Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."
- Thread starter KingdomRose
- Start date
- Status
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Already addressed in my last post link, my primary one, and from this very thread 'John 10:30 - Jesus is the Son of God' thread here (multiple posts from pages 20 thru 25) ...following my original dissertation-response- I've written vastly on this and we've been thru this MANY TIMES. -
I searched and searched and I cannot find even one instance where you addressed Revelation 21:5-7 and compared it to the words of the Lord Jesus at Revelation 22:12-13. Since you are so sure you have addressed that then just copy and paste your previous answer.
All I have seen from you about these things is the fact that you just dance around these verses in the hope no one will notice that you avoid these verses like the plague. Therefore, since you are so familiar with your own posts on this subject it will be an easy thing for you to copy and paste what you claim as being your previous response to these verses.
I will be waiting for you to do that!
Thanks!
How could they have been filled with the Holy Spirit if they did not believe in Him or the trinity?
Acts 2.
They also refer to Jesus as Lord, which is held for God. otherwise, no proper usage held.
Must we not forget to baptise, " in the names of the father, the son, and the holy spirit?"
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Thats right. They were still Jew and worshipped as Jews as they recognized the fullfilment of prophecy that was their Messiah Jesus.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
You have actively ignored other posters and claimed only that their efforts would not do. No where have I seen you address questions and statements about phrases in Bible that contradict your claim.
Alas, with your claim for avalance of proof, you have merely repeated yourself without much explaination or rebutle from other claims.
i.e. why must the english term "one" must mean absolute same in context with every single use when you habe not made adequate connection between two examples in the Bible which describe or use the term "one."
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
A cornucopia of fun...........
A cornucopia of fun...........
Then wait you will, you'll have to search a little longer,...maybe its just YOU are looking for something that just conforms to your own belief-system and 'Christology', could that be it? - bingo. My commentary is for all other readers too. I've thorougly explained my self in former dialogue and 'exegesis' on the passages you are 'obsessing' on. I've thoroughly gone over the various 'titles' given to 'God' and his 'Christ' and that these two personalities SHARE ONE VOICE. - there is 'God' and his 'logos',...these are 'one', but relationally distinct from one another, one being the creative expression or 'generation' of the other,...remember the other is BEGOTTEN of the former? - the Father and Son are not the same being, the Father ever retains PRIMACY in all relationships being the Progenitor of all.
Titles Alpha & Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last apply more prominently 'God the Father' Himself, but also His Son the Christ, since it is thru the Agency of the Son, that he brings forth creation and redemption (in periodic dispensational cycles). I've been very CLEAR on this, and not dancing on the subject, but am free to elaborate the different nuances of the relationship and other details therein. You on the other hand are just trying to 'peg' Jesus into your own Christological mold and formula, when my sharing of a more Unitarian View is just as if not more consistent, since I hold the earliest apostles of Jesus were more or less Unitarian. (later Christologial development were 'conceptualized' later by church councils and church-state politics). Jesus himself was Unitarian and his own words PROVE IT....fundmentally so. Now you can presume, superimpose a trinitarian over-face into the equation, as so many creeds have attempted, and thats fine as a conceptual overlay. The distinct relationship of the Father and Son, even the Spirit inter-acting holds, and these are even professed by trinitarians, but they claim their belief is superior or more correct ('orthodox' as they say) than a more purely Unitarian view. Apples or oranges? take your pick.
Oh btw,...I can entertain an even higher more cosmic view of a Paradise Trinity, but this more expanded revelation is contained in the Urantia Book - we have our own thread on that
A cornucopia of fun...........
Then wait you will, you'll have to search a little longer,...maybe its just YOU are looking for something that just conforms to your own belief-system and 'Christology', could that be it?
- bingo. My commentary is for all other readers too. I've thorougly explained my self in former dialogue and 'exegesis' on the passages you are 'obsessing' on. I've thoroughly gone over the various 'titles' given to 'God' and his 'Christ' and that these two personalities SHARE ONE VOICE. - there is 'God' and his 'logos',...these are 'one', but relationally distinct from one another, one being the creative expression or 'generation' of the other,...remember the other is BEGOTTEN of the former? - the Father and Son are not the same being, the Father ever retains PRIMACY in all relationships being the Progenitor of all.Titles Alpha & Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last apply more prominently 'God the Father' Himself, but also His Son the Christ, since it is thru the Agency of the Son, that he brings forth creation and redemption (in periodic dispensational cycles). I've been very CLEAR on this, and not dancing on the subject, but am free to elaborate the different nuances of the relationship and other details therein. You on the other hand are just trying to 'peg' Jesus into your own Christological mold and formula, when my sharing of a more Unitarian View is just as if not more consistent, since I hold the earliest apostles of Jesus were more or less Unitarian. (later Christologial development were 'conceptualized' later by church councils and church-state politics). Jesus himself was Unitarian and his own words PROVE IT....fundmentally so. Now you can presume, superimpose a trinitarian over-face into the equation, as so many creeds have attempted, and thats fine as a conceptual overlay. The distinct relationship of the Father and Son, even the Spirit inter-acting holds, and these are even professed by trinitarians, but they claim their belief is superior or more correct ('orthodox' as they say) than a more purely Unitarian view. Apples or oranges? take your pick.
Oh btw,...I can entertain an even higher more cosmic view of a Paradise Trinity, but this more expanded revelation is contained in the Urantia Book
- we have our own thread on that Then wait you will, you'll have to search a little longer,...maybe its just YOU are looking for something that just conforms to your own belief-system and 'Christology', could that be it?
Titles Alpha & Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last apply more prominently 'God the Father' Himself, but also His Son the Christ, since it is thru the Agency of the Son, that he brings forth creation and redemption (in periodic dispensational cycles). I've been very CLEAR on this, and not dancing on the subject, but am free to elaborate the different nuances of the relationship and other details therein. You on the other hand are just trying to 'peg' Jesus into your own Christological mold and formula, when my sharing of a more Unitarian View is just as if not more consistent, since I hold the earliest apostles of Jesus were more or less Unitarian. (later Christologial development were 'conceptualized' later by church councils and church-state politics). Jesus himself was Unitarian and his own words PROVE IT....fundmentally so. Now you can presume, superimpose a trinitarian over-face into the equation, as so many creeds have attempted, and thats fine as a conceptual overlay. The distinct relationship of the Father and Son, even the Spirit inter-acting holds, and these are even professed by trinitarians, but they claim their belief is superior or more correct ('orthodox' as they say) than a more purely Unitarian view. Apples or oranges? take your pick.
Oh btw,...I can entertain an even higher more cosmic view of a Paradise Trinity, but this more expanded revelation is contained in the Urantia Book
:thumb:
And how can you reason with someone who has already thrown reason out the window and decided to believe that the Father is His own Son? and that the Father begot Himself? and that "Jesus is JHWH"? and therefore believes that not only did the Father literally physically incarnate Himself into the literal virgin womb of a woman, and come into the world as an infant, but also that He died at Golgotha and then raised Himself back up from the dead? It is an utterly blind fantasy doctrine of carnal minded error: such a one is totally given over to strong delusion because he received not the love of the truth and rather holds the truth in carnal unrighteousness.
I wonder if Steko agrees with you in all of these things Jerry?
Dear @steko, do you also believe "Jesus is JHWH" as Jerry Shugart says?
I wonder if Steko agrees with you in all of these things Jerry?
Dear @steko, do you also believe "Jesus is JHWH" as Jerry Shugart says?
I doubt that I agree with anyone on everything, but I agree with Jerry on a lot.
I agree that the Lord Jesus is YHVH.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So there are two who are the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end?
Even though only one of them can be considered the "beginning."
As usual,you prove that you will say anything to cling to your discredited ideas, no matter how ridiculous!
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
A common belief among some. Even mormons would agree with you, although their 'divine hierarchy' has its own peculiar arrangements
- if you assume Jesus is YHWH, then where does the Father fit into the equation of God's engagment with man thru-out the OT and into the new? Is the 'Father' just some nebulous Over-Soul to Jesus the Son, who occasionally speaks and decrees this and that, who spoke at his baptism "You are my Son, today I have begotten you", etc.? One is almost just as good with some 'modalist' spin on things, among such interesting confoundations of 'God'.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
'God' is ever One. 'God' the eternal and infinite contains all space and dispensations of time, these are but waves within the ocean of his Being. Since by his creative word he forms and fashions all, bringing them into creative expression, - the Son also as he represents his Father, is also 'God'...so the WORD is also the Alpha & Omega, beginning and end, first and last of God's creative/redemptive works. There is only The INFINITE, and all its creative dispensations. There is only 'God' and his manifest creations. God and his logos are the A & O, B & E, F & L
- again, these titles are given to God and his creative word.One can clearly see this without assuming an orthodox formulation of the Trinity.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at this verse, a verse which the anti-trinitarians quote often in their effort to try to prove that the Lord Jesus is not God:
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor.8:6).
In his commentary on this verse Albert Barnes says:
"One God, the Father - Whom we acknowledge as the Father of all; Author of all things; and who sustains to all his works the relation of a father. The word 'Father' here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction - the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him" (Barnes'Notes on the Bible, Commentary at 1 Corinthians 8:6).
The following verse speaks of the Father as the Creator of Mankind:
"But now, O LORD (JWHW), thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand" (Isa.64:8).
Here we read that JHWH is our Father and He is the Potter who created mankind. We also know that the Lord Jesus created the heavens and the earth:
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Heb.1:10).
Since it is obvious that the Lord Jesus is the Potter then we can know that He is the Potter, JWHW the Father. The only reason that the Lord Jesus could say the following is because He is indeed JHWH the Father:
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (Jn.14:9).
All this explains what we read here about the Lord Jesus:
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isa.9:6).
The Everlasting Father is the Mighty God, and the Mighty God is JHWH, as witnessed by what is said here:
" Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD (JHWH) of hosts, is his name" (Jer.32:18).
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So the Lord Jesus is called the "Mighty God" because he represents the Father?
And we are supposed to believe that when the LORD God speaks of being the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" it means something completely different when the Lord Jesus uses the same words?
Frankly, that makes no sense to me.
We've already been over most of what you quote and you rejected even the remotest chance of any possibility of any other viewpoint besides your own. You and I do not agree on your private interpretations of any of those passages. Additionally you do not even qualify as an official Trinitarian so how is it that you get away with even using the term "anti-trinitarians" when you yourself teach against traditional Trinitarianism? You only get away with it because you also say, "Jesus is God Almighty born into human flesh", so the Trinitarians do not confront you merely because you agree with them in that respect. All the while they apparently either do not realize or do not care that teachings such as your own are slowly destroying Trinitarianism. :rotfl:
For instance, Jerry, just because you read this in most translations does not make it true:
Your rendering is a lie fostered and fomented by translators with an agenda. While I still do not totally agree with the Young's Literal Bible Translation at least he was not afraid to render it for what it truly says in the most critical portion, and this is shown by how the same word form is rendered in many, many, other places:
Isaiah 9:6 YLT
6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power [הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה] is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name [וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ] Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
That is indeed what the text says, "HE CALLS HIS NAME", and this changes the whole meaning of what the Prophet is saying because the one who is on the neck or shoulder of the son who is given, (on his neck means, "his yoke"), is Ha-mSARah, that is, the Arche, the Empire, the Dominion, the Head, the Beginning. In other words the son that is given has Ha-mSARah on his neck or shoulder, (and his yoke is χρηστος-chestos-gracious just as he says), and HE CALLS HIS NAME the title or titles which follow in the passage, which are also not likely rendered correctly because of inaccurate vowel pointing in the Masorete Hebrew Text done by those who rejected the Messiah, (אביעד = "my father-progenitor of testimony" - "My Testimony Progenitor-Father", i.e. "the Progenitor of my Testimony", that is to say, the Testimony, the Logos-Word sent from the heavenly Father out of the heavens).
Your rendering is a lie fostered and fomented by translators with an agenda. While I still do not totally agree with the Young's Literal Bible Translation at least he was not afraid to render it for what it truly says in the most critical portion, and this is shown by how the same word form is rendered in many, many, other places:
Isaiah 9:6 YLT
6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power [הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה] is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name [וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ] Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
That is indeed what the text says, "HE CALLS HIS NAME", and this changes the whole meaning of what the Prophet is saying because the one who is on the neck or shoulder of the son who is given, (on his neck means, "his yoke"), is Ha-mSARah, that is, the Arche, the Empire, the Dominion, the Head, the Beginning. In other words the son that is given has Ha-mSARah on his neck or shoulder, (and his yoke is χρηστος-chestos-gracious just as he says), and HE CALLS HIS NAME the title or titles which follow in the passage, which are also not likely rendered correctly because of inaccurate vowel pointing in the Masorete Hebrew Text done by those who rejected the Messiah, (אביעד = "my father-progenitor of testimony" - "My Testimony Progenitor-Father", i.e. "the Progenitor of my Testimony", that is to say, the Testimony, the Logos-Word sent from the heavenly Father out of the heavens).
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
More on Is. 9:6
More on Is. 9:6
We've covered Is. 9:6 elsewhere, perhaps a blog portal is needed to cover all the 'trinitarian proof texts', an archive page to access for easy reference - I can add it to my blog, or put a page up on your TOL blog.
We would also note that Is 9:6 is quite different in the Septuagint. Below is the NETS translation -
The online Jewish Bible with commentary by Rashi below:
Its traditionally assumed by quite a few Jewish commentators that this verse is referring to King Hezekiah, as logically assumed in context of the passage. That it refers also to some future messianic figure is speculative if this is a 'double prophecy' or not. Important to note as well the immeidate text speaks of this son already having been born (hence the reference to Hezekiah assumed), not a birth that will take place in some future time.
More on Is. 9:6
We've covered Is. 9:6 elsewhere, perhaps a blog portal is needed to cover all the 'trinitarian proof texts', an archive page to access for easy reference
- I can add it to my blog, or put a page up on your TOL blog.We would also note that Is 9:6 is quite different in the Septuagint. Below is the NETS translation -
The online Jewish Bible with commentary by Rashi below:
Its traditionally assumed by quite a few Jewish commentators that this verse is referring to King Hezekiah, as logically assumed in context of the passage. That it refers also to some future messianic figure is speculative if this is a 'double prophecy' or not. Important to note as well the immeidate text speaks of this son already having been born (hence the reference to Hezekiah assumed), not a birth that will take place in some future time.
- Status