\
Honest discussion?????
your motive is to mock, belittle and insult your enemy Christians.
that's what many forum Christians do.
It is called elitism, you believe you know better than anyone else.
Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."
- Thread starter KingdomRose
- Start date
- Status
Honest discussion?????
your motive is to mock, belittle and insult your enemy Christians.
that's what many forum Christians do.
It is called elitism, you believe you know better than anyone else.
drbrumley
Well-known member
That's a lie about me and I want an apology.
Trinty has been argued in trinity thread. Why don't you accept what the non-trins say?
why do you make your own trinity topic?
I dont argue with non-trins even I dont agree with them 100%.
I dont argue about trinity much because it has nothing to do with Jesus' love messages.
I dont label trins or any other Christians as non-believer or cult or unsaved. But you trines do to your enemy Christians. It comes from your elitism spirit.
You have been saying I dont understand what I post. That's an insulting and condescending.
But you have been asking questions to non-trins.
And you claim we don't understand what the verses saying. That is condescending and insult.
drbrumley
Well-known member
The implication of your theology Meshak is Jesus was a created being. He wasn't God, thereby rendering His blood useless for the forgiveness of sins of all mankind. His blood was no different then that of bulls and goats. The Blood of God was the only way death could be conquered. Who really is Jesus to you Meshak? The Archangel Michael?
You see, we have three powerful entities in the pages of scripture. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Your theology (belief) says God the Father was not created. Jesus was created and I'm not sure about what you think of the Holy Spirit.
My belief is God wasn't created, Jesus wasn't created, and the Holy Spirit wasn't created. 1x1x1=1
The point being you throw verses at me, I agree with em. 100%. I give you verses, and your like hitting the reject button. There has to be a reason. Why am I the one who agrees with the whole of scripture, but you can't get out of the gospels. sad really.
You think it over.
You see, we have three powerful entities in the pages of scripture. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Your theology (belief) says God the Father was not created. Jesus was created and I'm not sure about what you think of the Holy Spirit.
My belief is God wasn't created, Jesus wasn't created, and the Holy Spirit wasn't created. 1x1x1=1
The point being you throw verses at me, I agree with em. 100%. I give you verses, and your like hitting the reject button. There has to be a reason. Why am I the one who agrees with the whole of scripture, but you can't get out of the gospels. sad really.
You think it over.
thanks, good day.
Has this been counter addessed yet?
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The human subordinate to the divine.....Yes........
The human subordinate to the divine.....Yes........
See here. - I see you do acknowledge subordination of the Son,...good, since such is a logical observation of relational order and process, to say nothing of hierarchy. Both Unitarian and Trinitarians accept this obvious 'relation',...the latter however can fluctuate between both 'divine' and 'human' aspects of Jesus, so they can always claim Jesus humanity is being referred to in certain situational-contexts, whereas he still always has his pure or total divinity somehow ever intact within his personhood (the divine and human elements being 'fused' yet distinct), while Unitarians either maintain a purely human origin and constitution of Jesus at his conception and then only some divine infusion, anointing or joining to 'God' from his incarnational birth onwards, but the man Jesus certainly never becomes 'God' Almighty.
I think we already addressed Heb. 1:8 here or in other threads on this subject, but I'll be working on a commentary on that verse forthcoming soon. Thorough research shows that this passage does Not necessarily prove Jesus is God, since the grammatical structure of the passage is ambiguous and can be variously translated, not to mention that the original psalm 45 that is quoted, which is about a Davidic King and his wedding to a foreign Princess, which is probably Solomon, is not being referred to as 'God' Almighty, yet the Messiah and other mighty men (judges, kings, anointed ones) can be called 'elohim', and since they are representations of 'God', this is appropriate indicating their are agents of God, and so serve in God's stead. But this exclamation can be relating a different emphasis altogether as the verse traditionally rendered "thy throne O God, is forever and ever", can also be translated(arranged) as "God is thy throne", or "your throne is God", meaning the Anointed one's power or authority is 'God', so the Messiah's throne is 'God', 'God' is his power, his authority, so he sits on God's throne, figuratively speaking. No Jewish scripture ever teaches that the Messiah is YHWH himself, but is an anointed Man whom God chooses and makes into his Messiah(Son), who represents him, and therefore when this Messiah-King is ruling, He most certainly rules by God's power, the Messiah is 'enthroned' in God's mantle, his authority,...the throne of the Messiah is the throne of God! The Messiah-King in his divinely ordained office, has 'God' as his throne, - he sits on God's throne delegating and governing the affairs of God's kingdom.
Anyways,...its important to understanding the rightful traditional and scriptural Jewish understanding and definition of 'Messiah' here, as YHWH's representative. While views on Messiah from within a full judeo-Christian spectrum varies from pure human to an eternal 'God-being' coming down in the flesh (with all kinds of variations inbetween, depending on your 'Christology'), I hold a holistic view of Jesus in all his human and divine features, which includes all appropriate attributes of any human and divine qualities, both inherent and/or acquired (additionally granted or brought into being by joining, merging or transformation).
My Christology is not limited to any literal definition, but must include all that is figurative, allegorical and esoteric, since we do not only observe the outer dress of the logos, but its inner meangings and values.
The human subordinate to the divine.....Yes........
See here. - I see you do acknowledge subordination of the Son,...good, since such is a logical observation of relational order and process, to say nothing of hierarchy. Both Unitarian and Trinitarians accept this obvious 'relation',...the latter however can fluctuate between both 'divine' and 'human' aspects of Jesus, so they can always claim Jesus humanity is being referred to in certain situational-contexts, whereas he still always has his pure or total divinity somehow ever intact within his personhood (the divine and human elements being 'fused' yet distinct), while Unitarians either maintain a purely human origin and constitution of Jesus at his conception and then only some divine infusion, anointing or joining to 'God' from his incarnational birth onwards, but the man Jesus certainly never becomes 'God' Almighty.
I think we already addressed Heb. 1:8 here or in other threads on this subject, but I'll be working on a commentary on that verse forthcoming soon. Thorough research shows that this passage does Not necessarily prove Jesus is God, since the grammatical structure of the passage is ambiguous and can be variously translated, not to mention that the original psalm 45 that is quoted, which is about a Davidic King and his wedding to a foreign Princess, which is probably Solomon, is not being referred to as 'God' Almighty, yet the Messiah and other mighty men (judges, kings, anointed ones) can be called 'elohim', and since they are representations of 'God', this is appropriate indicating their are agents of God, and so serve in God's stead. But this exclamation can be relating a different emphasis altogether as the verse traditionally rendered "thy throne O God, is forever and ever", can also be translated(arranged) as "God is thy throne", or "your throne is God", meaning the Anointed one's power or authority is 'God', so the Messiah's throne is 'God', 'God' is his power, his authority, so he sits on God's throne, figuratively speaking. No Jewish scripture ever teaches that the Messiah is YHWH himself, but is an anointed Man whom God chooses and makes into his Messiah(Son), who represents him, and therefore when this Messiah-King is ruling, He most certainly rules by God's power, the Messiah is 'enthroned' in God's mantle, his authority,...the throne of the Messiah is the throne of God! The Messiah-King in his divinely ordained office, has 'God' as his throne, - he sits on God's throne delegating and governing the affairs of God's kingdom.
Anyways,...its important to understanding the rightful traditional and scriptural Jewish understanding and definition of 'Messiah' here, as YHWH's representative. While views on Messiah from within a full judeo-Christian spectrum varies from pure human to an eternal 'God-being' coming down in the flesh (with all kinds of variations inbetween, depending on your 'Christology'), I hold a holistic view of Jesus in all his human and divine features, which includes all appropriate attributes of any human and divine qualities, both inherent and/or acquired (additionally granted or brought into being by joining, merging or transformation).
My Christology is not limited to any literal definition, but must include all that is figurative, allegorical and esoteric, since we do not only observe the outer dress of the logos, but its inner meangings and values.
:thumb:
Rev. 21
Who declares themself the Alpha and Omega?
Who declares themself the Alpha and Omega?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The same One who declares himself as being the Alpha and Omega at Revelation 22:12-13--the Lord Jesus Christ.
Of course they do not want to discuss that.
The Gospel of Peter declares in the final statement that YHWH, (Κύριος without the article), is Ἁλφαίου, (AlphaYahu, which is likely why the Genitive is the only case form used in the Gospel accounts). But of course you would need to be a fair textual critic to be able to see what I say, (http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/GP/GP.html). But who cares, right? it is not about actually knowing the truth but justifying your position, and your mother church did not include that writing in your canon for you. :chuckle:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Properly translating Heb. 1:8
Properly translating Heb. 1:8
Hi drbrumley,
Besides my last response to you,...see here - I already addressed Heb. 1:8 there in daqq's thread, - see the previous posts links in the first post, goes back to at least 3 posts in succession.
While shared in an earlier post, this blog entry here covers this passage well.
See Brother Kel's page here.
Also: Good little vid from Tyler -
Properly translating Heb. 1:8
Hi drbrumley,
Besides my last response to you,...see here - I already addressed Heb. 1:8 there in daqq's thread, - see the previous posts links in the first post, goes back to at least 3 posts in succession.
While shared in an earlier post, this blog entry here covers this passage well.
See Brother Kel's page here.
Also: Good little vid from Tyler -
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The Son is God's Voice.......that Voice is ONE.........
The Son is God's Voice.......that Voice is ONE.........
HI EE,
I've amply discussed/debated the whole 'Alpha & Omega' things with JS here
and elsewhere - In that particular thread we also go thru many other Unitarian/Trinitarian significant passages. The small nuances I share are important to the over-all 'context' of how we interpret the 'titles', but the most important is that Jesus is the 'Agent' of 'God', and as he serves in his Messianic/Prophet/Apostolic Office,....as God's Messenger...he is God's Word, God's Voice', God's active agency. With these titles specifically, a Unitarian, Trinitarian or some other Christological view or nuance could just as well fit within any given context,...but we must be careful to appropriate our translation within what is allowed via 'context', and what is being revealed 'figuratively'. - this is key.
The Son is God's Voice.......that Voice is ONE.........
HI EE,
I've amply discussed/debated the whole 'Alpha & Omega' things with JS here
and elsewhere - In that particular thread we also go thru many other Unitarian/Trinitarian significant passages. The small nuances I share are important to the over-all 'context' of how we interpret the 'titles', but the most important is that Jesus is the 'Agent' of 'God', and as he serves in his Messianic/Prophet/Apostolic Office,....as God's Messenger...he is God's Word, God's Voice', God's active agency. With these titles specifically, a Unitarian, Trinitarian or some other Christological view or nuance could just as well fit within any given context,...but we must be careful to appropriate our translation within what is allowed via 'context', and what is being revealed 'figuratively'. - this is key.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I respect you too much to take this the wrong way. I still find peace with you. Your answer has changed from the last time we spoke on this. I still respect you and hope you feel the same. I believe we are both scripturally backed in our arguments and I now ask you... can we simply agree to disagree?
If you and [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] want to quibble with me for fun... I have straight forward arguments that are all cross referenced...
I'll submit my arguments in small pieces.
But first I'll post a disclaimer.
I'll go to [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]s thread to respect his OP.
Messiah is the Logos-Word of the Father. The Logos-Word of the Father speaks through all His Messengers because they have His Word dwelling in them. It is really no different than when the Malak of YHWH speaks to Moshe in Exodus 3. The Malak of YHWH is not YHWH Himself but rather the vessel through whom the Father YHWH speaks. But for people like Jerry Shugart and Beameup this is "positive proof" to them that "Jesus is JHWH" and therefore Elohim Almighty incarnated Himself as a man. It is pie in the sky theology, (and considered blasphemy in most quarters).
- Status