The Yahweh Name

Right Divider

Body part
Mid Acts, btw, do not think that there is a different gospel today. They believe, like I and most of Christianity, that there is only one gospel. Knowing that has helped bridge the gap.
There are MANY gospels Lon. Just read "the GOSPEL OF" and see.
I'm wondering how you can think that the gospel of the circumcision is identical to the gospel of the uncircumcision.
Paul says that one was committed to him and the other to Peter.
 

Lon

Well-known member
There are MANY gospels Lon. Just read "the GOSPEL OF" and see.
Well, I mispoke, I meant 'one saving gospel today.' Every MidActs I've talked to says there is but one saving gospel for all men today. That is why Paul said if any preached 'any other gospel, they are accursed' as far as I understand.
I'm wondering how you can think that the gospel of the circumcision is identical to the gospel of the uncircumcision.
. I said rather that today, there is only one gospel. Jesus is the only avenue for any man to be saved.
Paul says that one was committed to him and the other to Peter.
Yes, but 1) Peter's is subsumed today. The death burial and resurrection applies as much to a Jew today, as a gentile. There is no other name, given among men, whereby men may be saved. Acts 4:12 (I realize there is a difference or there'd be no need for an Apostle to gentiles).

I obviously am not quite MidActs, there are definite points where scripture has to align, in my understanding, differently than Mid Acts. I've been often accused of being MidActs because of points where I genuinely do agree, but I'll own where I genuinely differ. If it comes up in a MidActs thread one day, I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail. In Him -Lon
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
Paul's writings --the Apostle TO the gentiles
I appreciate the insight to your beliefs including Mid Acts Theology. I do not accept this theory or the slight variations mentioned above, but believe in the one message of the prophets and Jesus and all the Apostles including Peter and Paul, and the promise concerning Eve and the promises to Abraham and to David, summarised in "the sure mercies of David" Acts 13:34, Isaiah 55:1-3, 2 Samuel 23:5, Luke 1:32-33, Daniel 2:44, Acts 3:19-21, 2 Timothy 4:1,6-8 and the eventual outcome of the present problems in Jerusalem Zechariah 14:1-4, part of the results of the 2300 years ending in the 1967 conquest of Jerusalem (It will most probably settle down for a while, but not go away). I do not believe in heaven going at death or at the return of Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Greetings again oatmeal,

Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Luke 20:34–36 (KJV): 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

We will become equal unto the angels after the resurrection, not before.

Kind regards
Trevor
Again, the Hebrew word translated angels is Elohim, which you know refers to God
 

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,

I appreciate the insight to your beliefs including Mid Acts Theology. I do not accept this theory or the slight variations mentioned above, but believe in the one message of the prophets and Jesus and all the Apostles including Peter and Paul, and the promise concerning Eve and the promises to Abraham and to David,
It doesn't literally matter, what you believe. It matters what is demonstrable and this ain't it.
summarised in "the sure mercies of David" Acts 13:34, Isaiah 55:1-3, 2 Samuel 23:5, Luke 1:32-33, Daniel 2:44, Acts 3:19-21, 2 Timothy 4:1,6-8 and the eventual outcome of the present problems in Jerusalem Zechariah 14:1-4, part of the results of the 2300 years ending in the 1967 conquest of Jerusalem (It will most probably settle down for a while, but not go away). I do not believe in heaven going at death or at the return of Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor
You've a lot of weird culty ideas, no exception here. My HOPE was that I could get you to actually think instead of just rattle off brainwashed material...
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again oatmeal,
Again, the Hebrew word translated angels is Elohim, which you know refers to God
The inspired quotation of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 and the translation of Elohim into the Greek word Angels shows that the Hebrew word Elohim has a wider range of meaning than "God", depending on the context. Thus "Angels" is the correct translation in Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7 and this is also proved by the discussion in Hebrews 2 concerning the Angels and the relationship of Jesus to the Angels. The whole section of Hebrews 2 is discussing the Angels.

The Judges in Israel were also given the title Elohim and a simple comparison of the various translations of Exodus 22:8-9 will help to understand this range of meaning. Also Jacob did not wrestle with God, but an Angel Hosea 12:3-6. I am not sure what aspect of your theology is stopping you to accept Psalm 8:5 and its Divine interpretation in Hebrews 2:7. I agree that this is difficult for Trinitarians.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Idolater

Well-known member
. . . this is difficult for Trinitarians.

Kind regards
Trevor
There's no difficulty here Trevor. Hi, btw. Mostly the Trinitarians are the Catholic and Orthodox Christians of the world, we're like 5/8 - 2/3 of the world's Christians, and almost all the other Christians are all Trinitarians too. They carry our water when they argue with Nontrinitarians about the Trinity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Idolater

Well-known member
They don't really understand that we half agree with them. They always argue over the half we already would agree with 'as if' we don't believe the Son isn't the Father.
Yeah, interesting.

The Father is not the Son, the Father generates the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, this is the distinction in particular.

The Spirit is not the Father either. But since Nontrinitarians oversimplify God, they usually take the Spirit to be the Father, if not just a "force". The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Spirit is not the Son either, but again Catholics and Nontrinitarians agree here usually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Omniskeptical

Well-known member
But since Nontrinitarians oversimplify God, they usually take the Spirit to be the Father, if not just a "force"
It is not oversimplification, it is you who overcomplicates it with dogma. You can't simplify the infinite spirit. Either he is all powerful and all knowing or he isn't. And if God became a man, he could be accused of being otherwise with impunity. Since Jesus is not God, and isn't required for God to forgive mankind; it is a myth that God was not waking the dead starting with Abel. Abel didn't need the blood of the messiah. But Israel and gentiles needed it before the 2nd coming of the messiah.

Sorry folks, but the rapture happened a long time ago.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
It is not oversimplification, it is you who overcomplicates it with dogma. You can't simply the infinite spirit. Either he is all powerful and all knowing or he isn't. And if God became a man, he could be accused of being otherwise with impunity. Since Jesus is not God, and isn't required for God to forgive mankind; it is a myth that God was not waking the dead starting with Abel. Abel didn't need the blood of the messiah. But Israel and gentiles needed it before the 2nd coming of the messiah.

Sorry folks, but the rapture happened a long time ago.
You are really a mess. You don't believe what the scripture plainly says. That Jesus is God in the flesh.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
It is not oversimplification, it is you who overcomplicates it with dogma.
Compared to the presumption that God is the Trinity, Nontrinitarianism is oversimplified. I was replying to Lon, who also accepts that the Trinity is God.
You can't simplify the infinite spirit.
But you can make up something called an 'infinite spirit', and say whatever you want to about it, because that's what you did...
Either he is all powerful and all knowing or he isn't. And if God became a man, he could be accused of being otherwise with impunity. Since Jesus is not God, and isn't required for God to forgive mankind; it is a myth that God was not waking the dead starting with Abel. Abel didn't need the blood of the messiah. But Israel and gentiles needed it before the 2nd coming of the messiah.

Sorry folks, but the rapture happened a long time ago.
See?
 
Top