The Trinity

[Lon]

I read the article, the reasoning is mediocre at best and is the same washed out reasoning that's spewed out by people who support the trinity.

Mr Bauscher also claims that Jesus was the YHWH in the OT, the Jehovah who spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One scripture that completely destroys this claim is Hebrews 1:1,2, which reads "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."

Note that God, back then, spoke to the Jews forefathers on many occasions and in many ways long ago, but now (during the 1CE), God spoke to them by means of his son, Jesus. If Jesus was the Jehovah who spoke to the forefathers, then it contradicts that he NOW(1CE) spoke to us by means of his Son, since he Jesus, was already speaking to the forefathers as mentioned in part a of Hebrews 1:1.

Thus, Mr Bauscher argument, including his reasoning regarding ego emi, crumbles.

:nono: the Lord Jesus Christ is God. The ONLY thing you are getting from OT to NT is the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh AND through His work, words, and salvation. Also, these were Jews. They knew the OT. Hebrews was/is part of the New, and this was many of their first reading of instructions to living a new way, hence in the past O.T. It is the theme of the whole book of Hebrews and what they needed to know regarding this new faith. Read it that way: It is a blueprint for how to transition from being a Jew, to being a Christian. Hebrews will make a LOT more sense to you, if you read it as written to Hebrews.

If you actually read Jesus statements of "ego emi" and actually tried to understand them Jesus saying "I am God" the scriptures wouldn't make sense. Any claim that any reference of "ego emi" was a reference of Jesus claiming to be Jehovah of the old testament is an assumption and should be treated as such.

1) I am not an Aramaic scholar. The author contests he is that scholar and more fluent. I HAVE to take his word for it. I don't know Aramaic.
2) "Before Abraham, I AM" makes a ton of sense to me, so I'm of course, not of the same mindset as you are.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Who said Jesus and Christ were two different people or spirits?

Please read through my post again. I already answered this.

Why do you make some division between the indwell and came?

Indwell means to be permanently present in.

Become means to turn into or acquire the status of.

If Christ only indwelt a flesh body, and not become flesh, then that is antichrist per 1 John 4. But if He became flesh, as in, went from being a Spirit to being a human, then that is not antichrist (per 1 John 4).

They both mean the Christ of GOD was indeed in the flesh.

Who denies this?

Keypurr, who says that the Son of God was in the flesh, but was not flesh.

 

[NWL]

@NWL, the logic of your rebuttal doesn't follow here. Hebrews 1 doesn't discount or nullify that the Son of God is God in the flesh. That passage doesn't define the Son of God one way or another, you'd need to use the rest of the canon to establish that.

What I stated to Lon wasn't meant to discredit that Jesus was God in the flesh, although I firmly deny that he is God being part of a trinity.

What was said to Lon was to discredit the works of Mr Bauscher whom Lon referred to. Mr Bauscher believes that Jesus was Jehovah who spoke to the Hebrews being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I showed Lon Hebrews 1:1,2 that shows that Jesus was NOT involved when God spoke to Hebrews in any way, since, Hebrews 1:1,2 highlights that God started speaking by means of Jesus in the 1CE. This is an undeniable fact regarding Hebrews 1:1,2, would you not agree? If you don't agree then how do you explain what is clearly stated in Hebrews 1:1,2?

You might look where Paul speaks of the Son of God in Hebrews, even of Melchizedek. The Son of God has neither beginning nor end of days it says. Or in other words, eternal, not a creation, but always has existed.

Jesus being high priest in the same manner Melchizedek has nothing to do with Jesus never having a beginning or end, that was in reference to Melchizedek and not Jesus. Melchizedek was a human, he had a mother and a father, as humans do, and died, as humans do. What is spoken of regarding him is said because there are no records of his ancestry, nor of his birth or death thus remaining high priest forever. Since Jesus is to remain as High priest too, he has the priesthood in the same manner as Melchizedek since his priesthood is too unending and forever. The reference to having no beginning of days in relation to Melchizedek was figurative, thus, to remain consistent and not to twist scripture we must not apply figurative language and make it literally apply to the person the application is made to.

Moreover Jesus had a Father, who was God (Mark 14:46), meaning Jesus had ancestry, Jesus got his life from his father the same way you and I got out lifes from our human father, Jesus said "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father..."(John 6:57) .

 

[Tambora]

Where did I say that He did?



Let's take a look at this, and don't read ahead.

Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon.And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” - Matthew 15:21-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:21-22&version=NKJV

Now, what do you think Jesus, based on your beliefs, should do?

...

If you said He should heal her daughter, you'd be wrong.

It says He answered her not a word.

Based on your beliefs, what do you think His disciples did when they heard that? Did they say, "Jesus, what are you doing? Heal this woman's daughter"?

...

If you said yes, you'd be wrong.

But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” - Matthew 15:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:23&version=NKJV

They told Him to send her away. Based on your beliefs, do you think that Jesus would have rebuked them at this point? Saying that she should go because her daughter has been healed?

...

If you said yes, you'd be wrong.

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” - Matthew 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:24&version=NKJV

Jesus said He was not sent to the Gentiles, He was sent ONLY TO ISRAEL.

In fact, even though
Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” - Matthew 15:25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:25&version=NKJV

He STILL refused her,
But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” - Matthew 15:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:26&version=NKJV

He called her a "little dog," because to Jews, Gentiles were just dogs. He said it's not good to take the children's bread (the "children" being Israel) and throw it to the little dogs (the "dogs" being the Gentiles, and He used the diminuitive form of the word for dog (like cigarette, dogette)).

But what she said next shocked Him:

And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. - Matthew 15:27-28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:27-28&version=NKJV

We see this happening a few times throughout the gospels, where a Gentile would come or be brought to Him, and He refused to help them, because He was focused on Israel and not the Gentiles. It was only because her faith in Him was so great that He did anything. But He had to walk a very fine line: Had He healed the woman's daughter too soon, we would have completely missed the point, that He was only sent to Israel, but refuse to heal the daughter and Christians (and people who stand against God) would say that He would have been cruel to her.

Anyways, the point is this: Jesus Himself said that He was sent only to Israel, and not the Gentiles.



Correct. However, the plan was originally that Israel would be saved, and then go out to the world to teach the world about Jesus. God wanted a "spokesnation" to reach the nations of the world, to teach them about Christ's sacrifice for their sins.

However, when Israel utterly rejected their Messiah (Acts 7:51-60), at the very moment when the Jews killed Stephen, God said, "I've had enough of Israel rejecting Me, that's it, I'm going to cut off Israel, and I'm moving to Plan B."

That was the tipping point. However, it wasn't until a bit later that He was able to cut them off and choose someone to be his spokesperson to the world (aka Saul, who then became Paul) (Acts 9).



The Word of God shows that Jesus taught law, not grace. Not once did Jesus mention grace.

In fact, I challenge you to show me where, during His earthly ministry, Christ taught grace.



Tell me, GT, does this sound like grace to you? or law?

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." - Matthew 6:14-15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew6:14-15&version=NKJV

Tell me GT, how does Jesus saying the above compare/contrast with this:

And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. - Ephesians 4:32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians4:32&version=NKJV

Does that sound like law or grace?

Jesus:
Step 1) Forgive others
Step 2) God will forgive you

Paul
Step 1) God has forgiven you
Step 2) Forgive others

Now, I don't know about you, but being a logical person, those two verses seem to contradict one another. I want to hear how you resolve them before I tell you how they in fact do not contradict.



Matthew 5-7 is Christ teaching law, and application of the law during the Millennial Kingdom.



Grace and truth came through Jesus, true. But that doesn't mean that Christ taught grace.



Explain, please. You have not refuted what I said.



You clearly do not understand Romans.

I encourage you to read through Romans a few times, QUICKLY, without trying to apply your beliefs to it.



By "we" do you mean humanity? Or Christians?



You're confusing Romans with Hebrews. Please don't. Romans was written to Gentiles. Hebrews was (SURPISE!) written to the Hebrews.

CHRISTIANS are no longer under the law, but under grace.

NON-CHRISTIANS are under the law, and will be condemned by it.



Again, Hebrews was written to the Hebrews. It was not written to Christians. The law changed many times in the Bible (eg dietary laws).



No, it is the new law for the Hebrews. Christians are not under the law.



You put Christians under the law. You go against what the Bible says in Romans 6:14 and Galatians 5:18. We are dead to it.



But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James1:25&version=NKJV

Doing something to receive a reward?

Hmmm that seems like law... Context? Oh, right:

James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings. - James 1:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James1:1&version=NKJV

AKA the diaspora, Jews who have been scattered.

GT, it would help your position greatly if you actually knew who the authors of the Bible were writing to, so that you could form your theology based on the Bible, and not try to fit the Bible to your theology.



I think you need to reread that paragraph understanding that James is talking to Jews.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. - James 2:8-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James2:8-13&version=NKJV

James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings. - James 1:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James1:1&version=NKJV

Again, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.



I will not reply to this until you read through Romans a few times to get an overview of what is said, because you clearly do not understand what is said in the book.



You really need to work on reading context.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians9:19-23&version=NKJV

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ ), that I might win those who are without law;to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians9:19-23&version=NKJV

The "law of Christ" is to love God and love one another.



Where do you find that in Scripture?

Paul said:

“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” - Galatians 2:17-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:17-21&version=NKJV

We live by faith, not by obedience to any law.

:BRAVO:

 

[NWL]

:nono: the Lord Jesus Christ is God. The ONLY thing you are getting from OT to NT is the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh AND through His work, words, and salvation. Also, these were Jews. They knew the OT. Hebrews was/is part of the New, and this was many of their first reading of instructions to living a new way, hence in the past O.T. It is the theme of the whole book of Hebrews and what they needed to know regarding this new faith. Read it that way: It is a blueprint for how to transition from being a Jew, to being a Christian. Hebrews will make a LOT more sense to you, if you read it as written to Hebrews.

I've read Hebrews many times, its my favourite book of the Bible, I know to whom it's addressed.

What you said doesn't change a thing to what I said. What is said in Hebrews 1:1,2 are factual statements. Are you claiming what is said isn't literal, because I've never heard another interpretation of Hebrews 1:1,2 other that what it seems to say on face value.

You can only have it one way, Jehovah either spoke by means of Jesus in the OT, which means the statement of Hebrews 1:1,2 is a lie. Or Jehovah didn't speak by means of Jesus in the OT, but did so in the 1CE which Hebrews 1:1,2 cleary states.

You claiming its in regards to Jesus flesh and his works on earth is you imposing your own set of rules and regulations as to what Hebrews 1:1,2 actually says. Hebrews 1 or any chapter after that sets and imposes no such standard.

1) I am not an Aramaic scholar. The author contests he is that scholar and more fluent. I HAVE to take his word for it. I don't know Aramaic.
2) "Before Abraham, I AM" makes a ton of sense to me, so I'm of course, not of the same mindset as you are.

That is your problem then, there are many many scholars who say a many different things, thus to uss the argument, "he's a scholar therefore I'll take his word over yours" is foolish, since scholars themselves don't agree with each other.

You've got to be kidding "Before Abraham, I AM" makes no sense! Trinitarians cherry pick the instances they want "ego emi" to mean referring to God and when they don't want it to refer to God. When doing so they provide no basis as to why it refers to Jehovah other than the fact that they want it to. There is ZERO grammatical reasons to understand ego emi to be referring to YHWH. Jesus says it throughout his ministry, as do the apostles, as do other speakers. It just so happens in few cherry picked verses when Jesus says it he's claiming to be YHWH with no proof other than the assumption in the claimants head.

Please, read John chapter 8 and Jesus uses of ego emi, with the understanding that Jesus is referring to himself as Jehovah, and tell me they make sense, because they clearly do not. It does not take a scholar to understand basic context.

 

[Rosenritter]

Please Let me clarify, Hebrews 1 doesn't discount or discredit that the Son of God is God. God in the flesh is still God.

When looking at Melchizadek, it actually does say that he is without father and mother. You may wish to interpret that he had a father and mother and lacked records (they were destroyed in a fire at the courthouse?) but it actually says he was without father and mother. And it says a lot more than that too. "Without beginning or end of days" it says. That's a very specific description, belonging to only One God.

I don't see a conflict here at all. God physically appeared before Abraham at another time besides as well, he ate food with him, other people saw him with his company of angels. He can call himself the LORD, the Captain of the LORD of Hosts, Melchizadek, Jesus, or even say "why do you ask me my name?"

... and you might want to consider that "Father" can have different application. The title of Father and Son are symbolic, not biological.

What I stated to Lon wasn't meant to discredit that Jesus was God in the flesh, although I firmly deny that he is God being part of a trinity.

What was said to Lon was to discredit the works of Mr Bauscher whom Lon referred to. Mr Bauscher believes that Jesus was Jehovah who spoke to the Hebrews being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I showed Lon Hebrews 1:1,2 that shows that Jesus was NOT involved when God spoke to Hebrews in any way, since, Hebrews 1:1,2 highlights that God started speaking by means of Jesus in the 1CE. This is an undeniable fact regarding Hebrews 1:1,2, would you not agree? If you don't agree then how do you explain what is clearly stated in Hebrews 1:1,2?



Jesus being high priest in the same manner Melchizedek has nothing to do with Jesus never having a beginning or end, that was in reference to Melchizedek and not Jesus. Melchizedek was a human, he had a mother and a father, as humans do, and died, as humans do. What is spoken of regarding him is said because there are no records of his ancestry, nor of his birth or death thus remaining high priest forever. Since Jesus is to remain as High priest too, he has the priesthood in the same manner as Melchizedek since his priesthood is too unending and forever. The reference to having no beginning of days in relation to Melchizedek was figurative, thus, to remain consistent and not to twist scripture we must not apply figurative language and make it literally apply to the person the application is made to.

Moreover Jesus had a Father, who was God (Mark 14:46), meaning Jesus had ancestry, Jesus got his life from his father the same way you and I got out lifes from our human father, Jesus said "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father..."(John 6:57) .

 

[keypurr]

No, He went down into Hell when He died, not to Heaven.

Did the Son of Man,logos, go back to the spirit world, I think so.

Keypurr, does a spirit have hands and feet?



Was the Spirit Son, as you call Him, ever not a spirit?



Can flesh walk through walls? Can flesh appear and disappear?

Oh no, your worse off than I thought.

Hell is the grave.

Spirits have taken many shapes, like Angles, demons but no one knows enough about the spirit world to answer that question.

The spirit son took the form of man. I already answered that for you.

After he died God raised him in a different form. Hopefully we will all be like him.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[keypurr]

Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus didn't take on a servant, He took on the form of one.

Read the AENT on verse 7

7. Yet disinherited himself and assumed the likeness of a servant, and was in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man,




Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[JudgeRightly]

Read the AENT on verse 7

7. Yet disinherited himself and assumed the likeness of a servant, and was in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man,




Sent from my iPad using TOL

That doesn't change anything.

He "assumed the likeness of (ie became) a servant," NOT "assumed (ie indwelt) a servant." HUGE difference between what is said and what you are saying.

 

[NWL]

Please Let me clarify, Hebrews 1 doesn't discount or discredit that the Son of God is God. God in the flesh is still God.

Although this was not my orginal argument I have to disagree with you on that.

Hebrews does discredit Jesus is God, being part of a Trinity. Hebrews was written after Jesus ascension, it mentions in Hebrews 1:9 that Jesus HAS a God, God does not have a God. Jesus does, thus he cannot be the God whom is his God nor can he have a God since he is God. Secondly, Hebrews 1:8 shows us what type of God Jesus is, which I will explain. 1 Cor 8:5,6 expresses that there is One almighty God even though there are those who are rightly called Gods and also false Gods. In Hebrews 1:8 it applies a text that speaks of an Israelite King, Psalms 45:1,6, calling that human king God. No doubt that Human king was not Almighty God but a secondary type of God, such as the type alluded to in 1 Cor 8:5 and also other scriptures. If the application of that King, who was called God, in Psalms 45:1,6 is applied to Jesus, then to remain consistent, Jesus must be understood as God in the same sense that that Israelite King was God, that being, not in the almighty sense, but in the secondary sense such as Psalms 45 readily displays as well as what other scriptures express, Psalms 82:1,6, John 10:34 being some.

(Psalm 45:1,6) "..My heart is stirred by something good. I say: “My song is about a king.” May my tongue be the stylus of a skilled copyist... your throne, O God, is forever and ever; The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.."

When looking at Melchizadek, it actually does say that he is without father and mother. You may wish to interpret that he had a father and mother and lacked records (they were destroyed in a fire at the courthouse?) but it actually says he was without father and mother. And it says a lot more than that too. "Without beginning or end of days" it says. That's a very specific description, belonging to only One God.

I do not deny what the scriptures actually saying regards to Melchizadek, I simply claim they have a symbolic meaning. Scripture also states that Jesus is a lamb, would it be correct to claim Jesus is a literal sheep or can writers and speakers use language in a symbolic sense.

I don't see a conflict here at all. God physically appeared before Abraham at another time besides as well, he ate food with him, other people saw him with his company of angels. He can call himself the LORD, the Captain of the LORD of Hosts, Melchizadek, Jesus, or even say "why do you ask me my name?"

No, God did not appear before Abraham or any man for that matter, he sent his representatives, speaking through angels. When you receive a letter in the post do you tell your friends and family "a letter invited me to so and so wedding" or do you say "Mark invited me to his wedding". It is not foreign, even in the Bible, to show representatives of someone speaking as the sender themselves.

Please could you tell me so I can better understand your position, specifically, who were the three men in the account found in Genesis 18:2 ?

... and you might want to consider that "Father" can have different application. The title of Father and Son are symbolic, not biological.

For what reasons do you see the titles father and son applied to Jesus and the Father as symbolic. The scriptures are clear in relation to Jesus that he was created as shown in Col 1:15. Other verses such as Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 make it clear who created him, namely God the Father.

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Revelation 3:14) “..To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that [Jesus] the Amen says, [who is] the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Proverbs 8:22) "..Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

 

[NWL]

That doesn't change anything.

He "assumed the likeness of (ie became) a servant," NOT "assumed (ie indwelt) a servant." HUGE difference between what is said and what you are saying.

Keypurr and I share some similar beliefs. I tried to tell you earlier you might be misunderstanding him.

I think Keypurr believes that the person who is typically called Jesus was a spirit prior coming to earth. When coming to earth he "became flesh", I do not believe Keypurr understands the scriptures to mean that Jesus dwelt in a human form but rather he became fully human.

 

[Saxon Hammer]

Saxon spoke against the Holy Bible, and I was defending the written Word of God.

No I said the 'book' was exactly that a book full of MENS words NOT Gods - The 'spirit of God' has been maintained not the WORD of God.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Although this was not my orginal argument I have to disagree with you on that.

Hebrews does discredit Jesus is God, being part of a Trinity. Hebrews was written after Jesus ascension, it mentions in Hebrews 1:9 that Jesus HAS a God, God does not have a God. Jesus does, thus he cannot be the God whom is his God nor can he have a God since he is God. Secondly, Hebrews 1:8 shows us what type of God Jesus is, which I will explain. 1 Cor 8:5,6 expresses that there is One almighty God even though there are those who are rightly called Gods and also false Gods. In Hebrews 1:8 it applies a text that speaks of an Israelite King, Psalms 45:1,6, calling that human king God. No doubt that Human king was not Almighty God but a secondary type of God, such as the type alluded to in 1 Cor 8:5 and also other scriptures. If the application of that King, who was called God, in Psalms 45:1,6 is applied to Jesus, then to remain consistent, Jesus must be understood as God in the same sense that that Israelite King was God, that being, not in the almighty sense, but in the secondary sense such as Psalms 45 readily displays as well as what other scriptures express, Psalms 82:1,6, John 10:34 being some.

(Psalm 45:1,6) "..My heart is stirred by something good. I say: “My song is about a king.” May my tongue be the stylus of a skilled copyist... your throne, O God, is forever and ever; The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.."



I do not deny what the scriptures actually saying regards to Melchizadek, I simply claim they have a symbolic meaning. Scripture also states that Jesus is a lamb, would it be correct to claim Jesus is a literal sheep or can writers and speakers use language in a symbolic sense.



No, God did not appear before Abraham or any man for that matter, he sent his representatives, speaking through angels. When you receive a letter in the post do you tell your friends and family "a letter invited me to so and so wedding" or do you say "Mark invited me to his wedding". It is not foreign, even in the Bible, to show representatives of someone speaking as the sender themselves.

Please could you tell me so I can better understand your position, specifically, who were the three men in the account found in Genesis 18:2 ?



For what reasons do you see the titles father and son applied to Jesus and the Father as symbolic. The scriptures are clear in relation to Jesus that he was created as shown in Col 1:15. Other verses such as Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 make it clear who created him, namely God the Father.

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Revelation 3:14) “..To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that [Jesus] the Amen says, [who is] the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Proverbs 8:22) "..Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

Wow.... Someone who might understand that begotten is made or created or formed.

How relieving.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[NWL]

Wow.... Someone who might understand that begotten is made or created or formed.

How relieving.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

The evidence of Jesus origins is 10x clearer and so much more profound in the scriptures than the man made trinity doctrine and the teaching of Jesus eternal nature. Its saddening that Christendom as a whole has been so tainted by false teachings.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The evidence of Jesus origins is 10x clearer and so much more profound in the scriptures than the man made trinity doctrine and the teaching of Jesus eternal nature. Its saddening that Christendom as a whole has been so tainted by false teachings.

Just curious.

Speaking of the Christ and not only the man Jesus of Nazareth; do you believe the Christ of GOD is eternal or the beginning (firstfruit) and the end(final judge of all)?

Do you think the Spirit that was in the Christ of GOD as he walked earth was the Spirit of GOD and as such, eternal?

Just talking, not looking to judge or condemn.... Thanks

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[NWL]

Just curious.

Speaking of the Christ and not only the man Jesus of Nazareth; do you believe the Christ of GOD is eternal or the beginning (firstfruit) and the end(final judge of all)?

I believe that Jesus Christ is now eternal having received life within himself from the Father after his death and resurrection but has not always been eternal having been created by the Father (Rev 3:14). I believe he was the first thing created by God and will be the final judge of all, a position given to him by the Father (John 5:22).

Do you think the Spirit that was insane Christ of GOD as he walked earth was the Spirit of GOD and as such, eternal?

I don't know what you mean by "insane Christ of GOD", inside maybe? I do not believe Jesus has a spirit inside of him other than the "pneuma" represented as his breath or life. To answer properly I'd have to understand what you mean by spirit of God here.

Just talking, not looking to judge or condemn.... Thanks

peace

No problem.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I believe that Jesus Christ is now eternal having received life within himself from the Father after his death and resurrection but has not always been eternal having been created by the Father (Rev 3:14). I believe he was the first thing created by God and will be the final judge of all, a position given to him by the Father (John 5:22).



I don't know what you mean by "insane Christ of GOD", inside maybe? I do not believe Jesus has a spirit inside of him other than the "pneuma" represented as his breath or life. To answer properly I'd have to understand what you mean by spirit of God here.



No problem.

Please excuse my sloppy ignorance in the matter, but are you a JW?

I don't know too much of their beliefs, but had noticed you speaking of them.

I must admit that your words near exactly mimic what I would have wrote myself(minus the multitude of grammatical/ spelling errors, of course.)

Regardless of a sect or denomination, I cannot deny the truth that your words do say. I look forward to further conversation with you in the future, GOD willing.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[God's Truth]

Please excuse my sloppy ignorance in the matter, but are you a JW?

I don't know too much of their beliefs, but had noticed you speaking of them.

I must admit that your words near exactly mimic what I would have wrote myself(minus the multitude of grammatical/ spelling errors, of course.)

Regardless of a sect or denomination, I cannot deny the truth that your words do say. I look forward to further conversation with you in the future, GOD willing.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Hi pops, so you believe Jesus had only the breath of life and not the Holy Spirit as his Spirit?

 

[God's Truth]

I believe that Jesus Christ is now eternal having received life within himself from the Father after his death and resurrection but has not always been eternal having been created by the Father (Rev 3:14). I believe he was the first thing created by God and will be the final judge of all, a position given to him by the Father (John 5:22).



I don't know what you mean by "insane Christ of GOD", inside maybe? I do not believe Jesus has a spirit inside of him other than the "pneuma" represented as his breath or life. To answer properly I'd have to understand what you mean by spirit of God here.



No problem.

The breath of God gives us our own spirit; but our breath just gives us oxygen.

So do you believe that we have our own spirit given to us from God at our conception, a spirit that lives on in consciousness after the death of our bodies?

 

[God's Truth]

No I said the 'book' was exactly that a book full of MENS words NOT Gods - The 'spirit of God' has been maintained not the WORD of God.

You went against the Holy Bible. As for you saying the spirit of God has been maintained but not the word of God---that is just bizarre teaching.