father. They lie, murder, hate, etc.
Are devils, the actual Devil/Satan?
Quote OK. Lets see if this is true.
God (the Father) > Jesus > angel > John.
That is what I say. So where is the error?What do you say it is then?
Trinity > Jesus > angel > John or what?
You're assuming that the Revelation message was transmitted down an ontological gradient from the highest being in existence (God) to a much lower one (man). But this is a presupposition on your part. I've seen you make the same mistake with 1 Corinthians 11:3. But in this instance the pattern breaks down as woman is said to be in submission to man, yet they are, as to the nature and identity of their beings (human), equivalent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
