t8

You said: And given that other translations translate it simply as ‘lord’, then this is a fail.

You need to dig a little deeper. We know that many translations translate the name YHWH as LORD but that doesn’t mean He is not Jehovah does it.

Anyway, you post greek interlinear passages when I posted a translation that is not from a Greek man…[Read more]

Mike,

You said:

Okay, let’s go even slower then… There couldn’t be a “their” in the original cell unless there were already two individual sentient persons. So is that your claim?

The original one had within itself the potential to become both a father and a son, their substance was within the original one before it went through the begetting process.

Hi Carmel,

Maybe you’re joking but in case you are serious, the human mother has within her an eggs that someday will possibly become person/persons. Until it is fertilized, that egg is not a person because persons have 46 chromosomes but an egg only has 23. The egg requires the other 23 chromosomes to come from a sperm. Biology 101 🙂

Mike,

You said:

But wait… according to the scriptures I just posted, the “Jehovah” who is eternal (no origins) is the “Jehovah” who created the whole world. So according to your theory, that couldn’t have been either the Father OR the Son – since you say they both have origins. Kathi, your scenario begins with one God who is eternal, and…

[Read more]

Mike,

I appreciate the discussion. I am intending on sticking with you till you see what I am trying to say because I believe it is really important and worthy the focus.

Mike, you said: But you say Jesus didn’t have an origin, don’t you?  Micah 5:2 says he did.  Please reconcile.

The One who became a giver and a receiver of the eternal subst…[Read more]

Mike,

The Father’s origin began at the same moment the Son’s origin began. Their substance eternally existed before the One became a father and a son.

Mike,

That verse in Micah 5:2 does nothing to challenge the origin in regards to relationship of father/son from eternity but enforces it.

Gene,

What specific “if” are you wanting scriptural proof for?

Berean,

The first and last part of Hebrews 1 is not in reference to the Son according to the flesh, that is correct. However, there is a part of Hebrews 1 that is according to the flesh as the Son of David when the Son receives his rule on the eternal throne promised to the son of David. The Son receives his kingdom rule when he was begotten from…[Read more]

Mike,

Suffice it to say that you missed the cell analogy point. It was not to say that God is a cell, it was to show what asexual reproduction looks like and how One is expressed as two and the two are together the fullness of the one regarding their substance.

Now that you “maybe” realize this, build your case as to your claim that the Son…[Read more]

Hi again Berean,

You said: And the Son heard these wonderful words from the Father:
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, I will be a Father for you, and you will be to me a Son?

That was told to the Son by the Father on the day of the resurrection, when the Son became the firstborn from the dead. Of course we know he was a son before…[Read more]

Both persons, Adam and Jesus had no sin at the onset.

They were both given a commandment/commandments to obey.

Adam disobeyed and brought death, Jesus obeyed and brought eternal life.

1 Cor 15:45

So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Hi Berean,

You said: But the life of a human being really begins when he comes out of his mother’s womb … and we start counting his days from there, isn’t it;

Can a human be born alive from within that has not already existed alive within? If not, then a human being really begins when it is is conceived. We start counting the days from the point…[Read more]

Mike,

Asexual reproduction is not a creation of something different, it is the reproduction of something the same.

I agree that the relationship was created in a sense, but not the substance. What that means is the Father relationship was created just as much as the Son’s relationship was. Before the process of begetting, there was no father,…[Read more]

Jodi,

You said: Lamsa added it in based upon his own theology…

I think you need to dig a little deeper than that.

Again, look at this and you will see that there is sufficient reason to translate the original word in the Syriac text as “Lord Jehovah.” I know that it is a direct hit to your doctrine and hard to accept but you would do well to p…[Read more]

Hello Davo,

Welcome to HN. Regarding the above post, you are spot on and a refreshing breeze here!

You said:

Jesus said “I am the root and the offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16) (Isaiah 11:1). How could the person who is Jesus the man, born in time be the root from which David sprang if he did not preexist.

Exactly! I have said the same thi…[Read more]

Here you go Jodi, this should help:

http://aramaicnt.com/files/MarYah%20in%20Peshitta.pdf

What did the only begotten Son og God empty himself of?

Perhaps he emptied himself of his memory, entrusting the Father to restore when and if he saw fit, and gave himself a self-inflicted case of amnesia. He came in flesh as a baby with no prior knowledge, no prior memory. The baby did have the pre-existent spirit of the only begotten son within…[Read more]

Jodi,

You have asked some very important questions. I can’t address them at this moment but hopefully soon.

Blessing, LU