Jesus is God

[NWL]

No scripture says the spirit dies. Angels are spirit and they don't die. God is Spirit and doesn't die.

Anyone that lives in the realm of heaven is a spirit. Spirits can die, this does not mean though that God who is a spirit can die. You state "No scripture says the spirit dies" yet we know Satan who is a spirit person gets "hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10), Satan gets thrown in the lake of fire, what does the bible say about the lake of fire, it states "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire" (Rev 20:13,14).

Satan who is a spirit dies, he gets thrown into the lake of fire which refers to his complete destruction. So you claim spirits cannot die, yet the bible disagrees with you by confirming Spirits can die.

I do not believe a human body is made up of a body and a spirit, that is what you unwittingly believe. I believe Man is simply made up of flesh and that is it, nothing more nothing less. Man is only alive because God blew life/spirit into us. I believe the word "spirit", in some circumstances when speaking about man, is synonymous with the word "life" and is in reference to the breath of life God gave to all living things.

Strong's Concordance - 7307 ruach
Phonetic Spelling: (roo'-akh)
Definition: breath, wind, spirit

Again answer it directly! If you believe God is three persons who is one then are you saying the "one God" was sitting on the throne and the "one God" was the Lamb who took the scroll from the "one Gods" hand?

I already answered you.

You stated "There are three, and the three are one and the same", this is hardly an explanation over a paraphrase of 1 John 5:7 which is a spurious text. One definition of the word "explanation" is defined as "a statement or account that makes something clear", how does your statement of "There are three, and the three are one and the same" make your answer clear in relation to my question? Since you've stated the three are one and the same I've asked you what it means that "the lamb" took the scroll from "the one sitting on the throne" who were both apparently the same person, stating over and over "the three are one and the same" isn't answering if you believe the lamb took the scroll from his own hand.

Let me make it easy for you, does God take the scroll from his own hand?

I'm not going to keep explaining it to you and then you lie and say I didn't.

If you asked me to explain how I think Jesus was created according to the bible and I answer and say "purple is purple because it is purple" and you rejected that as sufficient answer to your question it would be foolish for me to claim "I've answered your question". Likewise, I've asked a specific question was the "one God" both the "one sitting on the throne" and the Lamb who took the scroll out of the hand of the "one sitting on the throne", your apparent answer of "There are three, and the three are one and the same" is not a proper answer to the question, nowhere are you explaining if you believe the proposition I've made or if you disagree with it.

What does it matter if no scholars agree on it?
I use the KJV along side of other translations I use, but never without it.
'One' means 'the same'.

Because they're the one actually translating the text!!! It's like seeing a sign you can't read in Japanese getting a Japanese linguist person to read it for you with it saying "entering this room means certain death" and you then claiming that is not what the sign means despite you not being able to read Japanese! The scholars have acknowledged the expression "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" is NOT found in any of the earliest manuscripts, scholars agree the text was added in 1200 years after the original, the scholarly community is unequivocally clear on this matter. On what basis do you claim that they are wrong? Simply because you need to spurious text to be true otherwise your doctrine falls apart? It's shameful.

I have explained it to you more than once. Stop lying. It is a bad tactic of yours.

Your answer wasn't a sufficient answer to my specific question, we both know this, I wasn't lying.

Revelation 1

¹⁷ And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

¹⁸I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


You said that Jesus is NOT God and NOT the Beginning and the End and NOT the Alpha and the Omega. The First and the Last means the beginning and the end and the Alpha and the Omega.

Notice you didn't address what I say, and that you waffle and assume, and you can't explain, and aren't humble enough to admit it.
You are guilty of every thing you falsely accuse me of being and doing, and more.

You say above "Notice you didn't address what I say, and that you waffle and assume, and you can't explain, and aren't humble enough to admit it", NOWHERE DID YOU EXPLAIN ANYTHING FOR ME TO EVEN ADDRESS! Nowhere did you explain how I was inaccurate or where or how John didn't separate Rev 1:3,4, all you did is quote Revelation 1:4-5, Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 22:12. Follow the below link to where you claimed I was inaccurate and notice you didn't actually explain how I was inaccurate according to the verses you showed.

.

If the title "first and last" meant the same thing as "alpha and omega" there would be no need to write them as separate titles. Nowhere does it state the F&L means the same thing as the A&O therefore for you to say they are synonymous is an assumption. To be the F&L means you are the first and the last of something. If I were to say Satan was the first and last in the sense he was the adversary of God no one would assume that by me calling him the F&L I'm making a claim he the F&L the same way Jesus is the F&L. Likewise Jesus being called the F&L is different to the alpha and omega, how do we know this? Because the context shows what Jesus being the first and the last is in relation to, as I will show below.

"When I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave." (Revelation 1:17, 18)

“And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again." (Revelation 2:8)

In both counts, Jesus being the F&L is followed by the context that he died but came to life again. I put it to you that Jesus is the first person to be resurrected by the Father alone, no other person in the bible is directly resurrected by the Father but always through another, and Jesus is the last person to be resurrected by the Father alone, since now all judging and resurrections are through Jesus. It is in this sense Jesus is the first and the last, it pertains to his resurrection as the context clearly shows.

The claim the F&L pertains to the A&O the almighty is to suggest almighty God "became dead" as the text says, this goes against Gods nature and therefore cannot be the proper understanding of the verse.

 

[NWL]

You stated, "God can't sin, and , Jesus is God come as a man", so since you stated God can't sin and you believe Jesus was God come as man when on earth you must believe Jesus couldn't sin.

You said I said something I didn't say. You should be more careful about it.

I literally copied and pasted what I had in brackets from one of your posts, so how do you claim I claimed you said something that you didn't say when you clearly did say it? In post #7000 on this thread on page 467 you cleary state "God can't sin, and , Jesus is God come as a man." do you agree you said this, if you do agree you said this and still mean it then please answer the question below. If you have changed you mind on what you said please confirm you have.

Since you stated "God can't sin" and you believe "Jesus was/is God come as man" when on earth you must believe Jesus couldn't sin? Do you believe Jesus could sin or do you believe it was impossible for Jesus to sin?

God can't sin, and Jesus is God come in the flesh as a man. Jesus went through temptations as men do in the desert for a time.

You are being extremely unclear with the stuff you say, instead of plainly stating stuff such as "Jesus could sin, Jesus went through temptations as men" or ""Jesus couldnt sin, Jesus he went through temptations as men" you instead give vague responses such as "God can't sin, and Jesus is God come in the flesh", nowhere do you explain what it means for Jesus to be God and come in flesh" in relation to his ability to sin.

Answer plainly, could Jesus, who you believe is "God come in the flesh as a man", sin? I'm not asking if he felt temptation I'm asking was it possible for him to sin? Yes or no? (this is a repeat question to the above, answer either)

Your beliefs are full of assumptions.

God didn't have an angel do it. So why do you keep assuming an angel could do it?

[1]Prove with the scriptures where God had an angel come as a man, or that an angel could have done it.

[2]Prove it or be humble enough to say you made a mistake and are full of falseness and assumptions.

Don't waffle around now and keep with your messed up story.

I'm not making an assumption by saying an angel was capable of doing what Jesus did, I'm making a presumption that he was capable of doing what Jesus did. As I've explained many times now the ransom needed a perfect and sinless human to pay the price for what Adam lost (1 Cor 15:1). An angel was capable of coming in flesh (as they have done in the past - Gen 6:2) and dying as a sinless man for the ransom to be paid, this consistent with the bible.

You asked "prove with the scriptures where God had an angel come as a man, or that an angel could have done it"
My answer: Angels is just an English word to describe Gods created spirit sons, as I've already alluded to before I believe the bible teaches Jesus is a created spirit son of God, Col 1:15 states Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation", grouping him as part of creation. Rev 3:14 calls Jesus the "beginning of God's creation" clearly identifying him as a created person. This Jesus is a spirit person, he then came to earth as man and died for us he the answer to your above question. This is why I say anyone of God's spirit sons could have done what Jesus did, Jesus himself is clear evidence that this was a possibility.

You asked "prove it or be humble enough to say you made a mistake and are full of falseness and assumptions" in relation to me me claiming an Angel/spirit could do what Jesus did.
My answer: I made no mistake, I made a claim in keeping with what the bible teaches. The Bible teaches Jesus raised people from the dead, preached and healed the sick, If I stated that Jesus would have carried on healing the sick, preaching and raising people from the dead if his ministry last for 3 years longer before he gave his life for us would you claim I was making an assumption and my statement untrue? Not likely. If I were to state such as thing it would be classified at worse as a presumption. Assumptions are claiming or believing something without evidence, a presumption is believing in something based on evidence. The bible is clear what led us into sin, that a ransom needed to be paid for the sin, and that spirits are capable of becoming flesh as Jesus became flesh. Therefore, in keeping with the bible, a spirit could have come down as a man and died for us the same way Jesus did, nothing about this is unscriptural.

You keep saying what I'm is an assumption, how about you state whether or not what I'm saying is consistent with what the bible teaches.

 

[NWL]

You got lost trying to figure out how to waffle out of something.

Try dealing with the scriptures I gave you.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

It really wasn't waffle, I clearly demonstrated how God, Jesus and angels are all spirits, therefore showing a verse that you believe suggest Jesus is the spirit doesn't prove anything that I didn't already show.

The "lord" in 2 Cor 3:17,18 is referring to the Father Jehovah, not the Lord Jesus. You assume the Lord is referring to Jesus when the subject of the matter according to the context relates to the Father, as I will demonstrate. 1 Cor 3:15,16 states "In fact, to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.", this "turning to the Lord with the veil being taken away refers directly to Exo 34:34 that states "But when Moses would go in before Jehovah to speak with him, he would take off the veil until he went out", thus the Lord to whom people have their veil removed when turning to relates to the same Lord Moses turned to when he removed his veil, namely the Father Jehovah. Once again, when 1 Cor 3:17,17 states "who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord" the Lord refers to the sovereign Lord Jehovah who is the Father, not Jesus the Lord.

This is also in keeping with John 4:23,24 which context clearly identifies the Father Jehovah as being the spirit, "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24). Here the Father is the subject and we must worship him with spirit and truth, the verse then refers to the Father and states "God is spirit" contextually applying the previous actions "worship with spirit and truth" to him again. The Father is the Spirit.

When Jesus was being baptized God spirit was cleary apart from Jesus and not with Jesus or Jesus himself. (Matthew 3:16) "..After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him.." Jesus saw God's spirits descending on, thus he WAS NOT THE SPIRIT that descended upon Jesus.

 

[NWL]

I GAVE SCRIPTURES where JESUS HAS all the names God has.
You have NOT shown where that applies to anyone else---but you say it does!

We have to go by what is written and not about what is not written!

Show me where Jesus is called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), as I've said earlier only the Father is called these things. So to say "Jesus HAS all the names God has" is untrue, he has some of his names, and as I've demonstrated he only ha these names because the Father has acted through him, thus they both have the names. YOU HAVE YET TO DISPROVE THIS IDEA.

Again, where does Jesus ever get called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), if you cannot find any reference please admit to me Jesus doesn't have all the titles God has as you claim?

What you say from that part and on is too dumb, dishonest, and too much waffling that I won’t even read further.

No, it is you simply releasing the argument you made is one from silence and therefore cannot continue with that line of reasoning. You 've said "Jesus is the only one with all the names God the Father has, even the name 'Father'" yet you fail to acknowledge why or how Jesus has the names and titles he has, all you see is the fact he has them. I've clearly shown and expressed why and how Jesus has some of the names of God.

I've posed questions to you on this matter and you do not treat them with honesty, I have clearly asked "If Jesus and the father are the same person then why does it state that the Father did things through Jesus? How is it possible the Father created the universe through Jesus if Jesus was the Father who created all things?" in an attempt to show you one example of why both Jesus and the Father can be referred to as creators despite it having to mean "Jesus is the Father". You refuse to answer the question pertaining to Hebrews 1:1,2 as it clearly expresses the Father creating the world through his Son, you do not accept Jesus is separate from the Father so cannot answer the biblical-based question as it contradicts your belief so result in simply ignoring it.

I did the same for Acts 17:31 where is shows the Father Judging through the Son, when I ask how its possible for the Father to judge the earth through Jesus, despite them being the same person your only answer was "they are one and the same", your answer didn't explain why the text clearly expresses them as two separate people, with one of them, the Father, judging the word through the other person, the son.

 

[NWL]

you say "Jesus knows they will obey and stop sinning with their eye and their hand---so they won't have need to pluck out their eye an cut off their hand", where does the text say this or express the thought?

No, but it is exactly what you do.


Because Jesus says to stop sinning with your eyes and hands!


That is so dumb. Prove Jesus doesn't tell us to stop sinning with our eyes and hands!

Do it now or take it back and apologize.

You misunderstand me, the point I was asking you to prove is where "Jesus knows they will obey and stop sinning with their eye and their hand", again you say Jesus was litreally telling people to chop off limbs but since "Jesus knows they will obey and stop sinning with their eye and their hand" he knows it will not come to that. My claim is that Jesus was being figurative when he said to pluck out your eye and chop of you hand but simply said that to show how extreme you should deaden your body members to try and avoid sinning. Your statement is assumed thought of Jesus NOT found in the scripture, hence why I'm asking for you to prove where it is expressed "Jesus knows they will obey and stop sinning with their eye and their hand" and was, therefore, being literal.

 

[God's Truth]

Anyone that lives in the realm of heaven is a spirit.

The saved live in the realm of the Spirit.

Ephesians 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

Spirits can die, this does not mean though that God who is a spirit can die.

Spirits can’t die. You saying they can is you going against what is written.

You state "No scripture says the spirit dies" yet we know Satan who is a spirit person gets "hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10), Satan gets thrown in the lake of fire, what does the bible say about the lake of fire, it states "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire" (Rev 20:13,14).

Satan who is a spirit dies, he gets thrown into the lake of fire which refers to his complete destruction. So you claim spirits cannot die, yet the bible disagrees with you by confirming Spirits can die.

You are desperately trying to sneak that one in. That is at the end of the world and still, it doesn’t say Satan will die.

You need to try stick with what we are talking about and stop waffling.

I do not believe a human body is made up of a body and a spirit, that is what you unwittingly believe.

I believe Man is simply made up of flesh and that is it, nothing more nothing less. Man is only alive because God blew life/spirit into us. I believe the word "spirit", in some circumstances when speaking about man, is synonymous with the word "life" and is in reference to the breath of life God gave to all living things.

God’s breath gives us a spirit; our breath is carbon dioxide.

I gave many scriptures that you are not addressing.

 

[Bright Raven]

Where does Scripture say that spirits die, Book, chapter and Verse please. Where does Scripture say that Satan dies, Book, Chapter verse please.

 

[God's Truth]

You stated "There are three, and the three are one and the same", this is hardly an explanation over a paraphrase of 1 John 5:7 which is a spurious text. One definition of the word "explanation" is defined as "a statement or account that makes something clear", how does your statement of "There are three, and the three are one and the same" make your answer clear in relation to my question?

I do make things clear and explain things plainly. If God doesn’t want you to see something it is probably for a reason. Just like you couldn’t grasp the revelation I explained to you about plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand. A person in the Lord would be glad to have that explained to them.

God lives in unapproachable light and made Himself a body that also exists with His Spirit and goes forth from Him, and His Spirit without a body goes forth from Him too.

There are three, and the three are one. One means ‘the same’.

Since you've stated the three are one and the same I've asked you what it means that "the lamb" took the scroll from "the one sitting on the throne" who were both apparently the same person, stating over and over "the three are one and the same" isn't answering if you believe the lamb took the scroll from his own hand.

It does answer it. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it doesn’t answer.

God the Father lives in unapproachable light and came as a Lamb while still remaining in unapproachable light.

If you asked me to explain how I think Jesus was created according to the bible and I answer and say "purple is purple because it is purple" and you rejected that as sufficient answer to your question it would be foolish for me to claim "I've answered your question".

That is another example of more of your gibberish waffling from you.

Likewise, I've asked a specific question was the "one God" both the "one sitting on the throne" and the Lamb who took the scroll out of the hand of the "one sitting on the throne", your apparent answer of "There are three, and the three are one and the same" is not a proper answer to the question, nowhere are you explaining if you believe the proposition I've made or if you disagree with it.

I don’t have to answer according to your folly.
Now why don’t you read my answer to you about it and then reply to that instead of claiming I didn’t.

Because they're the one actually translating the text!!!

Then why do you go against them?
As for people who translate the Bible, no one has to go by what they claim God means. God gives that revelation to those He wants to give it to. He gives it to those who obey.

It's like seeing a sign you can't read in Japanese getting a Japanese linguist person to read it for you with it saying "entering this room means certain death" and you then claiming that is not what the sign means despite you not being able to read Japanese! The scholars have acknowledged the expression "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" is NOT found in any of the earliest manuscripts, scholars agree the text was added in 1200 years after the original, the scholarly community is unequivocally clear on this matter. On what basis do you claim that they are wrong? Simply because you need to spurious text to be true otherwise your doctrine falls apart? It's shameful.

So you are pitting scholars against scholars and use that as proof that you only listen to scholars?

Your answer wasn't a sufficient answer to my specific question, we both know this, I wasn't lying.

You are not truthful. It is a bad debate tactic of yours.

.If the title "first and last" meant the same thing as "alpha and omega" there would be no need to write them as separate titles. Nowhere does it state the F&L means the same thing as the A&O therefore for you to say they are synonymous is an assumption.

Give the definition for both then!
You saying they are not synonymous is a lie.
God could use every way to describe one thing, and He did.

To be the F&L means you are the first and the last of something. If I were to say Satan was the first and last in the sense he was the adversary of God no one would assume that by me calling him the F&L I'm making a claim he the F&L the same way Jesus is the F&L.

You can’t say it because the Bible doesn’t say it. If you claim to be a debater of the Bible, then you can’t just make up things that aren’t there.

Likewise Jesus being called the F&L is different to the alpha and omega, how do we know this? Because the context shows what Jesus being the first and the last is in relation to, as I will show below.

"When I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave." (Revelation 1:17, 18)

“And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again." (Revelation 2:8)

God the Father in the Old Testament calls Himself the First and the Last.
AND, God the Father is called THE LIVING GOD.
That is what Jesus is called in Revelation 17, 18.
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Psalm 42:2 My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?

Jeremiah 10:10 But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

…and many more.

In both counts, Jesus being the F&L is followed by the context that he died but came to life again. I put it to you that Jesus is the first person to be resurrected by the Father alone, no other person in the bible is directly resurrected by the Father but always through another, and Jesus is the last person to be resurrected by the Father alone, since now all judging and resurrections are through Jesus. It is in this sense Jesus is the first and the last, it pertains to his resurrection as the context clearly shows.

Jesus raised himself, the Father commanded him to do so. Are you saying Jesus didn’t obey his Father?
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

The claim the F&L pertains to the A&O the almighty is to suggest almighty God "became dead" as the text says, this goes against Gods nature and therefore cannot be the proper understanding of the verse.

God came as a man and died for us, and lived in the Spirit and conquered death for us.
Notice that all the proof the scriptures give you, you say oh but not that name.
Read what Isaiah says:
Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

It says the Lord. That is what Jesus is called. It says the King. That is what Jesus is called. It says Redeemer. That is what Jesus is called. It says the First and the Last. That is what Jesus is called.
Jesus is the Spirit, Father, the First and the Last, Creator, Redeemer, Savior, Rock, Holy One of Israel, Husband, Shepherd, the circumciser of hearts, the One who gives life, the one who raises the dead, the one to whom the commands belong, the one who lives in believers, the one we bow to, the one who draws us, the one who sanctifies us, the one who sends and pours out the Spirit.
You really want to keep going against all that truth?

 

[7djengo7]

Show me where Jesus is called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), as I've said earlier only the Father is called these things.

• Show me where occurs the term, "the Father", in Deuteronomy 3.
• Show me where occurs the term, "the Father", in Exodus 6.
• Show me where occurs the term, "the Father", in Joshua 22.
• Show me where occurs the term, "the Father", in 1 Kings 8.

That's right: the term, "the Father", occurs nowhere, in any of these passages. "The Father" occurs in not even a single one of these OT verses you've just cited. Nevertheless, you just impose your anti-Christ unitarianism onto these verses by your bare assertion that they are references to God the Father.

(Bonus challenge: Show me where, in the Old Testament, we can find the term, 'God the Father'. Answer: Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find the term, 'God the Father'.)

Now, regarding Exodus 6:3, we know that it is not God the Father speaking to Moses:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

John 1:18 tells us that:

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John, here, by the word 'God', is obviously referring to God the Father. Thus, John is telling us that no man hath seen God the Father at any time. Yet, in Exodus 6:3, we find YHWH stating that "I appeared unto Abraham, etc." Since YHWH had appeared unto these men, these men had seen YHWH, and yet they, according to John, had not seen God the Father.

So, contrary to your devil-led, Russellite false-teaching, Exodus 6:3--while it presents an occurrence of a person being called "God Almighty"--presents no occurrence of the person of God the Father being called "God Almighty".

Jesus is God Almighty!

 

[God's Truth]

Show me where Jesus is called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23),

The scriptures say 'the Lord'.

There are many scriptures that call Jesus the Lord.

See also these scriptures that say plainly Jesus is the sovereign Lord, and the ONLY King of king and Lord of lords:

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones."

1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in His own time--He who is blessed and the only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords.


How many King of kings and Lord of lord do you have? The BIBLE SAYS THERE IS ONLY ONE. Jesus is called the only one. He has the exact same names as God the Father. There is only ONE ONLY ONE. It is God the Father and Jesus Christ.

"Almighty God" (Exo 6:3),

That is Jesus the Almighty God who is coming:

Revelation 16:13-15

¹³ And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

¹⁴ For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

¹⁵ Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.


1 Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


2 Corinthians 1:14
As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are our's in the day of the Lord Jesus.



Isaiah 10:21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.


Isaiah 9:6 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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

"God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), as I've said earlier only the Father is called these things. So to say "Jesus HAS all the names God has" is untrue, he has some of his names, and as I've demonstrated he only ha these names because the Father has acted through him, thus they both have the names. YOU HAVE YET TO DISPROVE THIS IDEA.

I have proved it but you deny the truth.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones."

1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in His own time--He who is blessed and the only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords.


1 Kings 8:39
be heard by You from heaven, Your dwelling place. And may You forgive and act, and repay each man according to all his ways, since You know his heart--for You alone know the hearts of all men--

Jesus knows all people's hearts.

Since GOD ALONE knows all people's hearts, Jesus must be that one and only God the Father who knows all people's hearts.

Matthew 9:4
But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, "Why do you harbor evil in your hearts?

 

[oatmeal]

The historic Christian Church has always believed and taught the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ (see this).

I agree. The "historic church" has done as you claimed.

However, I am not interested in the opinions of the historic church

I am interested in what scripture teaches.

 

[NWL]

The saved live in the realm of the Spirit.

Ephesians 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

I am aware that some saved ones go to the spiritual realm, how does this fact do to anything I have said?

Spirits can’t die. You saying they can is you going against what is written.


You are desperately trying to sneak that one in. That is at the end of the world and still, it doesn’t say Satan will die.

You need to try stick with what we are talking about and stop waffling.

The bible literally states Satan gets throw into the lake of fire "which means the second" and yet you state "it doesn’t say Satan will die", YES IT DOES, it literally states the place he gets thrown into means the "second death". How can Satan get thrown into a place which means the second death and not die?

The second death refers to eternal destruction where one can never be resurrected or come to life again. When someone dies they have the prospect to be resurrected again, this is clear when Rev 20:13 states "And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds" according to the scroll of life, anyone not found in the book of life are then thrown into the lake of fire which refers to eternal death never again to be raised up from death. Death itself is thrown into the lake of fire, remember its my claim that the "lake of fire" resembles eternal death, and what do we find out after death itself is thrown into the lake of fire, it states death is no longer in existence, no one will ever die again! Rev 21:4, in regards to the new heaven and new earth after death is thrown into the "lake of fire which means the second death", states, "God himself will be with them.  And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away". Death clearly no longer exists.

Likewise, Satan who is a spirit gets thrown into the lake of fire which refers to the second death, Satan therefore dies, this is fact and irrefutable according to what I said above. If death being thrown into the lake of fire refers to its eternal non-exsitance, then Satan being thrown into the lake of fire resembles his eternal non-existence.

God’s breath gives us a spirit; our breath is carbon dioxide.

Try again, the bible never states God's breath gives us a spirit, referring to personal spirit each man has. The word "spirit" has many different meanings in the bible, but when it talks about man spirit it's referring to his life, for example, when Psalms 146:4 states "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish” the spirit is synonymous with the word "life", the verse is referring to mans life going out, it's not referring to a literal spirit that man has. Many translations render Pslams 146:4 "When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish" as they understand the point being conveyed is in relation to man's life and not a literal spirit. Likewise, when Jesus in Luke 23:46 states “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" Jesus isn't saying he has a literal spirit that he's entrusting to God, rather he's saying he's entrusting God "with his life/spirit/breath of life" as it was God the Father who resurrects him, he's outspokenly stating about the Father that he trusts his life, his spirit, with him.

I gave many scriptures that you are not addressing.

I've told you many times that you at times make a claim, quote a couple of scriptures but do nothing in explaining how the quoted verses proves your point. Take for example you post which all this and the above is in reply to, you said "The saved live in the realm of the Spirit" and quoted Eph 2:6, Col 3:1 and Col 1:13, nowhere did you explain how any of the three verses support your point or counter my point, you simply made a statement and quoted three verses without any sort of explanation at all about anything. It's not my job to deal with any and every verse you quote, as I've said many times explain your position and scriptures in detail and I will always give a reply.

 

[NWL]

I do make things clear and explain things plainly. If God doesn’t want you to see something it is probably for a reason. Just like you couldn’t grasp the revelation I explained to you about plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand. A person in the Lord would be glad to have that explained to them.

God lives in unapproachable light and made Himself a body that also exists with His Spirit and goes forth from Him, and His Spirit without a body goes forth from Him too.

There are three, and the three are one. One means ‘the same’.

How does any of the above answer "does God take the scroll from his own hand?"

Since you've stated the three are one and the same I've asked you what it means that "the lamb" took the scroll from "the one sitting on the throne" who were both apparently the same person, stating over and over "the three are one and the same" isn't answering if you believe the lamb took the scroll from his own hand.

It does answer it. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it doesn’t answer.

God the Father lives in unapproachable light and came as a Lamb while still remaining in unapproachable light.

How!? Where does anything you have ever said answer my question "if you believe the lamb took the scroll from his own hand", again, which answer do you agree with:

A. The Lamb who is Jesus took the scroll from his own hand as the one sitting on the throne.
B The Lamb didn't take the scroll from him own hand but took it from the separate person the Father who sits on the throne.

Which answer do you agree with, A or B.

You know by answering truthfully you make yourself sound like a fool and therefore have to play mental gymnastics in order for your beliefs to make a shred of sense. You are only fooling yourself my friend, no honest person who reads your words will think what you are saying is believable, consistent or actually answers the question. The same way me answering "purple" to any of the questions you asked me isn't a sufficient answer to your questions is the same way you not directly answering my question is not a sufficient answer of mine.

That is another example of more of your gibberish waffling from you.

Monkey see monkey do lol. I use the word "waffle" a few times in our discussions which results in you using it like a babbling infant. Me stating your answers aren't real answer is not waffle friend, its called my opinion.

Likewise, I've asked a specific question was the "one God" both the "one sitting on the throne" and the Lamb who took the scroll out of the hand of the "one sitting on the throne", your apparent answer of "There are three, and the three are one and the same" is not a proper answer to the question, nowhere are you explaining if you believe the proposition I've made or if you disagree with it.

I don’t have to answer according to your folly.
Now why don’t you read my answer to you about it and then reply to that instead of claiming I didn’t.

You're very correct, no one has to answer any question relating to anything, but its foolish to claim you speak the truth when you can't ask reasonable questions. You stating "I don’t have to answer according to your folly" is a clear admission that you cannot answer my question. Tell me, why can't you answer my question and how is it folly, my question is simply phrased in such a way that it a paraphrased question of what the text says, so to call it folly is degrading on Gods word. Again, Rev 5:1 states "in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll", then in v5,6 it states "a lamn...came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne". Therefore to ask you to confirm that by your beliefs of Jesus being the one sitting on the throne that the Lamb is taking the scroll out of his own hand. How is this folly when all I'm asking you to do is confirm what the text says according to your belief? You make zero sense and you know it.

Then why do you go against them?

Have you lost the plot??? You're the one going against them by denying their claim that 1 John 5:7 is spurious! Not me, I agree with them!

Do you agree with scholars that the "three in one" passage in 1 John 5:7 is spurious or do you go against what scholars say?

Let's wait and see who is the one who actually goes against them...the cheek of it.

As for people who translate the Bible, no one has to go by what they claim God means. God gives that revelation to those He wants to give it to. He gives it to those who obey.

So you are pitting scholars against scholars and use that as proof that you only listen to scholars?

I am not suggesting we should listen to scholars in relation to their understanding of who God is or what it all means, I'm stating we should trust them in relation to what they understand to be authentic. You refuse to accept the scholarly communities clear understanding that 1 John 5:7 is spurious, you have no basis to back this up other than 'I need 1 John 5:7 to say " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one'.

I'm not pitting scholars against each other, I've claimed and will claim again that 1 John 5:7 is spurious as the rendering you give is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts but only found in manuscripts 1200-1500 years after the fact. Scholars themselves have noted this and the community, even the people who believe in the trinity and would love for it to be true, have admitted the verse is spurious. Again, on what basis should the verse read the way you think it does?

Your answer wasn't a sufficient answer to my specific question, we both know this, I wasn't lying.

You are not truthful. It is a bad debate tactic of yours.

Let me refute this, I claim you are wrong because of "purple". Any disagreement with my answer I will claim is a bad debate tactic by you.

Give the definition for both then!
You saying they are not synonymous is a lie.
God could use every way to describe one thing, and He did.

You have misunderstood me, my claim wasn't that the titles by definition meant something different, but rather the meaning the titles imposed mean something different, I thought I made this very clear when I gave Satan as an example. I can say Satan is the first and the last, when I say this I could further define him being the F&L in the sense he is the first and the last adversary of God, which is true, Satan will be the first and also the last adversary of God. God is the first and the last in the sense he is the first and last God, Jesus is the first and the last in a different sense, however, he is the first and the last in the sense of dying and being resurrected, again this is clear by the context. When A&O is applied to God in Rev 1:8 it's in relation to his deity, when the F&L is applied to Christ in Rev 1:18, 2:8 its in relation to his death and resurrection.

You can’t say it because the Bible doesn’t say it. If you claim to be a debater of the Bible, then you can’t just make up things that aren’t there.

Of course I can say it. For example, if the Bible stated "Jesus has every name and title the Father has" and yet nowhere do we find Jesus being called "true God" but only the Father, then by the initial statement "Jesus has every name and title the Father has" I can reasonable and biblically call Jesus the "true God", would you not agree? Likewise, the bible teaches Satan is the first adversary of God, I'm sure you would agree with me, Satan is also the last adversary of God, I'm also sure you'd also agree with me, so I could say Satan is the first and the last in the sense he is the first and last adversary of God. Nowhere in the bible is the term F&L defined, rather is the context that defines the term, and as we can see by Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8, Jesus is the F&L in relation to his death and resurrection. You need to remember the words "first" and "last" in the term "first and last" refer to the person being the first and also the last of something, it's not just a random title that implies deity.

What does the term "first and last" mean when applied to Christ?

God the Father in the Old Testament calls Himself the First and the Last.
AND, God the Father is called THE LIVING GOD.
That is what Jesus is called in Revelation 17, 18.
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Psalm 42:2 My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?

Jeremiah 10:10 But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

…and many more.

What is the context of the verses when the Father is called the F&L in the OT, remember, the context defines what the first and the last relates to when the person is called the first and the last. Isaiah 41:1-4 references to the OT God being the F&L is in reference to him being the first God and the last God over the nation of Israel, this is clear by his repeated question of "Who has raised up someone from the sunrise...Who reduces them to dust before his sword, Like windblown stubble before his bow...Who has acted and done this, Summoning the generations from the beginning...I, Jehovah, am the First One; And with the last ones I am he.." Isaiah 44:6 reference to the OT God being the F&L is also in relation to him being the only God for the nation of Israel as can be seen by the context, "The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Jehovah of armies:‘I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me. Who is there like me? Let him call out and tellit and prove it to me!". Isaiah 48:12,13 reference to the OT God being the F&L is also in relation to him being the only God as the context shows "I give my glory to no one else. Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called. I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last. My own hand laid the foundation of the earth, And my right hand spread out the heavens. When I call to them, they stand up together."

So in all counts when God in the OT is called the first and the last its in relation to him being the only God for the nation of Isreal, the context is the thing that defines this. Jesus is called the F&L but when he is the context is not about him being God but rather him dying and coming to life again, it is in that sense he is the F&L. You assume Jesus being the F&L of something relates to the same thing as the Father in the OT being the first and the last of something.

Jesus raised himself, the Father commanded him to do so. Are you saying Jesus didn’t obey his Father?

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

The translation you used is merely one way to translate the verse, other translations have the verse say:

WNT: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again.
ABPE: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it again
CEV: I have the power to give it up and the power to receive it back again
NEB: I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back again
NWT: I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again.

These translation express that Jesus had the right to receive his life again, and not that he had the ability to do it himself. As Jesus said, he entrusted his spirit/life with the Father, it makes no sense for Jesus to do or say this if he himself was raising it up again.

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" before dying?

God came as a man and died for us, and lived in the Spirit and conquered death for us.
Notice that all the proof the scriptures give you, you say oh but not that name.
Read what Isaiah says:
Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

It says the Lord. That is what Jesus is called. It says the King. That is what Jesus is called. It says Redeemer. That is what Jesus is called. It says the First and the Last. That is what Jesus is called.
Jesus is the Spirit, Father, the First and the Last, Creator, Redeemer, Savior, Rock, Holy One of Israel, Husband, Shepherd, the circumciser of hearts, the One who gives life, the one who raises the dead, the one to whom the commands belong, the one who lives in believers, the one we bow to, the one who draws us, the one who sanctifies us, the one who sends and pours out the Spirit.
You really want to keep going against all that truth?

But he is never called the "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3). As I've said many times now you fail to acknowledge why or how Jesus came to be called the names and titles he has.

 

[NWL]

Show me where Jesus is called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23),

The scriptures say 'the Lord'.

There are many scriptures that call Jesus the Lord.

See also these scriptures that say plainly Jesus is the sovereign Lord, and the ONLY King of king and Lord of lords:

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones."

1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in His own time--He who is blessed and the only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords.


How many King of kings and Lord of lord do you have? The BIBLE SAYS THERE IS ONLY ONE. Jesus is called the only one. He has the exact same names as God the Father. There is only ONE ONLY ONE. It is God the Father and Jesus Christ.

So I ask you to show me where Jesus is ever called "sovereign Lord" and all you do is show me a scripture that calls Jesus lord and lord of Lords...sigh. If you can't answer the question why not just admit you can't show what I ask instead of showing Jesus having titles we both already agree he has. Does Jesus have the title "sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

I have one sovereign lord, namely the Father and one Lord, namely Jesus Christ, who is a lord of lords. Acts 2:36 states "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake", Jesus has been made lord, he is therefore not the sovereign lord.

That is Jesus the Almighty God who is coming:

Revelation 16:13-15

¹³ And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

¹⁴ For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

¹⁵ Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

1 Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2 Corinthians 1:14
As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are our's in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Isaiah 10:21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.


Isaiah 9:6 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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

As I've explained many times now Jesus comes as executor and judge for God as the Father elected him as such, "Because he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed", thus as per the farther instruction Jesus has a day in which he will judge the earth, as does the Father.

I've specifically asked for you to show where Jesus is called "Almighty God", all you showed are verses that called Jesus "mighty God", Someone being a mighty God and someone being Almighty God are two very different things. Again, where is Jesus called Almighty God or do you admit he is never called "Almighty God"?

I have proved it but you deny the truth.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones."

1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in His own time--He who is blessed and the only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords.


1 Kings 8:39
be heard by You from heaven, Your dwelling place. And may You forgive and act, and repay each man according to all his ways, since You know his heart--for You alone know the hearts of all men--

Jesus knows all people's hearts.

Since GOD ALONE knows all people's hearts, Jesus must be that one and only God the Father who knows all people's hearts.

Matthew 9:4
But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, "Why do you harbor evil in your hearts?

You think you've proved it, you haven't shown me anywhere Jesus is called by the titles I asked you to show. "Lord of lords" does not mean "sovereign lord" and "mighty God" does not mean "Almighty God", so you have proven nothing.

In regards to what you said about reading hearts, Jesus was able to read people hearts as he was empowered by the Fathers holy spirit to be able to read peoples hearts, the apostles were able to read peoples hearts too and know when they were lying, read Acts 5:1-10 where it speaks about Ananias and his wife, Peter knew they were lying despite there being no evidence that they were as he was able to read their heart because of the holy spirit. In like manner, Jesus as man and not God came to earth, he like Peter being empowered with HS was able to disecern people's heart, this does not prove he was God any more than it does Peter.

 

[NWL]

Where does Scripture say that spirits die, Book, chapter and Verse please. Where does Scripture say that Satan dies, Book, Chapter verse please.

I assume this was directed at me?

The bible literally states Satan gets throw into the lake of fire "which means the second" (Rev 20:10,14), it literally states the place he gets thrown into means the "second death". How can Satan get thrown into a place which means the second death and not die?

The second death refers to eternal destruction where one can never be resurrected or come to life again. When someone dies they have the prospect to be resurrected again, this is clear when Rev 20:13 states "And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds" according to the scroll of life, anyone not found in the book of life are then thrown into the lake of fire which refers to eternal death never again to be raised up from death. Death itself is thrown into the lake of fire, remember its my claim that the "lake of fire" resembles eternal death, and what do we find out after death itself is thrown into the lake of fire, it states death is no longer in existence, no one will ever die again! Rev 21:4, in regards to the new heaven and new earth after death is thrown into the "lake of fire which means the second death", states, "God himself will be with them.  And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away". Death clearly no longer exists.

Likewise, Satan who is a spirit gets thrown into the lake of fire which refers to the second death, Satan therefore dies, this is fact and irrefutable according to what I said above. If death being thrown into the lake of fire refers to its eternal non-exsitance, then Satan being thrown into the lake of fire resembles his eternal non-existence.

 

[God's Truth]

I am aware that some saved ones go to the spiritual realm, how does this fact do to anything I have said?

No. All of the saved are in the spiritual realm.

YES IT DOES, it literally states the place he gets thrown into means the "second death". How can Satan get thrown into a place which means the second death and not die?

This isn't a discussion on what happens in the lake of fire. No matter what your beliefs about the end times---no spirits have died or die.

Try again, the bible never states God's breath gives us a spirit, referring to personal spirit each man has. The word "spirit" has many different meanings in the bible, but when it talks about man spirit it's referring to his life, for example, when Psalms 146:4 states "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish” the spirit is synonymous with the word "life",

Soul sleepers also use a few scriptures in Psalms to try to say the spirits of humans die with the body. There is no scripture in Psalms that says that. One must remember too that the Old Testament people did not yet have the entire gospel. Ecclesiastes is about earthly man. Read what Solomon says in Ecclesiastes in 3:18-21 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Did you read how Solomon says, “Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” Solomon says, “Who knows…” Surely, the New Testament teaches us about what is spiritual and about what happens to us spiritually.

the verse is referring to mans life going out, it's not referring to a literal spirit that man has. Many translations render Pslams 146:4 "When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish" as they understand the point being conveyed is in relation to man's life and not a literal spirit.

Well that's because it is about the physical body and not the spirit.

Likewise, when Jesus in Luke 23:46 states “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" Jesus isn't saying he has a literal spirit that he's entrusting to God, rather he's saying he's entrusting God "with his life/spirit/breath of life" as it was God the Father who resurrects him, he's outspokenly stating about the Father that he trusts his life, his spirit, with him.

Jesus' Spirit was alive and he went to prison/hell in his Spirit where the spirits were of people who died even a long time ago. Then he raised himself..

I've told you many times that you at times make a claim, quote a couple of scriptures but do nothing in explaining how the quoted verses proves your point. Take for example you post which all this and the above is in reply to, you said "The saved live in the realm of the Spirit" and quoted Eph 2:6, Col 3:1 and Col 1:13, nowhere did you explain how any of the three verses support your point or counter my point, you simply made a statement and quoted three verses without any sort of explanation at all about anything. It's not my job to deal with any and every verse you quote, as I've said many times explain your position and scriptures in detail and I will always give a reply.

It is simple---you say humans are NOT in the realm of heaven, but I give you scriptures that say we are.
You think your giving false information about the Bible was some kind of great explanation? You spoke error and I corrected you.
When a saved person lives in the spirit realm, they are not living just to please their bodies. They obey Jesus' teachings and that is how the Spirit lives through them and how they live through the Spirit.

 

[God's Truth]

How does any of the above answer "does God take the scroll from his own hand?"

I've explained it to you and now you are going to badger like an out of control money or a little child.

How!? Where does anything you have ever said answer my question "if you believe the lamb took the scroll from his own hand", again, which answer do you agree with:

A. The Lamb who is Jesus took the scroll from his own hand as the one sitting on the throne.
B The Lamb didn't take the scroll from him own hand but took it from the separate person the Father who sits on the throne.

Are you daft? I've been telling you how they are one and the same, so how do you ever get to ask me if they are separate?

God the Father is Spirit and lives in heaven and at the same time He came as a man in the flesh and those are two who are one and the same but one as a Father and one as a Son.

Which answer do you agree with, A or B.

You know by answering truthfully you make yourself sound like a fool and therefore have to play mental gymnastics in order for your beliefs to make a shred of sense.

You calling me a fool is a dangerous thing for you, since I speak the truth.

Jesus says the Father and his hands are the same.

This scripture proves that Jesus made the earth. There are also scriptures that show Jesus and the Father have the same hands.


Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Whose hand?

You who say Jesus is not God the Father, whose hand?


Isaiah 48:12 Listen to me, Jacob,
Israel, whom I have called:
I am he;
I am the first and I am the last.
13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together.

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


Notice that Jesus says no one can snatch them out of his hand, and then he says no one can snatch them out of his Father's hand.

Whose hand? They are one and the same.
They are one. 'One' means 'same'!

You are only fooling yourself my friend, no honest person who reads your words will think what you are saying is believable, consistent or actually answers the question. The same way me answering "purple" to any of the questions you asked me isn't a sufficient answer to your questions is the same way you not directly answering my question is not a sufficient answer of mine.

Those without understanding such as yourself have the truth hid from them for a reason. Jesus says he reveals himself to those who obey him. You prove there is something wrong with your relationship with God, just listen to how you talk to me. Your are rude and prideful.

Monkey see monkey do lol. I use the word "waffle" a few times in our discussions which results in you using it like a babbling infant. Me stating your answers aren't real answer is not waffle friend, its called my opinion.

You do a lot of waffling. It is funny how that works---you falsely judge me of the very thing you are and do.

You're very correct, no one has to answer any question relating to anything, but its foolish to claim you speak the truth when you can't ask reasonable questions. You stating "I don’t have to answer according to your folly" is a clear admission that you cannot answer my question. Tell me, why can't you answer my question and how is it folly, my question is simply phrased in such a way that it a paraphrased question of what the text says, so to call it folly is degrading on Gods word. Again, Rev 5:1 states "in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll", then in v5,6 it states "a lamn...came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne". Therefore to ask you to confirm that by your beliefs of Jesus being the one sitting on the throne that the Lamb is taking the scroll out of his own hand. How is this folly when all I'm asking you to do is confirm what the text says according to your belief? You make zero sense and you know it.

I don't even read what you write when it has so much insult. Try to debate without the insults. I don't like spending time defending myself from a person such as yourself. Learn how to say things without the ignorant insults, monkey, child, waffler, foolish, etc.

Have you lost the plot??? You're the one going against them by denying their claim that 1 John 5:7 is spurious! Not me, I agree with them!

Do you agree with scholars that the "three in one" passage in 1 John 5:7 is spurious or do you go against what scholars say?

Let's wait and see who is the one who actually goes against them...the cheek of it.

I am not suggesting we should listen to scholars in relation to their understanding of who God is or what it all means, I'm stating we should trust them in relation to what they understand to be authentic.

You refuse to accept the scholarly communities clear understanding that 1 John 5:7 is spurious, you have no basis to back this up other than 'I need 1 John 5:7 to say " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one'.

I'm not pitting scholars against each other, I've claimed and will claim again that 1 John 5:7 is spurious as the rendering you give is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts but only found in manuscripts 1200-1500 years after the fact. Scholars themselves have noted this and the community, even the people who believe in the trinity and would love for it to be true, have admitted the verse is spurious. Again, on what basis should the verse read the way you think it does?

Even if you want to take out a scripture here and there, you still can't disprove the truth.

Let me refute this, I claim you are wrong because of "purple". Any disagreement with my answer I will claim is a bad debate tactic by you.

That is more waffling from you. Nothing you just said makes sense or has any truth to it. What you said is deceitful really.

You have misunderstood me, my claim wasn't that the titles by definition meant something different, but rather the meaning the titles imposed mean something different, I thought I made this very clear when I gave Satan as an example. I can say Satan is the first and the last, when I say this I could further define him being the F&L in the sense he is the first and the last adversary of God, which is true, Satan will be the first and also the last adversary of God. God is the first and the last in the sense he is the first and last God, Jesus is the first and the last in a different sense, however, he is the first and the last in the sense of dying and being resurrected, again this is clear by the context. When A&O is applied to God in Rev 1:8 it's in relation to his deity, when the F&L is applied to Christ in Rev 1:18, 2:8 its in relation to his death and resurrection.

How many times are you going to keep saying that after you failed with it the first time?

You can't make up something that isn't in the Bible to try to prove biblical truth.

Of course I can say it. For example, if the Bible stated "Jesus has every name and title the Father has" and yet nowhere do we find Jesus being called "true God" but only the Father, then by the initial statement "Jesus has every name and title the Father has" I can reasonable and biblically call Jesus the "true God", would you not agree?

No, I don't agree with that idiot reasoning. Jesus is called 'God', and you suggesting he isn't true is just wrong on many levels, since the Bible says there is ONLY ONE GOD who is the King of King and Lord of lords and the First and the Last. Those are things said about Jesus. Yet, you say Jesus doesn't have all the names of God because of the word 'true'. That is pathetic defiance of the truth.

 

[God's Truth]

Likewise, the bible teaches Satan is the first adversary of God, I'm sure you would agree with me, Satan is also the last adversary of God, I'm also sure you'd also agree with me, so I could say Satan is the first and the last in the sense he is the first and last adversary of God.

No way would the Bible say that Satan is the First and the Last.

Nowhere in the bible is the term F&L defined, rather is the context that defines the term, and as we can see by Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8, Jesus is the F&L in relation to his death and resurrection. You need to remember the words "first" and "last" in the term "first and last" refer to the person being the first and also the last of something, it's not just a random title that implies deity.

If you can show where Satan is called the First and the Last, then what you say wouldn’t be a gross lie.

What is the context of the verses when the Father is called the F&L in the OT, remember, the context defines what the first and the last relates to when the person is called the first and the last. Isaiah 41:1-4 references to the OT God being the F&L is in reference to him being the first God and the last God over the nation of Israel, this is clear by his repeated question of "Who has raised up someone from the sunrise...Who reduces them to dust before his sword, Like windblown stubble before his bow...Who has acted and done this, Summoning the generations from the beginning...I, Jehovah, am the First One; And with the last ones I am he.." Isaiah 44:6 reference to the OT God being the F&L is also in relation to him being the only God for the nation of Israel as can be seen by the context, "The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Jehovah of armies:‘I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me. Who is there like me? Let him call out and tellit and prove it to me!". Isaiah 48:12,13 reference to the OT God being the F&L is also in relation to him being the only God as the context shows "I give my glory to no one else. Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called. I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last. My own hand laid the foundation of the earth, And my right hand spread out the heavens. When I call to them, they stand up together."

What does Jesus say about glory?
What about Jesus and glory? Do you want to explain who the Father shares His glory with, Jesus?
That is more proof Jesus is God.

So in all counts when God in the OT is called the first and the last its in relation to him being the only God for the nation of Isreal, the context is the thing that defines this. Jesus is called the F&L but when he is the context is not about him being God but rather him dying and coming to life again, it is in that sense he is the F&L. You assume Jesus being the F&L of something relates to the same thing as the Father in the OT being the first and the last of something.

God’s names are not used flippantly as you use them.

The translation you used is merely one way to translate the verse, other translations have the verse say:

WNT: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again.
ABPE: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it again
CEV: I have the power to give it up and the power to receive it back again
NEB: I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back again
NWT: I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again.

These translation express that Jesus had the right to receive his life again, and not that he had the ability to do it himself. As Jesus said, he entrusted his spirit/life with the Father, it makes no sense for Jesus to do or say this if he himself was raising it up again.

It makes no difference.

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" before dying?

What do you think? He is dying in the flesh.

But he is never called the "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3). As I've said many times now you fail to acknowledge why or how Jesus came to be called the names and titles he has.

I proved it with scripture. You are defiant of the truth. I gave you scriptures that plainly say GOD, the ONLY King of kings, the ONLY Lord of lords…and it is said of Jesus. So that proves the Father and Jesus are one and the same.

 

[7djengo7]

When someone dies they have the prospect to be resurrected again,

Death is the opposite of life, to be dead means to have no existence after a period of existence. When I state God cannot die I mean God, or any part of him, can go out of existence.

Since NWL tells us that to die is to "go out of existence", NWL is telling us:

When someone [goes out of existence] they have the prospect to be resurrected again,

Sorry, NWL, but in order to be resurrected, one must exist; no existence, no resurrection.

Satan who is a spirit gets thrown into the lake of fire which refers to the second death, Satan therefore dies, this is fact and irrefutable according to what I said above. If death being thrown into the lake of fire refers to its eternal non-exsitance, then Satan being thrown into the lake of fire resembles his eternal non-existence.

Here NWL, referring to his father, the devil, says:

Satan therefore dies

And, since NWL tells us that to die is to "go out of existence", NWL is telling us that his father,

Satan therefore [goes out of existence]

Which, of course, is obviously false, and ridiculous to say, seeing as, on the contrary, according to the Bible,

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.​

​

NWL's father, the devil, obviously does not "go out of existence", since he shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. To be tormented day and night for ever and ever is to exist for ever and ever.​

 

[7djengo7]

I have one sovereign lord, namely the Father and one Lord, namely Jesus Christ, who is a lord of lords. Acts 2:36 states "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake", Jesus has been made lord, he is therefore not the sovereign lord.

Devil-led NWL fails miserably, here, because he wishes to have it so that, by saying that Jesus has been "made" Lord, Peter (in Acts 2:36) is saying that Jesus went from not being Lord to being Lord. But that is not what Peter is saying.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.​

​

NWL, being an Arian, Russellite anti-Christ, wants his cult's marks to think that Peter, by the word, "made", was saying that God caused Jesus to become Lord. Peter, however, was saying no such thing. At no time ever was Jesus not Lord; Jesus has always been Lord, and Jesus never became Lord.

What Peter is saying is that God hath DECLARED Jesus Lord. Pretty simple. Same use of the word, 'make', as we find in John 5:18, where Jesus' "making himself equal with God" is Jesus' DECLARING Himself equal with God--DECLARING Truth. Jesus is not causing Himself to become equal with God, for at no time ever was Jesus not equal with God. Same usage, again, as we find in John 10:33, where Jesus makes Himself God; Jesus is not making Himself God in a sense of causing Himself to become God, for at no time ever was Jesus not God. Rather, Jesus is making Himself God in the sense of DECLARING Himself God--DECLARING Truth. In 1 John 1:10, we read:

If we say that we have not sinned, we make [God] a liar, and his word is not in us.​

​

Only an irrationally-thinking, God-hating fool could claim that John, here (by "make God a liar"), means that someone can cause God to become a liar--that someone can cause God to go from not being a liar to being a liar. God has never been, nor could He ever become, a liar. Obviously, John is telling us that, by saying we have not sinned, we would be DECLARING God a liar; that, in fact, we would be DECLARING a falsehood (and a downright nasty, God-blaspheming one, at that), rather than the truth.

So, contrary to the deranged, anti-Christ ravings of devil-led NWL, Peter was not telling the house of Israel that God caused Jesus to become Lord, nor implying that Jesus had previously not been Lord.

NWL, being a false witness against Jehovah, habitually blasphemes and rejects both God the Father and Jesus Christ.​