The Hebrew has "YHWH" in verse 2.
I was referring to the actual verse that he quoted - he changed "Lord" to "Jehovah."
The Hebrew has "YHWH" in verse 2.
I made a reply to this in my last post to you (#409), I will cop and post what I said, maybe this time you'll answer the question you ignored, something you accuse me of ironically.
How is YHWH having titles and Jesus having the same titles a dilemma?
If Jehovah alone is a savior and yet makes another savior to save a group of people through, how many saviors are there, one or two?
(Judges 3:15) Then the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, so Jehovah raised up for them a savior, Eʹhud the son of Geʹra, a Benʹja·min·ite who was left-handed.
(Isaiah 43:11) I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”
E'hud is a savior according to Judges 3:15, Jehovah is the only savior according to Isaiah 43:11, how many saviors do we see in the above, 1 or 2?
I've dealt with your point, two people sharing titles does nothing to my understanding of the scriptures, it doesn't contradict anything, however it does with your belief system, answer my above question in bold about saviors.
The Apostle Peter, and the Apostle John were both real Christians and they believed Jesus was the Son of God, and not God himself. Maybe that’s because Jesus agreed with them, and they were standing right there when God told them that.
If you don't believe Jesus is God Himself - then, you're committing idolatry in your worship of Jesus! You commit idolatry when you serve Jesus Christ!
this nonsense about what it does not say is grasping at straws... Are you saying that Jesus was at a loss for words... We are discussing the scripture... which is what is written... and what is said... bringing up what was not said is a strawman... Paul wrote to us there is but one God The father.. not one God The Trinity..
So if a son is not his father then Jesus is not God... because his father is God.
So if a son is not his father then Jesus is not [God the Father]... because his father is [God the Father].
Yep and you didn't understand what Peter was saying... see if you can glean anything from this passage...33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Based on your understanding when Jesus said if you did it unto to them you did it unto me... they were actually feeding clothing and visiting Jesus in prison...
to show me that the Trinity is biblically true you have to show me where the scripture says that God is a Trinity
"Originally Posted by newbirth61, but slightly tweaked by 7djengo7->
to show me that the Trinity is biblically [false] you have to show me where the scripture says that God is [not] a Trinity
What part of the Bible does not say that do you not understand???I will agree not to discuss anything that the scripture does not say if you will agree to same. It's that simple. Let's discuss only what the scripture say. Can you do that???At least you admit, here, that "what was not said" in Scripture is that Jesus is not God the Son.
You admit, of the Bible, that "what it does not say" is that God is not Triune.
You are, thereby, admitting that you did not learn your doctrines (that Jesus is not God the Son, and that God is not Triune) from Scripture; you are admitting that those beliefs of yours are extra-Biblical.
Q. Where did newbirth61 get his/her doctrine that Jesus is not God the Son?
A. From outside the Bible, as newbirth61 admits.
Q. Where did newbirth61 get his/her doctrine that God is not Triune?
A. From outside the Bible, as newbirth61 admits.
You seem to have an understanding problem.I will not be discussing anything that the scripture does not say. For example the scripture does not mention Trinity therefore the Trinity cannot be a point of discussion... the scripture does not say Jesus is God therefore Jesus is God cannot be a point of discussion. That would be like adding to the scripture.Now, feel free to try this out, also, just for fun:
You do believe the Trinity is "biblically [false]", don't you? Then, by all means, please show us where (according to your imagination) "the scripture says that God is [not] a Trinity". Should be no problem for you, right? I mean, after all, you learned "that God is [not] a Trinity" from Scripture, did you not?
Remember, as some of your fellow anti-Christs (as well as, perhaps, yourself) take great pride in pointing out, the word 'Trinity' cannot even be found in the Bible. And why not? Because the Bible does not teach "that God is [not] a Trinity".
You seem to have an understanding problem.I will not be discussing anything that the scripture does not say. For example the scripture does not mention Trinity therefore the Trinity cannot be a point of discussion... the scripture does not say Jesus is God therefore Jesus is God cannot be a point of discussion. That would be like adding to the scripture.
You imagine you have lit upon some analogy between Acts 5:3-4 KJV and Matthew 25:33-46 KJV? Is that what you're trying to get at? If not, what? Now, why ever did you just copy/paste the Matthew passage, and then merely write part of a sentence, all broken up by ellipses, rather than actually try to spell out for us, as clearly and exactly as you can, the nature of your supposed analogy? Let's hear your explanation, right away, please! Very, very curious, here!
- Whom or what, in the Matthew passage, would you say corresponds (according to your supposed analogy) to the Holy Spirit in the Acts passage?
- Whom or what, in the Matthew passage, would you say corresponds to God (in the phrase "but unto God") in the Acts passage?
- Whom or what, in the Matthew passage, would you say corresponds to the men mentioned, in the Acts passage, in the phrase, "not lied to men"?
- Whom or what, in the Acts passage, would you say corresponds to those who "gave [Jesus] meat" in the Matthew passage?
- Whom or what, in the Acts passage, would you say corresponds to "the least of these [Christ's] brethren" in the Matthew passage?
- Whom or what, in the Acts passage, would you say corresponds to Christ in the Matthew passage?
Go ahead, Professor, please flesh out for us, as clearly and concisely as you can, the analogy you suppose inheres between the two Scripture passages. We sit humbly and patiently at your feet, waiting to be made wise by your wisdom.
Yep and to us there is but one God The father... not one God The Trinity..1 Cor 8Since, by "God", you mean God the Father, here is what you have just told us:
Well done, Professor! A+ for you!
That is your conclusion ... Jesus called his Father God... and there is only one God... Jesus told Peter that his father in heaven revealed to Peter that he Jesus was God's son... Did Jesus make a mistake.. because Jesus and the Thomas are not saying the same thing...Thomas said to Jesus "the Lord of me and the God of me."
You say "Jesus is not God."
Who's right, you or Thomas?
That is your conclusion ... Jesus called his Father God... and there is only one God... Jesus told Peter that his father in heaven revealed to Peter that he Jesus was God's son... Did Jesus make a mistake.. because Jesus and the Thomas are not saying the same thing...
Why are you guys still discussing things that the scripture does not say??? Even if Thomas called Jesus God you can't use that to confirm something that the scripture does not say...
Lord of me would be Jesus... and God of me would be the father... remember that God made Jesus Lord and Christ...
Unless you are saying that Jesus is the father... are you saying that Jesus is the father???
Yeah, it does. Fact. ANYBODY with a 6th grade reading level understands 'with' and 'was' God. It is as plain as that. No equivocation needed. Verbatim.None of those verses say"Jesus is God"
:nono:what you are saying is that you understand the scripture to mean that....
"Verbatim."
:nono:which is what you have to say...
Means 'exactly what it says.'"Verbatim."
:nono: Doesn't matter. The verse in question ALREADY says 'with.' Do YOU understand that? It is word for word.I have posted verses that are explicit... Jesus is the son of God... Jesus ascended to His God... God said that Jesus is his so...I am not going to argue with what you conclude based on your own understanding...So unless you have a verse that says Jesus is God.. Jesus is the son of God
The next phrase says 'and was.' You are done. We are done. I am done. It is this simple. Help me out. Say you understand this. Thanks."Verbatim."