I called no one a homo. Where did you get that from?
Google a couple of them. Boychick, Hairman, Chongo, etc. They each come up this way in South America.
I am sorry. 'Lon' sounds well, less exciting....
Just be careful. That's why we have to avoid even the appearance of something not good. Nicknames have a way of doing that. It is better to choose terms people know and recognize.
Not if v. 1-3 in John 1 are not YET referring to Jesus at all.
The problem there is, when then, did the Logos become flesh? We can ask questions, it is answering them wrong that gets us into trouble. In theology, at least, some questions are best left as questions because they are really questions from us for God, not questions we are asking one another to answer. Who would be so presumptuous as to answer for God? This is primarily the
why there is a problem with modalism or arianism being cults. They presume too much and purposefully tread on what we view as God's ground alone. Only He can answer these questions for us and for reason of His own good purpose, He hasn't explained everything in perfect detail to us. Leave questions questions and we wouldn't have such a problem Mormons and JW's and other cults insist Jesus was only a man because their doctrine demands it. They dictate to God who He must be rather than God dictating Himself.
There you go again. Hairless MONKEY? Why, Lonnyboy I've not called you that for two posts, actually EVER. I said be good, and I WON'T.
You are not being good, Lonnyboy.
And what does a hairless monkey have to do with a homosexual?
Are you projecting here? What is your sensual affiliation anyway?
Never mind. I don't really want to know. Too much information.
What? What does 'were they all mean?' All polytheist, or all monotheist? You are not being perspicuous here, hairlessmano.
(Oh, I get it. The lack of hair on your head, I've all along been referring to as parallel to your sexual affiliation. Good inference, chochem).
No, I just said at the best, an internet search turned up "monkey."
There were a lot worse things I didn't bother mentioning here. We've covered this enough, I'm just trying to get you to realize that some nicknames don't transfer across the water very well. A lot of these nicknames aren't turning up in too good of a light.
The two Lords in Psalms 110 prove that Jesus is NOT GOD. Because
the YHWH was always our LORD before. Now the Son is added.
David is saying YHWH my former LORD says to JESUS my present
(in prophetic mode, of course) LORD (adoni, singular) ....
Simple. Easy. Clear. Plain. Even a child could understand.
But are you and the child right?
EERR. This is what YOU are doing hairlessmano. Adding to scripture with your incarnation meaning of LOGOS. LOGOS has ALWAYS meant for the Jew the spoken WORD which made the heavens and the earth.
That's at least the second step of assumption from scripture. The first must and has to be "what does John mean by logos?"
So now how did this metaphor come to mean Jesus? And how do these 2 mutually exclusive meanings come together? How are they even remotely compatible? Herr NOT, hairlessmano.
I DO know a little German
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his(αὐτοῦ),
glory. So yes, "How is this remotely compatible" I agree.
Just eliminate the last two words and I would agree.
Except I said that's what
this thread is about.
I know you don't want to answer it. Becuz you CAN'T, rasta.
Doesn't matter if we are in the same boat. If we aren't, this is special pleading that God has 'given you' the answer.
God gave you the Shema in Deut 6. Follow HIM. NOT some inference you made about Thomas. God commanded you. It is your FIRST
COMMAND hairlessbreath.
Yes, but I've already mentioned this:
Those are both her.
Though each are called sometimes different names,
they are the same and there is only one, but she
appears as two.
There is no other. Unlike God, there are other's like her, but
we are not discussing those, just the one that exists as one and yet two at the same time.
One is first and one is second though they are both the same being.
Those are both her.
Though each are called sometimes different names,
they are the same and there is only one, but she
appears as two.
There is no other. Unlike God, there are other's like her, but
we are not discussing those, just the one that exists as one and yet two at the same time.
One is first and one is second though they are both the same being.
Now, before you say "no," I've accurately described a being that truly does exist. I'm not saying that this is how God exists to us, I'm simply saying that even if I cannot put the pieces together above, I can believe the statements even though they seem contradictory. I assure you they are not. All statements, and more like them, explain a singular entity that truly exists, yet that entity resides in two different individuals/manifestations or what language can suffice to say meaningfully: There are two in certain aspects though there has ever been just one and the second is the same material/essence of the first yet exists as if there were two, but the two are indeed both the same individual. The two can talk to each other though they are the same one, at the same time. Very confusing, but wholly true regardless. Facts cannot lie. Everything given is fact.
No, now don't try to weasel out. I put you in a logistical corner, one which neither of you can't paint yourselves out of. AND claimed checkmate.
Really? Do you really see this as checkmate? You seem a bit beyond such trivialities. Just say "check" and move along. Wait for the game to be over before declaring.... You simply asked about what Jews believed here. I told you straight up that those who are accepting Him these days are also declaring Him to be God. In my mind, this is greatly damaging to your so-called dilemma. It certainly looks like you aren't wanting dialogue, just a win. We always thought the other team was afraid to play us, didn't like the weather, or had something good for dinner waiting, when they tried calling an unfinished game early.
NOW who is becoming incomprehensible? I am archiving your DOLLY
theorem of theology, Lon. This is classic. Simply classic.
Apple looky here. INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
Hasn't the Catholic Church said the same thing exactly about the trinity? That it is a mystery?
I must be a bit sharper or something because I can follow the logic just fine. I can't tell you how many sheep there are because it is a bit confusing on who is who, but I know what I'm looking at and know I'm describing her accurately. If you can't comprehend, I can't 'dumb' it down for your. I assessed, at first, you'd have no problem whatsoever grasping the idea.
No, I am adhering to the strict text of that which cannot be broken.
The written Word of God. Are you going to now say that the written WORD
IS JESUS TOO? Woo hoo. ROFL.
Er...check...
You are NOT monotheist. MONOTHEIST means one God, hairy.
Yep. So tell me. Is Dolly one sheep? Yes or no?
No sqirming or wiggling now. You can laugh or engage the discussion. I'll take laughter as nervousness or concession.
No, now listen up. The Gentile monolithic paradigms of paganism raised up their irrational rational constructs in the fourth century.
This resulted first in Jesus becoming God, second the second hypostasis of the Godhead.
No? Just No? You can accuse anybody of anything and I do when I say a symbol of Jesus is on top of my place of worship and not on the cult's. It is true, but that's not an argument. You can't say they made Jesus God any more than I make Him God. Jesus is who He is and if this is all you've got against Him being God, your queen is taken and your king is in trouble. Check...