The Trinity

[Nang]

God cursed Satan and the Dust.

You are a mess!

I refuse to give this answer in kind . . .

:comeout:

 

[7Spirits]

I refuse to give this answer in kind . . .

:comeout:

God cursed both devil and mankind with enmity against Him and each other.

This curse effects all God's creation, and only produces death.

Care to reference what you are pontificating about in the book of John?

(Ever taken a debate course?)

God put enmity between the devil and His people.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel

If you were correct, God would be crushing mankind." And mankind would be striking God's heel.

John 13:27 shows us who's head got crushed for striking God's heel.

Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly

What are you theologically?

 

[Nang]

What are you theologically?

Sound.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Sound.

LOL

:thumb:

 

[Rosenritter]

Have you ever taken a biblical consistency class?

Mark 10:18

Is there a chance you might stop refuting yourself before anyone else gets a chance?

Genesis 1:31 KJV
(31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Please don't split hairs over the word "good" ...

 

[glorydaz]

GD didn't say they had a good conscience or a bad conscience, just that they had a conscience.

Thank you, JudgeRightly, Nang can't help but go off half-cocked.

 

[glorydaz]

The events did not prove they had a GOOD conscience . . .

They had a conscience, just as all men do....which is why they (and we) are without excuse.

Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

A&E did not believe God, showed NO love for God, and refused to serve God's holiness.

Nonsense, they succumbed to the lusts of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life just as we all do.

A&E only revealed a GUILTY conscience.

Just as we all do when we choose wrongly. That's what our conscience was given us for.

You make their disobedience (and the global ramifications from it) seem like just a trivial mistake.

Nonsense, I make it no more nor less than it was, and no more nor less than it would have been had you been in the garden.

 

[Nihilo]

What are you theologically?

Sound.

No . . . we showed that you're not, remember? That infraction I received, because of your mind being in the gutter, exposing your theology as blasphemous, because . . . oh I'm not going to bring it up again. But you're not theologically sound. :nono: Nope.

lain:

 

[7Spirits]

Genesis 1:31 KJV
(31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Please don't split hairs over the word "good" ...

The good you quote here calls God's Work good. The Good Nang keeps making up, calls the Created Good. One glorifies the Creator while the other glorifies the creation.

Splitting hairs? No.

I appreciate correction, but you are missing a major issue that is glaring. I would calibrate my observation skills if I were you, but I'm not.

Mark 10:18 is Jesus speaking. Nang called Adam good several times. I'm not sure why you call it splitting hairs to point out that the person I was quoting scripture towards is completely outside of Christ's teachings and the content of Genesis.

You need to re-read GD's and JR's posts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I apologize for the delay.

A "conscience" is knowing good versus bad.

I may be splitting hairs here, but a conscience is knowing between right and wrong, not good and bad/evil.

I say this because of the name of one of the two special trees in the Garden of Eden, "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil," not, "the Tree of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong."

Question for you Nang, I expect this one answered:

Did Adam and/or Eve know good and evil prior to them eating of the Tree?

Adam was created good, walked with God, and probably possessed a human intelligence we have no measure of.

...

Adam was also instructed in good and bad,

Could you provide scripture that states this? I'm curious as to where you got this idea, because as far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong), there's really nothing in the Bible that states what God did with Adam between the creation of the Woman and the Fall.

and warned by God, disobedience produced death.

More accurately...

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - Genesis 2:15-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:15-17&version=NKJV

All this before he ate of the forbidden tree.

Another Question for you, and again, I expect an answer:

Nang, what is the Law? In other words, how would you describe it in as short a definition as possible? (Bonus points if you use Biblical terms/names of items.)

Which produced a VERY GUILTY conscience.

That's what the Law does. it condemns.

So Godly promises, providence, and base sentient knowledge ("conscience") did not prevent Adam from consciously opposing God's Word,

Of course not. That doesn't mean that Adam (if I'm understanding your argument correctly) could not have done otherwise.

which demonstrated the lack of belief, love,

You're right, Adam's sin was a result of his "failing to consult with God."

limitations,

"Lack of limitations"?

and holiness not inherent in a mutable creature.

Was Adam rightous prior to his sin? Was he created perfect?

IOW's created beings are not God.

Who said they are? Not I.

----

I enjoy this type of discussion, Nang, I hope it can continue.

 

[Rosenritter]

The good you quote here calls God's Work good. The Good Nang keeps making up, calls the Created Good. One glorifies the Creator while the other glorifies the creation.

Splitting hairs? No.

I appreciate correction, but you are missing a major issue that is glaring. I would calibrate my observation skills if I were you, but I'm not.

Mark 10:18 is Jesus speaking. Nang called Adam good several times. I'm not sure why you call it splitting hairs to point out that the person I was quoting scripture towards is completely outside of Christ's teachings and the content of Genesis.

You need to re-read GD's and JR's posts.

You are splitting hairs. If you didn't get a gentle hint from one verse, there's hundreds more with "good" to choose from:

Matthew 12:35 KJV
(35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Luke 23:50 KJV
(50) And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

Acts 11:24 KJV
(24) For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

Now let's compare the verse that was being used:

Matthew 19:16-17 KJV
(16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

My point being is that if you must criticize, criticize fairly. The way you were applying the passage to Nang to create contradiction would also create contradiction between Christ, the gospels, and Acts.

 

[7Spirits]

You are splitting hairs. If you didn't get a gentle hint from one verse, there's hundreds more with "good" to choose from:

Matthew 12:35 KJV
(35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Luke 23:50 KJV
(50) And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

Acts 11:24 KJV
(24) For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

Now let's compare the verse that was being used:

Matthew 19:16-17 KJV
(16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

My point being is that if you must criticize, criticize fairly. The way you were applying the passage to Nang to create contradiction would also create contradiction between Christ, the gospels, and Acts.

This started with discussion that you agreed with.

The first law given (to Adam) was to not partake of the law (aka the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil).

After the flood, God gave Noah 3 commandments, none of which had anything to do with the Sabbath.

To Abraham He gave the commandment to circumcise. Circumcision (throughout the Bible) is used as a synonym for the law. All of Abraham's descendants had to circumcise. It was their law. But circumcision came before the Sabbath.

To Moses, God gave the 10 Commandments, and the Mosaic laws, which is the first time we see anything about keeping the Sabbath.

Question: why do you think God would have to explain a concept to the people of Israel if they already knew it? Consider this example:

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died. - Numbers 15:32-36 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers15:32-36&version=NKJV

IF Israel had been keeping the sabbath for the past few hundred years, why was there any question of what to do with that man? You would think that they would have had that figured out by now.

I suggest to you that keeping the Sabbath was entirely new concept for the children of Israel, one that had been given only in their recent history, at Mount Sinai.

Nangs entire uproar was started when JR explained that man was commanded to leave the law alone. This is biblically consistent with all scripture.

The premise by nang advocates salvation by law keeping. We were created dependent on God's goodness and we remain dependent on God's goodness. All fall short and all are equally in need of Jesus. To emphasize the use of good in scripture as merely hairsplitting is belittling to Christ's point in Mark 10:18. You are unknowingly advocating law over grace.

I have no issue arguing over this because it is far from hair splitting. This is foundational to Jesus dying for all of mankind and all of mankind needing Him equally and equally having access to His Love and Grace.

I am fairly convinced that Nang is a proponent of salvation by election, though they never gave a straight answer about their theological school. If you don't see how this all ties in, I reccomend you go back to JR's initial post that started this entire discussion. JR is correct.

Now, is Jesus telling the truth in Mark 10:18 or not?

You seem to be questioning His authority.

 

[7Spirits]

Fixed post

 

[7Spirits]

Fixed Post

 

[Rosenritter]

This started with discussion that you agreed with.

Nangs entire uproar was started when JR explained that man was commanded to leave the law alone. This is biblically consistent with all scripture.

The premise by nang advocates salvation by law keeping. We were created dependent on God's goodness and we remain dependent on God's goodness. All fall short and all are equally in need of Jesus. To emphasize the use of good in scripture as merely hairsplitting is belittling to Christ's point in Mark 10:18. You are unknowingly advocating law over grace.

I have no issue arguing over this because it is far from hair splitting. This is foundational to Jesus dying for all of mankind and all of mankind needing Him equally and equally having access to His Love and Grace.

I am fairly convinced that Nang is a proponent of salvation by election, though they never gave a straight answer about their theological school. If you don't see how this all ties in, I reccomend you go back to JR's initial post that started this entire discussion. JR is correct.

Now, is Jesus telling the truth in Mark 10:18 or not?

You seem to be questioning His authority.

Without claiming to agree or disagree with Nang one way or the other, in a sense salvation is achieved through the law (and hear me out) if we are considering the correct law. I understand that law to be the the law of love, summarized by the single word love. There is no salvation without this law, and this is the law upon which hangs the entire law and the prophets, all of scripture as it is written to us, the law that predated the law of Moses, the law that sums up in a word who God truly is. God is love, writes the beloved disciple.

1 John 4:7-8 KJV
(7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.


1 John 5:2-3 KJV
(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Without the law of love, neither would we have forgiveness of sins. It is through this law of love that God forgives us.

1 John 4:9-10 KJV
(9) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
(10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

You asked of Mark 10:18. I understand Jesus to be taking an opportunity of a play on words to make a point. Jesus knows that the word "good" can be used in more than one sense, and when he is called "Good Master" when one comes to Him to ask of Eternal Life, Jesus points out that in asking for Eternal Life, it only makes sense if you know who you are asking. The only person you could ask is God Himself.

Matthew 19:16-17 KJV
(16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Who else has eternal life but God? Even asking the question of Jesus was recognizing his authority in the matter, yet the one who asked the question seemed to fall short of making the connection, of what he subconsciously realized and compared to what he consciously accepted. Jesus didn't say that the man was wrong in calling him "Good" but rather asked him why he called him that.

So what did Jesus tell him to do? To keep the commandments. What are the commandments? Jesus previously summarized them as hanging under one great law, Love the Lord your God with everything you have. And how did Jesus tell him to keep this law when he inquired further? To sell all that he had and to follow .... JESUS.

Far from questioning the authority of Jesus, I am questioning that your method of applying the same "good' comparison is appropriate in this other context. I doubt Nang meant that Adam was GOOD as in GOD, as in "only one is GOOD."

 

[7Spirits]

Without claiming to agree or disagree with Nang one way or the other, in a sense salvation is achieved through the law (and hear me out) if we are considering the correct law. I understand that law to be the the law of love, summarized by the single word love. There is no salvation without this law, and this is the law upon which hangs the entire law and the prophets, all of scripture as it is written to us, the law that predated the law of Moses, the law that sums up in a word who God truly is. God is love, writes the beloved disciple.

1 John 4:7-8 KJV
(7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.


1 John 5:2-3 KJV
(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Without the law of love, neither would we have forgiveness of sins. It is through this law of love that God forgives us.

1 John 4:9-10 KJV
(9) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
(10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

You asked of Mark 10:18. I understand Jesus to be taking an opportunity of a play on words to make a point. Jesus knows that the word "good" can be used in more than one sense, and when he is called "Good Master" when one comes to Him to ask of Eternal Life, Jesus points out that in asking for Eternal Life, it only makes sense if you know who you are asking. The only person you could ask is God Himself.

Matthew 19:16-17 KJV
(16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Who else has eternal life but God? Even asking the question of Jesus was recognizing his authority in the matter, yet the one who asked the question seemed to fall short of making the connection, of what he subconsciously realized and compared to what he consciously accepted. Jesus didn't say that the man was wrong in calling him "Good" but rather asked him why he called him that.

So what did Jesus tell him to do? To keep the commandments. What are the commandments? Jesus previously summarized them as hanging under one great law, Love the Lord your God with everything you have. And how did Jesus tell him to keep this law when he inquired further? To sell all that he had and to follow .... JESUS.

Far from questioning the authority of Jesus, I am questioning that your method of applying the same "good' comparison is appropriate in this other context. I doubt Nang meant that Adam was GOOD as in GOD, as in "only one is GOOD."

Hear me out, your interjecting your understanding of the Law is not Nangs argument. Nang even linked the word Law to the Mosaic Covenant with the word Decalogue. Being Innocent and Loving as Adam and Eve were is totally different than being bound to the Decalogue type obedience upon Creation.

You are perceiving this from your understanding, but I can tell that you differ from Nang's perspective.

Please decide what you are disagreeing about and understand the context of my words are not to you. I would say that you are arguing for arguments sake, citing my opinion. Love and Law are two different matters.

Are any as Loving as God or Good as God? Are any but God Perfect in Goodness by God's Personal standards?

Nang specifically placed the burden on mankind to Obey the Law in Eden to be Good. Then, they blamed Adam and Eve for all failure and Sin, when 1 John 3:8 says otherwise.

You are playing the Sophist and missing the entire point of what is actually being said.

You are making false conclusions and missing context of discussion. You are also wrong about what Nang is saying. I am positive and I have read the discussion multiple times.

Are we saved by Law Keeping or Love?

 

[KingdomRose]

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/


Jesus cannot be an archangel by definition



The scripture says that the Word was God, and that the Word created all things, and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3) and the conclusion of John's gospel is summed in Thomas's confession of Jesus as "my Lord and my God." Jesus is called the creator, angels are called created things (Hebrews 1:7, 12:9).

It should be self-evidence that a "chief angel" is indeed an "angel." When the JW statement says that "archangel" only occurs in the singular, it neglected to mention that it is using a pool of only two instances (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and Jude 1:9 "Michael the archangel.")

In the first case, claiming that the word "the" means there is only one archangel in existence would also require that there is only one trumpet in existence. In the second case, attempting to apply "Michael the archangel" to mean there could only be one archangel, would be akin to using "Jeremy the prophet" (Matthew 2:17, 27:9) to say there is only one prophet. Although we are not told how many archangels there might be, saying that there must only be one is groundless speculation.


A King does not trumpet his own entrance



1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV
(16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


A conqueror does not have to issue his own shout or blast his own trumpet. When Israel surrounded Jericho, it was not the "Captain of the Lord of Hosts" that issued the blast that felled the walls, but the congregation of Israel. Heralds go before the returning king to announce his entry. If the trumpet sounds and the archangel himself introduces the returning King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, you can be guaranteed that the archangel is subservient to He whom is returning.

However, if we were to accept the JW argument above, that notes that the return of Jesus is announced with the voice of the archangel, then by the same logic, as he is also announced with the trump of God, we must also presume that Jesus is a trumpet.

Michael has angels, Jesus has angels, God has angels



This argument above seems to have forgotten that God also has command of the faithful angels. Psalm 103:20, "Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, and do his commandments, hearkening the voice of his word." One of God's titles is "Lord of Hosts" meaning that he commands the armies of heaven, the faithful angels. The JW argument above would also require that Michael the Archangel be the same as the LORD of Hosts.

...

The JW official website only had those two categories of arguments. There's only three places in scripture where Michael is named: Daniel, Jude, and Revelation. What they didn't mention destroys their own arguments.

Michael is not a unique class of being

Daniel 10:13 KJV
(13) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Whereas the JW site above argued that because Michael was "the archangel" thus there must only be one archangel, the passage in Daniel refers to Michael as simply "one of the chief princes" indicating that he is one of a category of many.

Jesus rebuked the devil, whereas Michael the archangel dared not

Jude 1:9 KJV
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Contrast this with Jesus, who openly rebuked the devil, and never with a meek "the Lord rebuke thee."

Matthew 4:10-11 KJV
(10) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(11) Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Matthew 17:17-19 KJV
(17) Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
(18) And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
(19) Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

...

There's only three spots in scripture where Michael is mentioned. None of them give evidence that Jesus is Michael, or an archangel, and some of these very same spots testify against it.

Hebrews 1:4-8 KJV
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

It should be self evident that Jesus is no angel, be it cherub, archangel, or otherwise. How many more times does Paul need to repeat himself to tell us that Jesus is not an angel?

Scripture does NOT say that "the Word was God." Pay attention for a change. Answer this question: Did you notice that "God" in the phrase "the Word was with God" has a DEFINITE ARTICLE in the Greek? Did you know that "God" in the phrase "and the Word was God" does not have any article in the Greek? That means that the two "Gods" are not the same. In Greek they use a definite article ("the") to designate the one and only. If a Greek noun does not have an article, the rules of translating Greek to English demand an article in English to make sense of the phrase. (There are no indefinite articles in Greek.) Is this too hard to understand? Probably. So because "and the Word was God" has no definite article, it cannot be speaking about THE God (which the Word was with). Therefore, the phrase must be rendered as such: "the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was a god." I'm not telling you that and neither are JWs telling you that. It is simply the correct way to translate from Greek to English.

Hebrews 1:8 is also faulty. Did you ever compare the Greek verse with the Hebrew verse from which it was taken (Psalm 45:6)? Did you know that there are two possible translations of that verse, but one PROBABLE translation? "God is your throne for ever and ever." Meaning that God is the Source of the Son's power and authority. This rendering makes more sense especially when you notice in the very next verse (vs.9) that the son HAS a God. Now how can the Son have a God if he is God? Verse 9 reads:

"You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, YOUR GOD, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners."


Does God have a God, Rosenritter? Can you stop clinging to ambiguous or downright erroneous verses to prop up your spurious doctrines?

 

[KingdomRose]

I didn't want Meshak to miss your awesome post.

For Meshak

Spoiler

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever

[MENTION=13959]meshak[/MENTION] ... Welcome Back

Awesome post?? I can dismantle everything she said, and I have done so many times previously. But some people prefer to languish in ignorance.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Scripture does NOT say that "the Word was God." Pay attention for a change. Answer this question: Did you notice that "God" in the phrase "the Word was with God" has a DEFINITE ARTICLE in the Greek? Did you know that "God" in the phrase "and the Word was God" does not have any article in the Greek? That means that the two "Gods" are not the same. In Greek they use a definite article ("the") to designate the one and only. If a Greek noun does not have an article, the rules of translating Greek to English demand an article in English to make sense of the phrase. (There are no indefinite articles in Greek.) Is this too hard to understand? Probably. So because "and the Word was God" has no definite article, it cannot be speaking about THE God (which the Word was with). Therefore, the phrase must be rendered as such: "the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was a god." I'm not telling you that and neither are JWs telling you that. It is simply the correct way to translate from Greek to English.

Hebrews 1:8 is also faulty. Did you ever compare the Greek verse with the Hebrew verse from which it was taken (Psalm 45:6)? Did you know that there are two possible translations of that verse, but one PROBABLE translation? "God is your throne for ever and ever." Meaning that God is the Source of the Son's power and authority. This rendering makes more sense especially when you notice in the very next verse (vs.9) that the son HAS a God. Now how can the Son have a God if he is God? Verse 9 reads:

"You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, YOUR GOD, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners."


Does God have a God, Rosenritter? Can you stop clinging to ambiguous or downright erroneous verses to prop up your spurious doctrines?

I've answered this challenge more times than I can count.

There is a rule named after Granville Sharp that describes when it is appropriate to use a definite article. I've posted this rebuttal at least once in this thread and others. I don't feel like doing it again, but I will say this:

John 1:1 uses this rule.

And yes, the Greek DOES IN FACT SAY that God is the Word. It's very clear:

----

As for Hebrews 1:8, that's another rebuttal I've given a few times.

Here is what it says:

Again, it is stated very clearly that God the Father is speaking to God the Son.

Your understanding, KingdomRose, is not very thorough when it comes to this verse.

KR, how is, "the throne of you [the Son]," saying anything other than calling the Son's throne His?

KR, How is "the throne of you, [the] God, is to the ages of the ages" any different than this (other than the words used, ie, is the sentence structure the same)?:

"But to KingdomRose JudgeRightly said, 'your understanding, KR, is not very thorough.'"

 

[Nang]

Nang specifically placed the burden on mankind to Obey the Law in Eden to be Good.

Allow me to correct your misconception of what I have said:

God created Adam good.

God gave Adam commands (knowledge of His standards and purposes).

Adam did not believe, respect, or obey those commands.

Adam lost his creational goodness and corrupted his human nature.

Then, they blamed Adam and Eve for all failure and Sin,

Who is "they?"

And God has placed all blame on Adam for causing sin and death. Romans 5:12

when 1 John 3:8 says otherwise.

No it doesn't.

Are we saved by Law Keeping or Love?

Sinners are saved by the grace of God, alone.