Jesus is God

[Rosenritter]

You are making all kinds of wild untrue statements about me because you cannot hear what I say: even though I have shown you by the Word which you apparently cannot see. Lol, you cannot even seem to figure out what "see" means when and where. If you had followed the context in what I have said you would have known that I said nothing about visions. I even told you that I linked to what I spoke of and yet you still apparently have no clue what that means or simply do not feel the need to go investigate the link. Do you think it is wise for you to make false accusations, insinuations, and assertions about what someone else has said when they have given you the information to understand what they said and you ignore it? Yes, you can take that one post of mine and rip it out of the context of everything else I said, and highlight the portion which you think makes me look foolish, but all that proves is that no doubt you do the same thing with the scripture; and no wonder you cannot see what I see in the scripture. I said nothing about visions: dream on dreamer. :chuckle:

If you weren't claiming divine revelation, then you were using metaphorical horse hockey as your claim of authority, which is wasteful of everyone's time, evasive, intellectually dishonest, and offensive.

This (below) was your answer:

I have seen the only begotten Elohim Son who ever dwells in the bosom of the Father, and He is seated at the Right Hand of the Father, for the Father has magnified His Word over all His Name. That one was in the beginning with the Father.

His name is not Jesus and, in fact, you can only find the name "Jesus" in modern translations of the scripture: in all the oldest and most reliable Greek codices, manuscripts, and texts, we read only what are now called "Nomina Sacra", and they are not what Christiandom has erroneously assumed, (at least not when it comes to the name of Meshiah).

Either way, no more questions.

Rev 22:13-16 KJV
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

His name is Jesus.

 

[daqq]

If you weren't claiming divine revelation, then you were using metaphorical horse hockey as your claim of authority, which is wasteful of everyone's time, evasive, intellectually dishonest, and offensive.

This (below) was your answer:

You are now lying because you willingly chose to ignore the context of my statements.
Here is another link to the same thread so that others may know that you are utterly blind:

"He that has seen me has seen the Father", (John 14:9)
If you look intently you may see the Son:

The Son is in the bosom of the Father at His right hand side.
Ι̅H – Ια Ηλωιμ (see Mar 15:34) – Yah Elohim
(Ruach Elohim – Gen 1:2, Psa 68:18, Mat 3:16, Rom 8:9)​

 

[daqq]

If you weren't claiming divine revelation, then you were using metaphorical horse hockey as your claim of authority, which is wasteful of everyone's time, evasive, intellectually dishonest, and offensive.

Your rebukes and false accusations are what is offensive: and all of it is merely due to your own utter blindness. I speak on the authority of the Word; but you have some other authority who desires to subjugate and nullify the portions of the Word which you do not wish to accept into your dogma. I actually believe the passages that I have quoted from the scripture to you: how many times have I said to you alone that "No man has seen or beheld Elohim at any time"? And yet by your interpretation of my words you say that I do not really believe those passages because you corrupt what I said in your blinded mind. I do believe those words or I would not be quoting them to you over and over again: it is you who does not believe them, and therefore you twist and corrupt what I said to justify yourself and your paradigm-mindset at my expense with your false accusations.

Nope, he's still gotcha, all-u-y'all, (lol), because if the same Spirit who raised up the man Jesus is also in Keypurr, (Rom 8:9-11), then that same Spirit of Meshiah who raised the man Jesus from the dead will also raise Keypurr from the dead. Ruach Meshiah is Ruach Elohim, (Rom 8:9, and the Dove "brooding" over the waters in Gen 1:2, and the same Ruach Elohim of Mat 3:16). Ruach Meshiah speaks through the man Jesus after his immersion and especially in the Gospel of John, (which is not milk, but meat, after first having a fairly decent understanding of the other three Synoptic Gospel accounts).

Yeah, anytime you see a (parenthesis) it should immediately raise a red flag, and when I see it in the second line of the opening paragraph of a book I know that something is likely wrong. It is essentially like a group of translators got together and decided how they were going to not translate the passage for what it actually says, and decided to put the portion they either did not like or did not understand in parenthesis and treat it almost like a footnote from the author within his own text. But to do such a thing right in the second line of the opening passage really takes the cake. Moreover they apparently did not and do not understand because in the opening passage the author uses both words which we already know cannot be speaking of "seeing" Elohim with the eyes of the flesh. Those two words right in the opening line are οραω, (horao), and θεαομαι, (theaomai), as has already been mentioned in this thread, (John 1:18a and 1John 4:12a respectively, which I will post again below).

1 John 1:1-3
1 ο ην απ αρχης ο ακηκοαμεν ο εωρακαμεν [G3708 οραω] τοις οφθαλμοις ημων ο εθεασαμεθα [G2300 θεαομαι] και αι χειρες ημων εψηλαφησαν περι του λογου της ζωης
2 και η ζωη εφανερωθη και εωρακαμεν και μαρτυρουμεν και απαγγελλομεν υμιν την ζωην την αιωνιον ητις ην προς τον πατερα και εφανερωθη ημιν
3 ο εωρακαμεν και ακηκοαμεν απαγγελλομεν και υμιν ινα και υμεις κοινωνιαν εχητε μεθ ημων και η κοινωνια δε η ημετερα μετα του πατρος και μετα του υιου αυτου ιη χρ

1 John 1:1-3
1 Who was from the beginning: Who we have seen with our eyes: Who we have beheld, and our hands have handled, concerns the Word of the Life.
2 And the Life was revealed, and we have seen, and we testify, and we announce unto you the Life Aionion which was with the Father, and was revealed unto us.
3 Whom we have seen and we have heard we announce also unto you so that you yourselves also may have fellowship with us: and our fellowship moreover is with the Father and with His Son, Meshiah Ι̅H.

The two highlighted words, "seen" and "beheld", are these two words:

John 1:18a ASV
18a No man hath seen [εωρακεν (G3708 οραω)] God at any time;

1 John 4:12a ASV
12a No man hath beheld [τεθεαται (G2300 θεαομαι)] God at any time:

Please note the most critical point of all: the context, for the incorrect doctrine will force a contradiction upon the scripture, and the one loving the Word will not force a contradiction just to salvage a doctrinal viewpoint.

The moment Moses began to write, the Word became flesh, (lambskin).

I have seen the only begotten Elohim Son who ever dwells in the bosom of the Father, and He is seated at the Right Hand of the Father, for the Father has magnified His Word over all His Name, (Psalm 138:2). That one was in the beginning with the Father. His name is not Jesus and, in fact, you can only find the name "Jesus" in modern translations of the scripture: in all the oldest and most reliable Greek codices, manuscripts, and texts, we read only what are now called "Nomina Sacra", and they are not what Christiandom has erroneously assumed, (at least not when it comes to the name of Meshiah).

So also are John 1:14 and 1John 1:1-3.

Originally Posted by daqq

And the Word became flesh, (μεμβρανας-lambskins), and tabernacled among us: Who we have heard: Who we have seen with our eyes: Who we have looked upon, and which our hands have handled, the Word of Life in the lambskin Sefer, whose earlets were pierced coming into the world, being affixed to the Atzei Chayim.

Syria Gallery

Yes, Who tabernacles among us, and in the midst of the great congregation.

No man has seen, (οραω), or beheld, (θεαομαι), Elohim at any time, (Jn 1:18a, 1Jn 4:12a).
Blessed are those not having seen, (ειδω - to know), and being convinced, (John 20:29).
The one having οραω-seen the Son has οραω-seen the Father, (John 14:9).

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the LOGOS-WORD that I have spoken, THAT ONE shall judge him in the last day [Rev 19:11-16].
The Logos-Word

Originally Posted by daqq

"He that has seen me has seen the Father", (John 14:9)
If you look intently you may see the Son:

The Son is in the bosom of the Father at His right hand side.
Ι̅H – Ια Ηλωιμ (see Mar 15:34) – Yah Elohim
(Ruach Elohim – Gen 1:2, Psa 68:18, Mat 3:16, Rom 8:9)​

:sheep:

 

[daqq]

In the discussion which has occurred above, herein is yet another of the Rosenritter "KJV Only" problems, (though there are many, this is the one concerning this subject matter). Rosenritter's beloved KJV takes five or six Greek words for "seeing", "beholding", "envisioning", and so on and so on, and typically renders all of them as "seeing". Rosenritter therefore takes all of them as ocular-visual seeing with the eyes of the carnal and natural man; and that for him results in many contradictions in various scripture passages which he must therefore avoid, ignore, and subjugate, so as to force them to comply with his belief system. The end result for Rosenritter is that "Jesus was both a natural physical man and God Almighty at the same time", no matter what the scripture actually says or what passages might refute his system. His goal is not to change his own mindset and resolve the contradictions in his thinking, but rather, to use scripture against scripture so as to nullify and subjugate what he does not wish to believe from the scripture. The Master says that the words which he speaks are Spirit, (and Life, which also implies LIVING), and how many different Greek words are there for "to see", "to behold", and so on? And why do English translators notoriously render five or six different such Greek words all as, "to see", (especially Rosenritter's beloved KJV), when that many different words cannot possibly all mean or imply exactly the same kind of "seeing"?

John 1:18a KJV - "No man hath seen [G3708 ὁράω] God at any time;"

G3708 ὁράω horao (ho-raō') v.
1. (properly) to stare at.
2. (by implication) to clearly see or discern (physically or mentally).
3. (thus, by extension) to clearly see to it (i.e. to take care or attend to).
4. (of mental imagery) to clearly envision.
[a primary word]
KJV: behold, perceive, see, take heed
Compare: G1492, G1896, G2300, G2334, G3700

Please do indeed compare: G1492, G1896, G2300, G2334, G3700, and G3708.
For example the companion passage to John 1:18a has a different Greek verb:

1 John 4:12a KJV - "No man hath seen [G2300 θεάομαι] God at any time."

 

[Rosenritter]

You are now lying because you willingly chose to ignore the context of my statements.
Here is another link to the same thread so that others may know that you are utterly blind:

Claiming "I know because I have seen God" and using "seen" in its metaphorical sense is worthless. Everyone here claims to have "seen" God in that sense. As such it's worthless for establishing authority or attempting to prove a point. You didn't have anything else offered as evidence, so ... wasting our time, at best.

 

[Rosenritter]

In the discussion which has occurred above, herein is yet another of the Rosenritter "KJV Only" problems, (though there are many, this is the one concerning this subject matter). Rosenritter's beloved KJV takes five or six Greek words for "seeing", "beholding", "envisioning", and so on and so on, and typically renders all of them as "seeing".

Spoiler

Rosenritter therefore takes all of them as ocular-visual seeing with the eyes of the carnal and natural man; and that for him results in many contradictions in various scripture passages which he must therefore avoid, ignore, and subjugate, so as to force them to comply with his belief system. The end result for Rosenritter is that "Jesus was both a natural physical man and God Almighty at the same time", no matter what the scripture actually says or what passages might refute his system. His goal is not to change his own mindset and resolve the contradictions in his thinking, but rather, to use scripture against scripture so as to nullify and subjugate what he does not wish to believe from the scripture. The Master says that the words which he speaks are Spirit, (and Life, which also implies LIVING), and how many different Greek words are there for "to see", "to behold", and so on? And why do English translators notoriously render five or six different such Greek words all as, "to see", (especially Rosenritter's beloved KJV), when that many different words cannot possibly all mean or imply exactly the same kind of "seeing"?

John 1:18a KJV - "No man hath seen [G3708 ὁράω] God at any time;"

G3708 ὁράω horao (ho-raō') v.
1. (properly) to stare at.
2. (by implication) to clearly see or discern (physically or mentally).
3. (thus, by extension) to clearly see to it (i.e. to take care or attend to).
4. (of mental imagery) to clearly envision.
[a primary word]
KJV: behold, perceive, see, take heed
Compare: G1492, G1896, G2300, G2334, G3700

Please do indeed compare: G1492, G1896, G2300, G2334, G3700, and G3708.
For example the companion passage to John 1:18a has a different Greek verb:

1 John 4:12a KJV - "No man hath seen [G2300 θεάομαι] God at any time."

Nice try there, but you're only showing that you don't understand the nature of language.

 

[daqq]

Nice try there, but you're only showing that you don't understand the nature of language.

Lol, out of one side of your mouth you dismiss the scripture I have posted by saying to me that you have "no more questions for me", (again, lol, as if you are a god), and yet from the other side of your mouth you spout your own opinions and expect me to listen to your opinions about language, (again, lol). As I said, have a nice life, and dream on dreamer.

 

[patrick jane]

Lol, out of one side of your mouth you dismiss the scripture I have posted by saying to me that you have "no more questions for me", (again, lol, as if you are a god), and yet from the other side of your mouth you spout your own opinions and expect me to listen to your opinions about language, (again, lol). As I said, have a nice life, and dream on dreamer.

Sorry to burst you bubble daqq, but Jesus Christ is God. God Incarnate, He came in the flesh

 

[daqq]

Sorry to burst you bubble daqq, but Jesus Christ is God. God Incarnate, He came in the flesh

Sorry to burst your own bubble but "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" are not even the same "person". You really do not even have a "Trinity" but some sort of "Quadrinity". And if you look closely enough at the Trinitarian warshield, (Scutum Fedei), there are already four entities in that diagram with the one in the middle having no name except "God". Who is the one in the middle who appears to be superior to the other three in your opinion? Did Paul not preach to the pagan Greeks at Mars Hill about their unknown God? :chuckle:

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE SCRIPTURE TEACHES ABOUT THE FATHER:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

And yet this is the best diagram Trinitarians can come up with to diagram God?
Wow, that is one big bubble . . . :chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

Sorry to burst your own bubble but "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" are not even the same "person". You really do not even have a "Trinity" but some sort of "Quadrinity". And if you look closely enough at the Trinitarian warshield, (Scutum Fedei), there are already four entities in that diagram with the one in the middle having no name except "God". Who is the one in the middle who appears to be superior to the other three in your opinion? Did Paul not preach to the pagan Greeks at Mars Hill about their unknown God? :chuckle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

And yet this is the best diagram Trinitarians can come up with to diagram God?
Wow, that is one big bubble . . . :chuckle:

Sorry daqq, you lose

 

[daqq]

Sorry daqq, you lose

Sorry, I do not lose, because the Father and His Son make their abode with me.
What you worship and do in your house has no bearing on me.

 

[patrick jane]

Sorry, I do not lose, because the Father and His Son make their abode with me.
What you worship and do in your house has no bearing on me.

Why do you have to be different? :chuckle:

 

[Rosenritter]

Lol, out of one side of your mouth you dismiss the scripture I have posted by saying to me that you have "no more questions for me", (again, lol, as if you are a god), and yet from the other side of your mouth you spout your own opinions and expect me to listen to your opinions about language, (again, lol). As I said, have a nice life, and dream on dreamer.

I didn't say that for the purpose of smack talk. I apologize if that seemed antagonizing, but it is a normal and accepted thing for some languages to have more specific words than other languages in various areas. That doesn't mean that the people with the more limited language set don't understand the concepts or that it's "lost in translation."

 

[daqq]

Why do you have to be different? :chuckle:

Scripture.

John 7:38-39 YLT
38 he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

He says, "For not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified", which was finished when he completed his Testimony by saying, "It is Finished", at Golgotha. And the reason this is true is because the Testimony of the Master is SPIRIT, (John 6:63), and that is no doubt, Holy Spirit, (and the Word is therefore your "earnest" which you received when you first believed: but you are required to immerse in the Holy Spirit Testimony of the Messiah). And the word "given" which you see in most English translations is nowhere to be found in any manuscript, codex, or fragment, and is rather inserted into the text so as "to help you better understand", (that is to say, to help you believe the Trinitarian bias, lol).

2 John 1:8-11 KJV
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him [it] not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Receiving him or it, "not into your house", means this: do not allow any other doctrine apart from what he mentions into your "house", (the doctrine of the Messiah, and both the Father and the Son, (who is the Messiah), that is the Doctrine which the author mentions), for you are set in charge over a house-body-temple and it is not your own if you are "in Messiah".

 

[marhig]

Scripture.

John 7:38-39 YLT
38 he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

He says, "For not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified", which was finished when he completed his Testimony by saying, "It is Finished", at Golgotha. And the reason this is true is because the Testimony of the Master is SPIRIT, (John 6:63), and that is no doubt, Holy Spirit, (and the Word is therefore your "earnest" which you received when you first believed: but you are required to immerse in the Holy Spirit Testimony of the Messiah). And the word "given" which you see in most English translations is nowhere to be found in any manuscript, codex, or fragment, and is rather inserted into the text so as "to help you better understand", (that is to say, to help you believe the Trinitarian bias, lol).

2 John 1:8-11 KJV
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him [it] not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Receiving him or it, "not into your house", means this: do not allow any other doctrine apart from what he mentions into your "house", (the doctrine of the Messiah, and both the Father and the Son, (who is the Messiah), that is the Doctrine which the author mentions), for you are set in charge over a house-body-temple and it is not your own if you are "in Messiah".

Yes absolutely, and Christ Jesus said that the father is his God and father, and that the father is the only true God. And that he sent him to obey his commandments, fulfil the prophesies, and that he himself lives by the father's will and not his own will, thus the father is God Almighty.

And those who truly believe Jesus him will follow him and do the same and live by the fathers will through Christ Jesus and they will be loving God the Father from their hearts and worshiping him in Spirit and in truth. Always ready to do what pleases him and ready to love their neighbour as themselves, and turning from this world of sin and the works of the flesh by the power of the Spirit. thus truly following Jesus.

So the father is clearly the God and father of Jesus Christ. There is no duality, trinity or any ity. There's is only one, one God and he's the father and his son Christ Jesus who was anointed by him and has now been set at his right hand, exalted by God the Father and God had given him authority over all that is in heaven and in earth.

And Christ and the father are now glorified through the true church. Those who are born of God, walk in the Spirit and live by the will of God and worship the father in Spirit and in truth.

 

[daqq]

Yes absolutely, and Christ Jesus said that the father is his God and father, and that the father is the only true God. And that he sent him to obey his commandments, fulfil the prophesies, and that he himself lives by the father's will and not his own will, thus the father is God Almighty.

And those who truly believe Jesus him will follow him and do the same and live by the fathers will through Christ Jesus and they will be loving God the Father from their hearts and worshiping him in Spirit and in truth. Always ready to do what pleases him and ready to love their neighbour as themselves, and turning from this world of sin and the works of the flesh by the power of the Spirit. thus truly following Jesus.

So the father is clearly the God and father of Jesus Christ. There is no duality, trinity or any ity. There's is only one, one God and he's the father and his son Christ Jesus who was anointed by him and has now been set at his right hand, exalted by God the Father and God had given him authority over all that is in heaven and in earth.

And Christ and the father are now glorified through the true church. Those who are born of God, walk in the Spirit and live by the will of God and worship the father in Spirit and in truth.

Amen!

 

[Rosenritter]

Scripture.

John 7:38-39 YLT
38 he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

He says, "For not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified", which was finished when he completed his Testimony by saying, "It is Finished", at Golgotha. And the reason this is true is because the Testimony of the Master is SPIRIT, (John 6:63), and that is no doubt, Holy Spirit, (and the Word is therefore your "earnest" which you received when you first believed: but you are required to immerse in the Holy Spirit Testimony of the Messiah). And the word "given" which you see in most English translations is nowhere to be found in any manuscript, codex, or fragment, and is rather inserted into the text so as "to help you better understand", (that is to say, to help you believe the Trinitarian bias, lol).

Seriously Daqq? Accusations of "Trinitarian Bias" for translating that passage into English? The version you posted as it reads says that the Holy Spirit didn't exist. The very nature of the English language (that we're translating it into) requires a verb. So which verb? How about the one that corresponds to receive? Your own favored translation uses the word receive before, as in "receive the Holy Spirit."

There's nothing Trinitarian in that passage regardless. I think you've got a chip on your shoulder that is unbalancing your objectivity.

 

[daqq]

Seriously Daqq? Accusations of "Trinitarian Bias" for translating that passage into English? The version you posted as it reads says that the Holy Spirit didn't exist. The very nature of the English language (that we're translating it into) requires a verb. So which verb? How about the one that corresponds to receive? Your own favored translation uses the word receive before, as in "receive the Holy Spirit."

There's nothing Trinitarian in that passage regardless. I think you've got a chip on your shoulder that is unbalancing your objectivity.

You are being dishonest again, and here you are asking me questions again after you summarily dismissed me like a king, O king, and told me that you had no more questions for me. Moreover that post was not even a response to you. However you are engaged in adding words into the scripture, and not truly just for ease of understanding and the flow of language in translation, no, but rather so as to intentionally change the meaning of the passage to suit your dogma, just as your favorite cult translation. There are words for give and receive and there is nothing there in that instance because the Testimony of the Master is the NEW Covenant NEW SPIRIT, even plainly called the same and foretold in the Prophet Ezekiel, for again, as the Master says, his words are SPIRIT. That Testimony did not yet exist until Messiah came and delivered it. :duh:

 

[Rosenritter]

You are being dishonest again, and here you are asking me questions again after you summarily dismissed me like a king, O king, and told me that you had no more questions for me. Moreover that post was not even a response to you. However you are engaged in adding words into the scripture, and not truly just for ease of understanding and the flow of language in translation, no, but rather so as to intentionally change the meaning of the passage to suit your dogma, just as your favorite cult translation. There are words for give and receive and there is nothing there in that instance because the Testimony of the Master is the NEW Covenant NEW SPIRIT, even plainly called the same and foretold in the Prophet Ezekiel, for again, as the Master says, his words are SPIRIT. That Testimony did not yet exist until Messiah came and delivered it. :duh:

A rhetorical question is not a question proper. "Seriously, Daqq?" is a statement of incredulous disbelief, not a query that expects a response. It means that I think you have a loose screw, not that I request an answer...

Do I need to spell this out for you in any more detail, or do you have it this time? See? That's another example of a rhetorical question.

 

[daqq]

A rhetorical question is not a question proper. "Seriously, Daqq?" is a statement of incredulous disbelief, not a query that expects a response. It means that I think you have a loose screw, not that I request an answer...

Do I need to spell this out for you in any more detail, or do you have it this time? See? That's another example of a rhetorical question.

Yes, of course, anyone who actually understands and believes the scripture has "a loose screw" according to you. It has already been spelled out for you and yet, because of your own self-imposed paradigm blinders, you cannot see what has already been said to you from the scripture:

Scripture.

John 7:38-39 YLT
38 he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

He says, "For not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified", which was finished when he completed his Testimony by saying, "It is Finished", at Golgotha. And the reason this is true is because the Testimony of the Master is SPIRIT, (John 6:63), and that is no doubt, Holy Spirit, (and the Word is therefore your "earnest" which you received when you first believed: but you are required to immerse in the Holy Spirit Testimony of the Messiah). And the word "given" which you see in most English translations is nowhere to be found in any manuscript, codex, or fragment, and is rather inserted into the text so as "to help you better understand", (that is to say, to help you believe the Trinitarian bias, lol).

2 John 1:8-11 KJV
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him [it] not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Receiving him or it, "not into your house", means this: do not allow any other doctrine apart from what he mentions into your "house", (the doctrine of the Messiah, and both the Father and the Son, (who is the Messiah), that is the Doctrine which the author mentions), for you are set in charge over a house-body-temple and it is not your own if you are "in Messiah".

However you are engaged in adding words into the scripture, and not truly just for ease of understanding and the flow of language in translation, no, but rather so as to intentionally change the meaning of the passage to suit your dogma, just as your favorite cult translation. There are words for give and receive and there is nothing there in that instance because the Testimony of the Master is the NEW Covenant NEW SPIRIT, even plainly called the same and foretold in the Prophet Ezekiel, for again, as the Master says, his words are SPIRIT. That Testimony did not yet exist until Messiah came and delivered it. :duh:

Ezekiel 11:18-20
18 And they shall enter therein, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof out of there.
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new Spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20 That they may walk in My statutes, and observe My ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their Elohim.

Ezekiel 36:25-27
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, I will cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall observe My judgments, and do them.

New Spirit = Testimony of the Messiah (John 6:63, John 7:39 YLT).