Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."

[MichaelCadry]

- I'm sure readers are relishing it :crackup: - God bless :angel:

Dear freelight,

It meant something when I said it. You'd have to read the end of post #974. All you sound like here is a Mynah Bird. Isn't it unusual that God created a bird that could speak as well as a human, in so many ways/ circumstances. You're a parrot. I'll try to write more tomorrow. This is not about KR. It is about you. I'm not here to hurt anyone. I just respond to wrong things spoken about God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Heaven, and the angels. Your addition of certain angels and the book of Enoch to the King James Bible is totally unrealistic, null, void.

God Snap You Out Of IT,

Michael

 

[Nihilo]

John 14:1 (KJV)

 

[Nihilo]

John 3:16 (KJV)

 

[freelight]

You cant limit God to any one 'canon'.............

You cant limit God to any one 'canon'.............

Dear freelight,

It meant something when I said it. You'd have to read the end of post #974. All you sound like here is a Mynah Bird. Isn't it unusual that God created a bird that could speak as well as a human, in so many ways/ circumstances. You're a parrot. I'll try to write more tomorrow. This is not about KR. It is about you. I'm not here to hurt anyone. I just respond to wrong things spoken about God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Heaven, and the angels. Your addition of certain angels and the book of Enoch to the King James Bible is totally unrealistic, null, void.

God Snap You Out Of IT,

Michael

'God' or 'reality' is not limited to your 66 canonized bible,....you cant put the INFINITE in a box. There are many religious books of value, meaning and interest that one can enjoy and profit from. Why limit yourself and God? I'm free and always have been,...if you'd like to address specific points in my commentaries, you are welcome to do so. In the meantime they hold

That Jesus and YHWH are different personalities goes without saying, except those who choose to believe these are the same person. To me it makes no difference asides being a 'relational' matter, a matter of reference. There is still One Infinite Spirit, and many different forms and personalities that spring from and inhere in the One Spirit. All is Spirit. 'God' is One. - but a manifold one (there is plurality in unity). We worship the Father in spirit and truth,...the Son points us towards his God and Father, who is also our God and Father,...because there is no other Father, but THE ONE.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi freelight,

I notice at the bottom of your posts you have a link for "Theosophical Studies."

At that link we read the following:

"For any man, then, his evolutionary journey is not accomplished just in one life-time. His immortal spiritual soul projects a ray of itself down into a series of personalities, one after the other, and garners the spiritual experience of living in each of them. Thus man’s spiritual soul grows in this sense."​

Do you believe that?

 

[freelight]

Reincarnation or 'rebirth'......

Reincarnation or 'rebirth'......

Hi freelight,

I notice at the bottom of your posts you have a link for "Theosophical Studies."

At that link we read the following:

"For any man, then, his evolutionary journey is not accomplished just in one life-time. His immortal spiritual soul projects a ray of itself down into a series of personalities, one after the other, and garners the spiritual experience of living in each of them. Thus man’s spiritual soul grows in this sense."​

Do you believe that?

Hi JS,

Just FYI,...I did have my own thread on 'Reincarnation' and coordinated another thread on that subject in years past here, but they are no longer extant. (I did not know of the purging of threads at the time, so lost it all). Here is one of my post-responses about it turned into a blog post here - so this blog-post stands, unless I re-edit it to better reflect my current 'assessment' of the subject, which I may, until a new thread arises.

Otherwise,...I'm very open on the subject of 'rebirth' (sometimes I prefer this term over 'reincarnation') and am still researching this subject, as there are different kinds and understandings of the 'process' of soul's re-embodying. Thus, I approach the subject at this point as a philosophical concept relating to the soul's process of trans-FORM-ations in time. Even 'resurrection' is a kind of 're-incarnating', and so some early Jewish and Christian sects held to 're-incarnation'(resurrection) of one kind or another, hence these two terms were kind of synonymous in some ways. But such is a matter of our 'defining'

I've yet to finish more study on a friends book on the subject before adding more insights or coming to any additional conclusions on the matter. This is truly a most fascinating subject, and since I approach it mostly philosophically...it remains quite rational and probable, that soul's undergo various re-embodiments, since we see even in this dimension, soul's die, the body dis-integrates and the soul continues on in SOME FORM or 'body' (however spiritual, semi-spiritual or physical) along its course of spiritual progress and ascension. Souls continuing on in the spirit-world or astral dimensions have a 'body' of some kind. Furthermore, any souls coming back into physical existence on any material world, are re-embodied. Every soul has some kind of 'body' and 'God' gives it a body according to its adaptation and environment, properly SUITING it. - Paul elaborates on this in his letter to the Corinthians.

As stated,...I've written and expounded much on this subject and this is not even the tip of the iceberg, and deserves its own thread or space (anyone may PM me to discuss further, until a new thread or space is made for the subject). I still remain a 'theosophist' as a student of divine wisdom in universal truths and principles, even though I may not accept every single specific points or postulates from HP Blavatsky or other theosophical teachers,...I do agree with much of the universal ideas and precepts covered in the 'ancient wisdom' teachings....also when I use the term 'theosophy' I include all schools of the perennial wisdom, and not just the Blavatskian school. Blavatsky was a pioneer in her own right, and others who sprang from the original roots of the Theosophical Society, but again, this is just one branch of the wisdom schools.

* As to not infringe on the space of this thread, one may PM me if interested in discussing.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

...it remains quite rational and probable, that soul's undergo various re-embodiments, since we see even in this dimension, soul's die, the body dis-integrates and the soul continues on in SOME FORM or 'body' (however spiritual, semi-spiritual or physical) along its course of spiritual progress and ascension.

According to the idea of reincarnation a person dies physically and then later he dies again physically. But this verse contradicts that idea:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27).​

 

[freelight]

According to the idea of reincarnation a person dies physically and then later he dies again physically. But this verse contradicts that idea:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27).​

First of all, notice the context of the passage, and why the writer uses the concept of 'once' in his narrative,...it is only emphasizing the 'one time' offering of Jesus, hence he relates it to the 'assumption' that men die only 'once'. As far as we can see,...in this life-time, from this mortal finite perspective....it appears we die 'once' and after this there is a judgment of some kind. This does not necessarily discount the idea/concept or reality of 'reincarnation', but only speaks from a limited one human life-time point of view. Its not an absolute statement against reincarnation. In the greater cosmic context of life and spiritual progression of souls thru-out eternity, a soul COULD undergo multiple embodiments. The very fact of a resurrection proves this concept,....a spirit-soul takes on a NEW BODY. - can not this process continue on, a soul taking on different bodies for different purposes or reasons along the path of spiritual journey? I don't see why a soul could not.

For further commentary on whether Heb. 9:27 discounts reincarnation or not go here (see all articles on Reincarnation here from a biblical context).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First of all, notice the context of the passage, and why the writer uses the concept of 'once' in his narrative,...it is only emphasizing the 'one time' offering of Jesus, hence he relates it to the 'assumption' that men die only 'once'. As far as we can see,...in this life-time, from this mortal finite perspective....it appears we die 'once' and after this there is a judgment of some kind.

Yes, and the "judgment" of which you speak determines which resurrection he will experience:

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (Jn.5:28-29).​

I do not see anyway that a person can die physically and then be reincarnated and then later die again physically and once again be reincarnated with these verses in view.

 

[S-word]

MichaelCadry wrote......Dear S-word, I'm back! After I prayed to the Lord while on my knees, before I laid down to sleep, God said that Jesus was THE Son of God, not just A Son of God. So you lied there, and that is Satan doing that to you.

S-word.....I do not lie, nor does the word of God, who you have just accused of lying.

KJV Hebrew 5: 8; "Though he were A son, etc."

The Amplied version, 5: 8; "Although he was A son, etc."

The RSV, 5; 8; "Although he was A son, etc."

The New World Translation, 5: 8; "Even though he was A son, etc."

The Gideons Bible, 5: 8; "Although he was A son, etc."

Strong's Concordance, and Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, reveal that the passage in question is A son of God, and not THE son of God.

I think that you should fall upon your knees and beg forgiveness for Condemning the Holy spirit who inspired the writing of the book of Hebrew, as being a liar.

MichaelCadry wrote...... It is written in Luke 1:35 KJV, "And the angel answered and said unto her, 'the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called, THE Son of God;" not just A Son of God.

S-word.....And he did become the son of God, when he came up out of the waters of the Jordon, and the spirit of the Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."

And in Hebrew 5: 5; we read, that Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of High Priest, Instead, the Lord said to him, You are my son TODAY I have become your Father.

MichaelCadry wrote...... Satan is even 'implied' as being among the 'sons of God.' In Job 1:6 KJV and Job 2:1 KJV, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." Of course, Satan was a son of God, not The son of God. He was a fallen son of God. Wise up. God created all, including Satan.

S-word......And each time that Satan/Lucifer the son of God, wanted to put Job to the test, God drew a line in the sand and said, "You can go this far and no further, and Lucifer, the bright Morning Star, obeyed the Father.

The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan.

MichaelCadry wrote......Do not let things confuse you so you don't confuse others by proclaiming it. Satan is confusion.

S-word.....It is not I, nor the word of God that lie, It is you.

May God forgive You!!


















Michael

 

[S-word]

Yes, and the "judgment" of which you speak determines which resurrection he will experience:

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (Jn.5:28-29).​

I do not see anyway that a person can die physically and then be reincarnated and then later die again physically and once again be reincarnated with these verses in view.

I realise that you are confined to the limited collection of Scriptures that were gathered into the canon of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, when Jerome with others translated the scriptures chosen by that body into Latin, in the 4th century.

Many of the scriptures quoted by Jesus, the Apostles and the Gospel writers were not included in her canon.

I saw in another post, that you said that I should not quote from the book of Jubilees. I suppose that was because your mother church does not want you seeking the truths that she has Hidden from You.

Let me give you one example of Many. In Genesis 11: 12; It is said that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah. Then in 1st chronicles 1: 18; Again it is said that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah.

Nowhere else in the limited canon that the church of the worthless shepherd (See Zechariah 11: 12 to 17) will you find out who the father of Shelah is: Except for the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, and he says, that Shelah is the son of Cainan/Kainam, who is the son of Arpachshad.

According to the limited Canon that you are permitted to study from, Luke is a liar.

But now let us look to the book of Jubilees, that you, like your mother body, forbids me to quote from.

The Book of Jubilees [Chapter 8] 1; In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. And in the thirtieth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year thereof, he (Kainam) took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’

Because Kainam/Cainan died young, Arpachshad brought Shelah up as a son.

So you can continue to study the limited canon of she who sits on the seven hills of Rome, while I continue to quote from the same scriptures as those used by Jesus, the Apostles and the gospel writers.

The Books of Enoch, which were quoted from by Jesus and the Apostles, were cherished by the early Christians, right up until the 4th century, until, under the bann of such Catholic authorities as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, they finally passed out of circulation and were thought to have been lost for millennia.

Genesis 5: 23; Enoch was 365 and had spent his life in fellowship with God when he disappeared because God had Taken him.

365 is the number of days in a calendar year, The one year old unblemished Lamb of God.

Hebrews 11: 5; "By faith Enoch was Translated (To change from one form to another) so that he should not experience death; and he was not found, because God had Translated him

The only exception of all mankind to have been carried to the very throne of the MOST HIGH in the creation, and anointed (Christ-the Anointed one) as his successor, then translated into a glorious body of incorruptible light in order that he should never see death, and he has been rejected by the Jewish and the Roman church.

What was the name of Jesus before he was reborn on earth?

The Stone that the builders rejected, has turned out to be the most important Stone of all.

Who was the cornerstone, the living spirit within the bosom of Abraham, to who all the spirits of the righteous, who had paid the blood price for sin, were judged and separated from the unrighteous and over who the second death had no power and were Gathered to the chosen cornerstone within the bosom of Abraham?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I realise that you are confined to the limited collection of Scriptures that were gathered into the canon of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, when Jerome with others translated the scriptures chosen by that body into Latin, in the 4th century.

Why don't you deal with the verses which I quoted from the gospel of John?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I realise that you are confined to the limited collection of Scriptures that were gathered into the canon of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, when Jerome with others translated the scriptures chosen by that body into Latin, in the 4th century.

Many of the scriptures quoted by Jesus, the Apostles and the Gospel writers were not included in her canon.

I saw in another post, that you said that I should not quote from the book of Jubilees. I suppose that was because your mother church does not want you seeking the truths that she has Hidden from You.

Let me give you one example of Many. In Genesis 11: 12; It is said that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah. Then in 1st chronicles 1: 18; Again it is said that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah.

Nowhere else in the limited canon that the church of the worthless shepherd (See Zechariah 11: 12 to 17) will you find out who the father of Shelah is: Except for the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, and he says, that Shelah is the son of Cainan/Kainam, who is the son of Arpachshad.

According to the limited Canon that you are permitted to study from, Luke is a liar.

But now let us look to the book of Jubilees, that you, like your mother body, forbids me to quote from.

The Book of Jubilees [Chapter 8] 1; In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. And in the thirtieth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year thereof, he (Kainam) took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’

Because Kainam/Cainan died young, Arpachshad brought Shelah up as a son.

So you can continue to study the limited canon of she who sits on the seven hills of Rome, while I continue to quote from the same scriptures as those used by Jesus, the Apostles and the gospel writers.

The Books of Enoch, which were quoted from by Jesus and the Apostles, were cherished by the early Christians, right up until the 4th century, until, under the bann of such Catholic authorities as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, they finally passed out of circulation and were thought to have been lost for millennia.

Genesis 5: 23; Enoch was 365 and had spent his life in fellowship with God when he disappeared because God had Taken him.

365 is the number of days in a calendar year, The one year old unblemished Lamb of God.

Hebrews 11: 5; "By faith Enoch was Translated (To change from one form to another) so that he should not experience death; and he was not found, because God had Translated him

The only exception of all mankind to have been carried to the very throne of the MOST HIGH in the creation, and anointed (Christ-the Anointed one) as his successor, then translated into a glorious body of incorruptible light in order that he should never see death, and he has been rejected by the Jewish and the Roman church.

What was the name of Jesus before he was reborn on earth?

The Stone that the builders rejected, has turned out to be the most important Stone of all.

Who was the cornerstone, the living spirit within the bosom of Abraham, to who all the spirits of the righteous, who had paid the blood price for sin, were judged and separated from the unrighteous and over who the second death had no power and were Gathered to the chosen cornerstone within the bosom of Abraham?

You are insinuating that the LOGOS is Enoch and that John 8:12, which coincides with Gn. 1:3 is again, about Enoch. While many scholars agree that Enoch is quoted in some portions of the Bible, they are fairly certain that the book is a hodgepodge of oral tradition and ingrafted, false agenda. The book of Jude is the greatest evidence of the book being quoted, but it only refers to the very first chapter.

Because this is a thread that seeks to separate Jesus Christ from being YHWH... which is obsurd in the highest biblical sense, I am assuming that you believe you have done something scholarly by insinuating you have more "light" in your expanded cannon.

You are actually insinuating that God cannot defend His scriptures and that scripture and cannon are corrupt. This in combination with your completely unbiblical theory on Enoch are your absolute death nail.

I can put it this way. Who is God's God? (Psalm 110:1) Himself! If God were to put everything under His feet, would He put Himself under His feet? (Ephesians 1:22) ... And the answer is no... God would never put God under His own feet!

If God swore by a name, who's name would He swear by? (Gn. 22:16). In other words. Jesus is God and that is what angers you! You can try to "loop hole" your way out of it, but Jesus swore by His own name and atoned for ALL human sin!

Does this upset you?

 

[freelight]

YHWH said to my lord.........

YHWH said to my lord.........

I can put it this way. Who is God's God? (Psalm 110:1) Himself! If God were to put everything under His feet, would He put Himself under His feet? (Ephesians 1:22) ... And the answer is no... God would never put God under His own feet!

Hi EE,

You might see that Psalm 110 is actually one of the finest proof-texts showing that God the Father (YHWH) and the Lord (Messiah) are two distinct 'lords',...so there are 2 lords being spoken of here, The divine all-supreme DEITY(YHWH) and his human Messiah-lord, who is the 'lord' or 'master' of the writer.

See: The Two lords

* and before protesting that there cannot be 2 lords,...scripture begs to differ. (even though the English words 'lord' are not even in the original Hebrew, they are only assumed translations/approximations). Even most English Christian bible translations differentiate the divine name(tetragrammaton) as written in uppercase 'LORD' and the 'lord' or 'master' of the psalmist as lower case (Lord or lord), being the Messiah, David's son. (we ought to note that the original Hebrew text is all uppercase).

Only 5 out of the 50 translations on Biblegateway use the proper name of 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' here.


~*~*~


The LORD (captials signifying YHWH) says to my lord(lower case signifying 'adonai'(Messiah) ):


“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
2
The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
3
Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.

4
The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

5
The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6
He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
7
He will drink from a brook along the way,
and so he will lift his head high.

As you know,....God is ALWAYS distinct from his Messiah, His Messenger, Prophet, Apostle, Lamb, Son, Word, etc. Yet in creation or salvation, in all its various dispensations....of course you cannot separate the Logos from 'God', since it is thru the logos that all creation/salvation is wrought. This view is traditionally upheld in Orthodox Monotheistic (Unitarian) Judaism, understanding emphatically that the Messiah is NOT(ever) God himself. The Messiah-Son of course represents 'God' fully in his preordained and assigned office/role/function....of course,....but most all scriptures ever distinguish God from His Anointed Servant, and logically so (by the fact of relationship). You can still fully 'interpret' or reference the Messiah as being 'God' in the flesh all you like,...this does not change the FACT of difference of persons, and that there are 2 lords spoken of in one the most significant passages in the Bible, referred to by Jesus and his apostles. - seeing 2 lords in no wise threatens Monotheism in any way, because there is only One LORD (YHWH) and the lord-Messiah whom he has ordained and appointed (giving him power and authority to rule).

~*~*~

Note also,...the Septuagint translation in verse 3 says -

"With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning."

Even in this special designation of 'sonship', the Son ever remains distinct from the Father, being BEGOTTEN by the Father, ever subordinate to the Father, who is his supreme Head. The Lord Messiah and high priest after the order of Melchizedek prays that we all abide together with God and he as one, one in mind, will, purpose, united in Spirit (John 17). A ture monotheist unitarian view here is an appropriate, logical, formal and orthodox interpretation of the text here, true to Davidic Theology.

Not to split hairs, since no Orthodox Jew or Unitarian Christian is making any claims with this verse or others, that Jesus is YHWH. - the claim is unnecessary, since as lovers of the lord Jesus, we acknowledge he is the Son of God, God's Messenger-Prophet, His Anointed One.

I don't see how there is any other way to interpret this and other messianic scriptures, when God is always distinct, higher, greater than any man (even if you assume God somehow incarnated himself, or produced a co-created god, demi-god, god-man, arch-angel, eon, luminary, etc.) - one can assume an Arian, semi-arian, gnostic, new-age, theosophical view of the 'Christ' here,...its all still 'God', his power, his will...being done thru His Agent(s). - I enjoy a great spectrum of perspectives in Christology,....they all portray Jesus as the AGENT of God. - the rest is semantics (cosmetics).

This awesome passage heralds a traditional Mono-theistic Unitarian Christology. - any assumption or allusion that Jesus is YHWH can only be applied 'representationally', 'figuratively'....since God reveals himself thru and in his Messiah-Son, acting thru His Agent, the one who bears his Name, the Angel of Great Counsel!

Brother Kel below explains this clearly, if any have confusions -

Also Kel's commentary on Psalm 110 here.

Addendum : - this is only brought up for honest exegesis and fairness in translation, plus the use of one's own faculties of reason, logic, intuition, conscience and a spiritual discernment that does no harm or damage to the character or nature of God (YHWH) or His Messiah, who is not only David's Lord, but ours as well,...since God has made this man both Lord and Christ, the man he has raised from the dead. - this doesn't matter if you have a more Unitarian, modalist, Trinitarian or some other Christological view either,...the text and context is PLAIN. - we would also note that for those who choose to focus or assume an importance of affirming that 'God' came in the flesh, - no Christian (at least of a traditional or orthodox stripe) DENIES that Jesus came in the flesh,...the Spirit bears witness to the incarnation. The logos (plan, logic, wisdom, reason, creative word, fiat) of God was manifested (made 'flesh'), meaning God's will, way and wisdom was REVEALED in and thru the physical embodiment of Jesus...of course....no 'christian' of any denomination would deny this, although some might interpret this somewhat differently.

We can split hairs over a lot of things, but this verse when held in the heart, especially the heart of David,...inspires the purest worship of our Father, and His Messiah-Son, who is David's Son! David holds the key!...and more. - also note his tabernacle is being restored in the last days which unites all in the Beloved. True worship returns all to the HEART of YHWH, and David leads the way, God's Prince.

View attachment 25401

'God' is ONE.

For some exegetical fun see :
PSALMS 110 – A DIVINE PRIESTLY KING FROM A NEW PRIESTHOOD? NOT! (detailed exegesis by Uri Yosef, PhD)

 

[Nihilo]

Psalm 110:1 (KJV), " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. "

The single most quoted (Mt22:44KJV Mk12:36KJV Lk20:42-43KJV Ac2:34-35KJV He1:13KJV) and referenced (1Co15:25KJV Eph1:20-22KJV Col3:1KJV He1:3KJV He2:8KJV He8:1KJV He10:12-13KJV He12:2KJV 1P3:22KJV) passage from the Old Testament, within the New Testament.
​

Isaiah 66:1 (KJV), " Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool "

 

[freelight]

Psalm 110:1 (KJV), " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. "

The single most quoted (Mt22:44KJV Mk12:36KJV Lk20:42-43KJV Ac2:34-35KJV He1:13KJV) and referenced (1Co15:25KJV Eph1:20-22KJV Col3:1KJV He1:3KJV He2:8KJV He8:1KJV He10:12-13KJV He12:2KJV 1P3:22KJV) passage from the Old Testament, within the New Testament.
​

Isaiah 66:1 (KJV), " Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool "

Yes, as shared previously, one of the greatest passages supporting a Monotheistic and Unitarian Christology

- of course you can put a modalist or trinitarian spin on it if you like, but why complicate it? :idunno:

 

[Nihilo]

Yes, as shared previously, one of the greatest passages supporting a Monotheistic and Unitarian Christology

As opposed to the Trinitarian christology. Only in your opinion Freelight. And we can say, "Yes, also in the opinion of some others," but the numbers here don't support your view and we wouldn't decide this matter based on a vote anyway. The reality is that either the Trinity is true, or it is false, and if it is false then the Church plunged into the highest treason against the Maker right away, right after her inception, even within the lives of the Apostles. To me that's tantamount to taking the Lord for a fraud.

 

[S-word]

If God swore by a name, who's name would He swear by? (Gn. 22:16). In other words. Jesus is God and that is what angers you! You can try to "loop hole" your way out of it, but Jesus swore by His own name and atoned for ALL human sin!

Does this upset you?

Nope that doesn't upset me, but perhaps the truth as reveal in scripture, might upset you.

Deuteronomy 18: 18; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name etc.

Peter confirms that Jesus was that man, when in reference to Jesus he says in. Acts 3: 22; For Moses said; "The Lord your God will send you a prophet, just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc."

Acts 3:19; “Repent then and turn to God, (Not to Jesus, but to God) so that He (God) will forgive your sins. If you do, times of spiritual strength will come from the Lord, and He will send Jesus, who is the Messiah that he has already CHOSEN for you. The man Jesus, was chosen and made both Lord and saviour by “Who I Am”.

Did the people of his day believe that Jesus was the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of our ancestors? No, they did not, for on the day of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the people escorting him cried out, "BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD” Verifying that they believed Jesus to be the one that God had prophesied that he would choose from among the Israelites, and send to the people to speak in his name.

Jesus who admits that he spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by our Lord God and saviour, says in John 5: 24; “Whoever hear my words (The words that he was commanded to say) and believes in “HIM” who sent me, has eternal life.

John 14: 24; “And the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me. Not my Father, but THE Father.

Jesus said to Mary Magdalene in John 20: 17; Go to my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and their Father, to my God and their God.

Whose words were these in reference to the body of Jesus, which had been filled by the spirit of the Lord which had descended upon him in the form of a dove, and in whose name, Jesus spoke?

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?”

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he, who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 3: 13; The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our ancestors has given divine glory to his servant Jesus.

If you need more, please don't be afraid to ask.

 

[freelight]

As opposed to the Trinitarian christology. Only in your opinion Freelight. And we can say, "Yes, also in the opinion of some others," but the numbers here don't support your view and we wouldn't decide this matter based on a vote anyway. The reality is that either the Trinity is true, or it is false, and if it is false then the Church plunged into the highest treason against the Maker right away, right after her inception, even within the lives of the Apostles. To me that's tantamount to taking the Lord for a fraud.

Indeed, it may be an opinion, point of view, perspective of Christology,...of course. It is presented as such, with supporting logics, commentary and other learned opinions

Well, Christianity down thru the ages hasn't exactly been a picture of love, universal peace or righteousness, and her extremes and distortions have brought wars, calamities, destruction, strife, death in her path. We needn't rehearse the history here lest such facts be seen as 'anti-christian'

If you're referring to the Lord Jesus as teaching a Trinity, you'll be hard pressed to prove he taught such, as it was a later doctrinal development, at least to be formally defined and hashed out in the 4th century, definitively speaking as far as 'orthodoxy' goes,...a 'designation' proclaimed by those who had the 'power' to say so. You know how the "because I say so" method of theological correctness goes - ha!

Since Jesus as a learned Jew held to and quoted strictly monotheist/Unitarian scriptures,..I don't see where any Trinity is, except in later metaphysical analogies, or relational hypothesis crafted in later Christological innovations. A purely UNITARIAN view is wholly compatible and germane to Jewish scripture,...and even with-in the NT, it can still be maintained, without any further complications of dogma on a 'godhead'. If one wants to believe in any creed or dogmas, they can knock themselves out. - thank the gods we freedom of religion - and I threw in 'gods' just to razzle the fundies of course

 

[S-word]

Indeed, it may be an opinion, point of view, perspective of Christology,...of course. It is presented as such, with supporting logics, commentary and other learned opinions

Well, Christianity down thru the ages hasn't exactly been a picture of love, universal peace or righteousness, and her extremes and distortions have brought wars, calamities, destruction, strife, death in her path. We needn't rehearse the history here lest such facts be seen as 'anti-christian'

If you're referring to the Lord Jesus as teaching a Trinity, you'll be hard pressed to prove he taught such, as it was a later doctrinal development, at least to be formally defined and hashed out in the 4th century, definitively speaking as far as 'orthodoxy' goes,...a 'designation' proclaimed by those who had the 'power' to say so. You know how the "because I say so" method of theological correctness goes - ha!

Since Jesus as a learned Jew held to and quoted strictly monotheist/Unitarian scriptures,..I don't see where any Trinity is, except in later metaphysical analogies, or relational hypothesis crafted in later Christological innovations. A purely UNITARIAN view is wholly compatible and germane to Jewish scripture,...and even with-in the NT, it can still be maintained, without any further complications of dogma on a 'godhead'. If one wants to believe in any creed or dogmas, they can knock themselves out. - thank the gods we freedom of religion - and I threw in 'gods' just to razzle the fundies of course

The Book of Jubilees 4: 30; And he (Adam) lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: "On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die." For this reason he 31 did not complete the years of this first day; for he died during it.

The great Sabbath of which the weekly Sabbath was but a shadow, is the seventh period of one thousand years, the Lord’s Day in which he shall rule the world for a thousand years.

Acts 17: 31; “For the Lord has fixed a day in which he shall judge the whole world with justice by means of a MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death.