What was the appearance of the three [LORD,lords] who visited Abraham.

Clete said:

Saying that God is Reason (or Logic) is no different - no different at all so far as I see it - than saying that God is Love. You don't have a problem with saying that do you?

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with saying it, since the Bible says it. But, I admit, I'm a bit hazy as to what the Bible means by it. Well, let's put it this way: when I consider that creatures love -- and often love evil -- it makes me think that not all love could be the love that the Bible says God is. But in the text, no "some" or "all" quantifier is used next to "love", as in "God is some, but not all love," or "God is all love". Yeah, when it comes down to it, unfortunately, I'm definitely not well-studied or certain on the question of what exactly is meant by that.

oatmeal said:

"Christ hater?"

Why "was" past tense? If that is an accurate translation, then the word had been God but is no longer God, thus the word is something else after it ceased to be God.

What is the word now?

Logos means message or communication or saying. The message was God

Why pollute scripture?

Click to expand...

Why change what GOD has already inspired. Rem, Changing the WORD of GOD (any word) is spoken against in Rev 22, 18-19.

7djengo7 said:

I don't have a problem with saying it, since the Bible says it. But, I admit, I'm a bit hazy as to what the Bible means by it. Well, let's put it this way: when I consider that creatures love -- and often love evil -- it makes me think that not all love could be the love that the Bible says God is. But in the text, no "some" or "all" quantifier is used next to "love", as in "God is some, but not all love," or "God is all love". Yeah, when it comes down to it, unfortunately, I'm definitely not well-studied or certain on the question of what exactly is meant by that.

Click to expand...

You have to look at the words as they at that time would have heard (interpreted) it. Not what we want to make it say. for We are not supposed to be living on the World....and that is what most people do every day.

7djengo7 said:

I don't have a problem with saying it, since the Bible says it. But, I admit, I'm a bit hazy as to what the Bible means by it. Well, let's put it this way: when I consider that creatures love -- and often love evil -- it makes me think that not all love could be the love that the Bible says God is. But in the text, no "some" or "all" quantifier is used next to "love", as in "God is some, but not all love," or "God is all love". Yeah, when it comes down to it, unfortunately, I'm definitely not well-studied or certain on the question of what exactly is meant by that.

Click to expand...

I'm very certain that there isn't anyone on Earth who is certain on the question of what EXACTLY is meant by, "God is Love".

"God is loving" is a lot easier, obviously, but "God is Love"? What could that mean? I do not know. I mean, there's plenty to say about various things in that direction, but none of it really settles the question.

One of the things I happen to like very much about my theology proper is that when there are mysteries that are beyond my grasp, they never take the form of absurdities. That is, I don’t have to believe that God is somehow arbitrarily just or dynamically immutable or any other such contradictory nonsense. “God is Love” is mysterious, yes, but it is not irrational. It’s profound, not dumbfounding. It’s a truth that stretches the mind, but not one that breaks it.

And that’s actually one of the reasons I find “God is Reason” to be such a powerful and clarifying truth. Love becomes meaningful only when it is grounded in something rational, something with coherence, purpose, and moral substance. Without reason, love could be anything, even the kind of love that leads a person to embrace what is evil. Pete Buttigieg actually believes he loves his "husband". The fact is that he hates both him and himself and is destroying both. The kind of love that God is, on the other hand, must be perfectly rational, pure, righteous, principled and truly relational.

So I think the statement, “God is Love” and the statement, “God is Reason” are not just both true, they actually require each other. If God were not Reason, then His love would lose its moral clarity. If God were not Love, then His reason would be cold and impersonal (i.e. not love at all). When we see both as essential to His being, when we see love as rational and reason as loving, then perhaps we start to glimpse something of what these deep statements might really mean.

in another great forum here at heologyonline there is a wonderful page entitled " The results of the Jews rejection and crucifixion of Jesus "

in this forum I explain that in the Catholic Translation and also the Greek Septuagint there are hundreds of places where the Hebrew words “ LORD “ and " ANOINTING " are used throughout the Hebrew Old Testament

and of these hundreds of instances, the Septuagint and Catholic Douay Rheims replaces the word ANOINTING with the Greek word Christ in selected passages where the translators feel and consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future

meaning

in the Septuagint and Catholic Douay Rheims they directly insert the Greek word Christ into the Old Testament when translating it to Greek and also English

the word Christ literally means _ " THE ANOINTING ... " "

the Translators simply left this Greek word as : Christ " instead of translating the word into Italian or English.... unless a Christian can understand simply basic facts such as these they will never understand or comprehend what I was trying to explain,

a well meaning individual here was replying but did not feel very comfortable engaging on the conversation, I hope this individual can someday understand and verify the things I have said by looking directly to the scriptures instead of making a list or a chart of the thousands of denominations or drawing out a mental triangle

may the Anointing alway be with you. in love

Insight me said:

in another great forum here at heologyonline there is a wonderful page entitled " The results of the Jews rejection and crucifixion of Jesus "

in this forum I explain that in the Catholic Translation and also the Greek Septuagint there are hundreds of places where the Hebrew words “ LORD “ and " ANOINTING " are used throughout the Hebrew Old Testament

and of these hundreds of instances, the Septuagint and Catholic Douay Rheims replaces the word ANOINTING with the Greek word Christ in selected passages where the translators feel and consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future

meaning

in the Septuagint and Catholic Douay Rheims they directly insert the Greek word Christ into the Old Testament when translating it to Greek and also English

the word Christ literally means _ " THE ANOINTING ... " "

the Translators simply left this Greek word as : Christ " instead of translating the word into Italian or English.... unless a Christian can understand simply basic facts such as these they will never understand or comprehend what I was trying to explain,

a well meaning individual here was replying but did not feel very comfortable engaging on the conversation, I hope this individual can someday understand and verify the things I have said by looking directly to the scriptures instead of making a list or a chart of the thousands of denominations or drawing out a mental triangle

may the Anointing alway be with you. in love

Click to expand...

Yes, Christ literally means “Anointed One,” and it is used in places to translate the Hebrew Mashiach (Messiah). However, the idea that the Septuagint or Douay-Rheims arbitrarily replace the Hebrew word “anointing” with Christ everywhere is simply false. Translators render Christos only where the context clearly points to the promised Messiah, not in every instance of the word “anointing.” To claim otherwise shows ignorance or deception.

Also, “LORD” (YHWH) and “anointing” are entirely different terms and concepts. YHWH is God’s personal name; it is never interchangeable with “anointing” or “Christ.” Conflating these reveals a theological confusion that undermines Christian doctrine or else, once again, an intentional deception.

Most importantly, reducing the person and work of Christ to nothing more than “the anointing” misses the entire biblical witness of His deity, incarnation, and redemptive mission. The New Testament reveals Christ as fully God and fully man, the eternal Son of God, not merely a title meaning “anointed.”


Further, your repeated emphasis on “the Anointing” along with the dismissive comment about the “drawing out a mental triangle” are clear signs not only of hostility toward the biblical doctrine of the Trinity but also of adherence to the Oneness Pentecostal heresy. This rejection of biblical theology distorts the true nature of God as revealed in Scripture and leads to serious theological error. It is crucial to recognize and reject these errors if one truly desires to understand and honor the full biblical revelation of Jesus Christ.

The word "Christ" appears 39 total times in the Septuagint Old Testament


The word "Christ" appears 8 total times in the Catholic Douay Rheims Old Testament

exactly as I previously mentioned -

I agree --- not to arbitrarily and wildly replace the words - but to take the Hebrew words " LORD " and ANOINTING and replace these two words with the Greek word Christ ....... where the translators feel and consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future

I honestly did not want to have a side line, rear lobe discussion about the Trinity. If the Trinity is something you would like to discuss... I am patiently waiting for a full brain, frontaly and rearwardly brain with both hemispheres, as full discussion and not a wink, wink cue card, hint and run.

I was simply saying of the hundreds of instances where these two word = ANOINTING and LORD appear in the manuscripts of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Septuagint and Catholic Douay Rheims replaces the words = ANOINTING and LORD with the Greek word Christ.

we would not know that the original Hebrew word was -ANOINTING or LORD unless we read the Masoretic Text,

in selected passages where the translators feel and consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future ..... the Greek word Christ is inserted to replace LORD and ANOINTING.

only . only where the translators feel, and personally consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future.


i believe this is unfair to the Hebrew men and women of the Old Testament who knew nothing of Jesus the Son of God.

does this not paint an untruthful picture of the Jews who rejected Jesus and also undermines the words of Jesus and scripture that explains that the coming of Jesus was completely hidden from the Jews ..

Mat 13:35 I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world
Eph 3:9 the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things:

Col 1:26 The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to his saints,


I hope to establish an better understanding of my original comment and hope that my words are not lost and misrepresented by those who refuse to read and clarify basic English

Insight me said:

The word "Christ" appears 39 total times in the Septuagint Old Testament


The word "Christ" appears 8 total times in the Catholic Douay Rheims Old Testament

exactly as I previously mentioned -

I agree --- not to arbitrarily and wildly replace the words - but to take the Hebrew words " LORD " and ANOINTING and replace these two words with the Greek word Christ ....... where the translators feel and consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future

I honestly did not want to have a side line, rear lobe discussion about the Trinity. If the Trinity is something you would like to discuss... I am patiently waiting for a full brain, frontaly and rearwardly brain with both hemispheres, as full discussion and not a wink, wink cue card, hint and run.

I was simply saying of the hundreds of instances where these two word = ANOINTING and LORD appear in the manuscripts of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Septuagint and Catholic Douay Rheims replaces the words = ANOINTING and LORD with the Greek word Christ.

we would not know that the original Hebrew word was -ANOINTING or LORD unless we read the Masoretic Text,

in selected passages where the translators feel and consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future ..... the Greek word Christ is inserted to replace LORD and ANOINTING.

only . only where the translators feel, and personally consider that the passages is a prophecy or reference to Jesus in the future.


i believe this is unfair to the Hebrew men and women of the Old Testament who knew nothing of Jesus the Son of God.

does this not paint an untruthful picture of the Jews who rejected Jesus and also undermines the words of Jesus and scripture that explains that the coming of Jesus was completely hidden from the Jews ..

Mat 13:35 I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world
Eph 3:9 the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things:

Col 1:26 The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to his saints,


I hope to establish an better understanding of my original comment and hope that my words are not lost and misrepresented by those who refuse to read and clarify basic English

Click to expand...

@Insight me,
So, I'm running very low on patience with this literal stupidity. I wrote what follows and then ran it through Chat GPT to help tone done my irritation with this nonsense because I'm trying my best not to create needless enemies. This, however, is your last opportunity to respond directly to the arguments made below. If you choose to simply repeat yourself again, I'll simply put you on ignore and pretend you no longer exist.



You're doubling down on a flawed argument rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of translation, textual history, and biblical theology. You're trying to make a case from translation choices without understanding the texts themselves or the doctrines you are casually dismissing.

The word Christ (Greek Christos) is a title, not name. It means “anointed one.” That much is simple. However, your claim that Christ is used in place of both anointing and LORD in the Septuagint and Douay-Rheims is completely inaccurate. The Greek Christos never replaces the divine name YHWH. That substitution never occurs. YHWH is God's personal name. Christ is the title of the prophesied Messiah. They are not interchangeable. Conflating the two shows a basic confusion between the identity of God and the role of the Messiah or else an intentional misrepresentation - I believe it to be the later.

Your concern that it is "unfair" to the Jews for the Old Testament to contain prophetic references to Christ misses the purpose of prophecy entirely. Just because a prophecy is not fully understood at the time it is given does not make it deceptive or dishonest. God did not require Israel to predict every detail. He required faith in what He had revealed. Jesus said the Scriptures testified of Him. Paul used the Old Testament to reason that Jesus was the Christ. The mystery of the Body of Christ was indeed hidden, as Paul states clearly, but the prophesied coming of the Messiah to Israel was revealed in several ways. You are confusing prophecy with mystery and using that confusion to criticize translators for decisions they did not actually make.

Furthermore, your repeated focus on “the Anointing” and your sarcastic remarks about the Trinity (e.g. references to “mental triangles” and “rear lobes”) are not neutral observations. They reveal the theological lens you are working from. It is the language of Oneness Pentecostalism, which denies the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not a harmless difference of opinion. It is a rejection of who God has revealed Himself to be.

If you want to discuss the text, that is great, I'd love it. However, what you are presenting is not careful exegesis, it is wordplay wrapped in confusion and served with a side of mockery toward essential Christian doctrine. That is not how truth is handled by honest people. Truth requires clarity, precision, and a willingness to rightly divide the word of God rather than twist it into a system that fits your preference. You sound exactly like a cult leader because you use the exact same techniques to mold the scripture into whatever shape your doctrine demands of it.