What do you not understand wit5h theswe verses?
- Thread starter keypurr
- Start date
What are you trying to say?
keypurr
Well-known member
Then you should be able to prove it in the scriptures my friend.
Jesus said that the holy spirit flows out of us like rivers of living water. (John 7:38-39)
The holy spirit was poured out on Cornelius. (Acts 10:45)
Jesus told the woman at the well he would have given her living water that would become a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.
(John 4:14)
keypurr
Well-known member
Amen, Amen
csuguy
Well-known member
Only if you throw out "...and these three are one..."lain: There are many scriptures that make it plain and I've always thought you the nut for missing it and the ECF's embracing verses that spell it out. You are against all of Christendom and most with a lot more intelligence. Going against the grain is NOT always the smartest thing to do, and more often than not, 3rd grade cult mentality.
Everyone agrees that the three are one, the question is in what sense are they one? Nothing in scripture even hints at the idea that they are different personages of one God, unified via substance or some such thing. A much more natural interpretation is that they are one in will, in purpose, etc. There an abundance of scriptures to support this concept of them being one. Especially when you take into account Jesus' prayer that we be one as he and the Father are one.
I don't have any trouble with these scriptures whatsoever; they are fully compatible with my view when read in context. I've gone 'round and 'round with you and others on these scriptures, but I'd be happy to discuss them again in more detail if you'd like. What you are doing by cherry-picking scriptures out of context is to make it look like Jesus is God Almighty himself. But if you bother to truly study these passages and scripture as a whole, your argument quickly falls apart.
John 10:30, for instance, reads "I and the Father are one.” But I pose the question up above - in what sense are they said to be 'one.' Are they identical? No. Even the Trinitarian cannot assert such a thing, even they must admit that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. If we agree that being 'one' is not the same as saying that they are identical, then we must further evaluate based upon the context what is meant. There is plenty to support the idea that they are one in purpose, in will, etc. There is nothing to support the idea that what is meant is that they are different personages of one God.
Isaiah 45:5 read “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will [a]gird you, though you have not known Me;" You attempt to use this along with some other passages that use the term God along with Jesus to attempt to say that he is the one true God. There are two problems with this. First is that the overwhelming scriptural evidence that Jesus is not God Almighty. The second problem is that there is precedent in the scriptures for calling others 'God' who are not God Almighty himself.
Hebrews 1:8-9 for example reads "But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of [h]His kingdom. 9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.” This passage partially demonstrates both points. He is called "God" here, but it simultaneously states speaks of "Your God." If "God" has a God, then clearly the "God" being addressed is not God Almighty.
Remember that the angel in the burning bush was also addressed as "God", and God even said to Moses that he would make him God to Pharaoh, and that Aaron is his prophet. So there is a precedent for those who speak for God being addressed as if they were God himself. How much more does this apply, then, for the "exact representation" of God?
We must also remember such scriptures like this that clearly and without question differentiate Jesus from God:
1 Cor 15:27-28 "For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all."
I've yet to see a Trinitarian address this verse in any meaningful fashion. They ignore the clear teachings of scripture and blindly say things like "the scriptures teach the Trinity so this is inline with the Trinity too". They've put on blinders and refuse to see the truth. They have eyes yet don't see, ears yet don't hear.
I didn't say anything about 'exact representation' in that quoted passage so not sure what you are responding to here. However, since you bring it up, by being called a 'representation' - even an exact one - a clear divide is presented between God and Christ. For the representation of something is necessarily not the thing itself.
I don't have any trouble accepting any of the scriptures - because I study scripture to learn what it teaches. Trinitarians, on the other hand, only superficially accept the scriptures on this matter. They have to invent entirely new definitions and add all kinds of things to the scriptures to attempt to force the scriptures to read in such a way that it supports their dogma. Hence they can't accept the simple "Father" "Son" relationship that is presented in the scriptures - they must invent non-sensical doctrines to define the relationship. These doctrines are so convulted that they are presented as a "mystery." They then address the three with new terms that they invented based upon their enigmatic theology like "God the Son" and "God the HS"
I remember you making a lot of asserting a bunch of hateful non-sense. You have constantly made broad, unfounded attacks on non-trinitarians. But your hate and bigotry towards us is not a valid basis for a theological argument.
Empty assertions. It's no different than the non-sensical position that "if you were a REAL Christian, you would simply understand these things and agree with me!" Both sides can make such rhetorical statements, but it adds nothing to the conversation.
Saying that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus in no way shape or form logically implies that Jesus must therefore be God. And I've already addressed the matter of them being 'one' up above.
Lon
Well-known member
You have an obtusion. John 1:1 and John 20:28 say differently than your blind assertion.
And here is the caveat:
Your 'made-up' definition of a poor context not given in scriptures. John 1:1 can only be read as "was with and was God." "With and was?" Yep. Context. It's everything and you arians and Unitarians miss it every time. :dizzy:
There is no need. This is my BA from a Christian college, not an understudy from a secular university. At barely 20, you were already brainwashed with this junk.
You have NO way to assert where they are identical and where they are not. We can read Father and Son becoming Flesh with the Son subordinate. Dolly the sheep is one sheep existing in two bodies. You might think seeing two sheep that she is two, but it isn't true. All parts that make up Dolly the sheep came from the one Dolly the Sheep. Dolly the Clone, is Dolly.
Colossians 1:15 Hebrews 1:3 :noway:
Er, not Isaiah 9:6 Colossians 1:17 (compare to Genesis 1:1), and Revelation 1:8 Oops
:doh: But "of the Son, He says!!!" No wonder you are a moon-unit-arian!
Every Mormon and JW I have ever met use this lame and brain-dead example. Are you a 'god' cs? Shall I pray to you? :dizzy: It is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. We are but the children of Gods and thus have His inheritance. Anything more is arrogant and not worth my or any other Christian's time. In fact, I see it as blasphemy. John 10:33
The Trinitarian is the 'least' developed view, on purpose! Why, because dopes who think they are smarter than the rest of us trolley off into heresy that explicitly denies scriptures and tries to define the Lord of the universe who is beyond your feeble logicking ability.
Not sure what translation you are reading Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians make exact clear. Dolly the sheep is one sheep. She exists in two different bodies, though the second body is all from the first sheep and all that is there was always there. She is a clone. The clone always existed as long as Dolly existed, but not separate. The separation is what was already existing in her, put outside of her body as a second sheep. If one leads the other, the other is subordinate. The first one 'can' give something like her milk to the second one (her second self is younger 'by birth' BUT the same age as the first because she came from her). Our language and conception 'can' grasp at least somewhat, this one sheep in two bodies. God is Spirit and we have verses that tell us Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God. Jesus is alpha and omega. Jesus is yesterday, today, and forever the same. If you can understand that about a sheep, you can certainly understand it about God. There is only one sheep in two bodies. There is only one God.
Er, your undergraduate work in a secular university hardly qualifies you AND you haven't changed a lick since you were 19 years old. It is the same ol' cult/same ol' heresy.
Absolutely, I hate condemnable lies. That thread simply showed that the man without the Spirit does not understand the things of the Spirit and his fruits reflect that nature.
Wowch! Just so people hear what you are saying is 'non-sense and assertions' in case they missed it:
You are saying you have not experienced being made a new-creation or have had the indwelling of Christ! There is no way any Christian is going to listen to you, but it makes sense, when you arians and Unitarians absolutely do not understand who He is or have fellowship with Him.
You need to read Revelation (again). Your Jesus Christ is not Him. Revelation 1:8; 17
He calls God His Father, and John calls Him the Lord God Almighty.
Last edited:
csuguy
Well-known member
I don't have any trouble with John 1:1 or John 20:28. I addressed in my previous post the matter of Jesus being called "God." It is not unique for someone other than God Almighty to be called/addressed as God. Examples include angels sent by God, men sent by God (as with Moses), as well as those who have recieved the Word of God.
John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
So I have no problem accepting that Jesus is called God by the scriptures; there is precendent for those who are clearly not God Almighty being called "God." And not in the sense of being false-gods, but in the sense of being God's representatives and God's people, his children. If it can be applied to us, who are imperfect and who have been adopted as God's sons and daughters - how much more so God's only begotten Son?
Trinitarians, however, have no good means of addressing the scriptures which clearly and repeatedly differentiate Jesus, the Son, from God. Hence you have refused to even attempt to address the passage I presented from 1 Cor 15 - because the Trinitarians have no good answer for such verses.
Not only do I have a degree in Religious Studies myself, but I am the son of pastor, and I have put in enormous amounts of study into these issues far beyond anything that any of these colleges would require of an undergraduate student. So you are certainly no more qualified than I to speak on these matters - especially when you are so confident in yourself that you simply dismiss all the facts that contradict you, saying "there is no need"
I was never brain washed into rejecting the Trinity. I never even attended a church that rejected it. Rather, my rejection came as a direct result of studying it so that I could defend it. Growing up, I primarily attended the Church of the Nazarene (http://nazarene.org/) and was taught fairly typical interpretations of the scriptures, including the Trinity. I never desired to give up the Trinity, and I wasn't indoctrinated into rejecting it as you blindly assert. Rather my rejection of the Trinity was the natural result of studying first the scriptures and then the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.
And? These don't address the issue of what it means for them to be 'one.'
Simply listing a bunch of scriptures is not sufficient to make an argument. We both know the scriptures, you aren't going to find one that I haven't considered on this topic such that simply quoting/referencing it is going to surprise me and cause me to rethink you position. I accept all these scriptures without any problem. You will need to take the time to truly respond to my points and to truly expand upon such scriptural references to form your arguments and rebuttals. If you can't do this then the conversation can't move forward.
The passage clearly differentiates the Son, who is here addressed as "God", from "Your God" - God Almighty. And I'm not a unitarian; I don't belong to any particular denomination.
And this quote demonstrates your problem: you don't bother to study these scriptures in context to learn what is actually being taught. You are here quoting the foolish jews who lacked understanding and were persecuting Christ. How did Christ reply?
John 10:31-39 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [f]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.
So, yes, we are called 'gods' by scripture. Despite this, Jesus never called himself God but always the Son of God, as he does here.
The least developed view? Your kidding, right? They spent hundreds of years developing it, they waged large-scale political wars over it, they persecuted their fellow Christians over it. Almost the entirety of the fourth century was consumed by this debate. It is non-sense to call the Trinity the 'least' developed view. Least scriptural perhaps. Rather, the Trinitarians have had to develop an entirely new vocabulary and numerous back-stories for the scriptures so as to force the scriptures to read how they want them too. Despite this, it is still an illogical doctrine that doesn't mesh with the scriptures - and so they further defend it by calling it a "mystery" that "you would understand if you TRULY believed." Rhetorical non-sense.
Way to fail Lon! The cloned sheep does not exist in two different bodies; There are two distinct bodies - the original, and the clone. The clone may have been created from the original, but it is its own body and being entirely. Like twins - they may look the same, but they are distinct persons with distinct bodies. Nor did the clone exist as long as the original existed - our cells are constantly dying and being replaced, every single cell in the body.
As for Jesus being given all power and authority - by saying he was given it infers that he did not have it to begin with. It's not his power and authority by nature - it is God's. And, ultimately, Jesus will be subjected to God, once all enemies have been defeated (1 Cor 15)
First off, my studies have far exceeded anything they taught me at the university. Most of what I learned from them had little directly to do with Christianity. Rather I took a lot of classes on other religions like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. And I was taught these classes by Rabbis, Jews, Buddhists, etc. such that each class was typically taught by a practitioner of the religion in question. Something you wouldn't get at a purely Christian University - and something very important for anyone who seriously wants to evangelize. It is not enough to understand your own beliefs, you must understand what others believe - where they are coming from. It also reinforces the divide between Christianity and other religions - you learn just how different these other religions are.
Going to a Christian University doesn't lend you any advantages or authority when discussing theology. Most Christian Universities have a well-defined belief set such that you aren't going there to truly study theology, but to learn how to present and defend their particular belief set. Not to say all Christian Universities or Seminaries are like this - but most of them are. However, even if we assume you went to a top of the line Christian University/Seminary that truly studied these isues - it still wouldn't in of itself lend you any credibility or authority. All that matters is that you can honestly study these matters and can present well-founded arguments, while honestly responding to the critiques and positions of your theological opponent. You won't convince anyone by appealing to authority.
You blindly assert that my views haven't changed since I was 19 - but this just demonstrates your ignorance of me and my studies. I had started to question the Trinity by then, but I didn't have any real answers. That's why I spent my undergraduate years really diving into the matter, studying the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and various other works on the Trinity and the Early Church. With regards the Trinity and other matters, my theological understanding between then and now is entirely different.
Not that I expect this to change your mind of me or others - you have a bigotry towards any non-trinitarian and like to claim they must have been indoctrinated by a cult or some such thing.
Interpretation: "I hate those who don't agree with me, I'm going to assert a bunch of non-sense about them to justify my hate."
I called the block of text where you asserted things like this non-sense: "Unitarians generally do not at all esteem the Son nor hear Him standing at the door to knock and indwell where He will sup with they, and they Him. You lose a ton by dismissing John 20:18. You live without His supernatural indwelling in your lives and you treat Him as a second-rate citizen as portrayed above"
I did not assert that the new-creation or indwelling of the HS was non-sense. But I guess this is about the level of intellectually dishonesty I have come to expect from you, so no surprises here.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Fortunately some secular school instructors still hold fast to the teachings of Scripture. One of csuguy's own instructors saw in him what you see now:
He [csuguy] does seem to be one of a number of Christians (perhaps not what you would call them) I have met however who have misgivings about the Trinity as a doctrine that can be seen clearly articulated in the New Testament...not arguing that Jesus is divine, but that he is God incarnate or coequal etc. Some of these people have already made up their minds before they start to study in depth, but that’s hardly unusual either. These are people who are attracted to a certain strand in Mormonism, or to the past opponents of the Church. Sometimes I just say to them that they are plain heretics...but that’s a phenomenon that all Protestant movements have to cope with, once dogmatic church teachings was abandoned and the sole guide to faith became one’s personal interaction with scripture. (Src: personal email correspondence, Nov. 19, 2009)
The professor is not off the mark to lay part of the blame for the Mormonistic tendencies of the likes of csuguy at the door of the church militant. So few churches today actually confess what they hold dear in plain view for all to see, teaching and holding their members accountable to the same. Sadly, to the shame of Our Lord's Bride, they stand for nothing and believe in everything.
Csuguy is very entrenched in his position. He proclaims it at every opportunity, and demonstrates he is not really open to correction, despite his own claims that he is just trying to learn. Indeed, his posts have no epistemic humility, rather he asserts much and seeks to establish himself as a teacher to correct all the so-called "man-made doctrines of the Trinity". Csuguy has made God the Son into a secondary emission of the essence of God. A kind of superman or lesser God, one not fully divine, very God of very God. In effect, csuguy makes our Lord out to be a liar or a lunatic.
AMR
csuguy
Well-known member
LOLz - you do realize that this professor who you claim holds fast to the teachings of scripture is a secular, homosexual jew? While I enjoyed the classes I took with him on Judaism and such, he is hardly a good resource on Christian Theology.
I'm no more entrenched in my position than any of you are on the Trinity. I started as a Trinitarian, my current beliefs are the result of years of study on the matter. I'm open to discussing these things - but, no, I'm not going to simply abandon my beliefs because someone asserts I'm wrong. To convince me that I'm wrong you will need to truly and honestly debate these matters - and not act bigoted by asserting that because I'm a non-trinitarian I must have been indoctrinated and such non-sense. You must honestly address the points and scriptures I present instead of ignoring and dismissing them. And you must honestly consider my rebuttals to your points.
But you all don't want honest discussion - you want to assert your authority and demand that I just follow what you say. That won't convince anyone.
Lon
Well-known member
No on both counts. You are a twenty-something arrogant self-willed child. On both counts. Dolly the first sheep is the mother of the second sheep but the second sheep is all Dolly. Again, that you cannot fathom that? More than obvious. Off to your shallow arian retreat. :wave:
No you certainly have not you arrogant puff of hot air. You are only 20-ish. You haven't even been alive as long as most have studied, you young arrogant child.
Er, it is called rationalizing, CS. Thomas bowed down and "said to Jesus (you) are the Lord of me and God of me!" You will NEVER be able to erase triune scriptures and are foolish to try. Again, the trinity is the default position, neither going so far as rationalizing Arianism nor rationalizing modalism. The Trinitarian position is the one in the middle saying "Yes arians, I see your scriptures but won't deny other scriptures," and "Yes modalists, I see your scriptures, but will not deny other scriptures and see both of your problem at rationalizing the texts beyond what they allow and going further than simply seeing three mentioned as God, but knowing per fact there is only one God." The rest of you, and especially you, CS, go beyond scripture. You aren't wrestling against Trinitarian doctrine, we are the least refined, simply taking scripture at its word and believing what we read. You and the modalists rationalize and destroy plain readings of scripture to suit your fancy rather than God's. And yes, you are incredibly arrogant about it. 99% of Christendom disagrees with you and a good many of us have studied incredibly longer than your ten years at most.
lain:Yes they do. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Colossians then, says Jesus is God. You have to fancy dance to come up with God not actually creating, yet Genesis saying He did. As AMR said, it is calling God a liar.
There you go, you just lied to AMR:
You aren't at all open. The triune view is 'less' assertive than the Arian position. Your rejection of it is merely against other scriptures AND a dismissal of verses Trinitarians say should not be dismissed. You can't read Hebrew and Greek. You have barely been alive long enough to have even studied this matter in great depth. You are a young little kid who is arrogant and extremely self-willed.
Yep, hence the :doh: You 'shouldn't' be as arrogant as you want to think you are. And yes, you are well within Arian/Unitarian confines.
1) There are many commentaries by men much older, with PhD's and language skills, well beyond your prowess that claim exactly this, so no, your 20 years of arrogant assertions don't mean a whit. You are a child. AND arrogant.
2) I am older than you and have studied this longer than you. All of Christendom BUT the 1% of cults disagrees with you, including those incredibly better at this than you will ever be. You talk about us asserting or trying to force. I really wish you'd look in the mirror, kid. Look at the arrogance in this post. You probably can't see it. Cultists are just as audacious as this. I will have to pray for you. Only God can bust a hard-heart or correct a hard-head.
So Jesus did not deny He was God, but CSGuy, oddly does :think:
When am I supposed to bow to you and pray to you, Cs?
He said not only was the Father in Him, but that "He was in the Father."
:nono:
Er, to combat heresy. There was no need to work at it this hard until heretics started tromping over other scriptures in their combat boots.
I really don't care what a foolish kid like yourself thinks. There is the heresy of modalism and the Arian heresy, with the Triune view smack dab in the middle carefully seeking to avoid both heresies. You call modalism a heresy. They call you one too. We are right in the middle and holding tenaciously to all scriptures.
:nono: The second isn't taken from Dolly's mother and father, it is wholly from that one sheep's body. Regardless if your prof was a Jew or a sinner, he could see arrogance and pride and correctly diagnose it. That boy is you. You are wrong here and are too arrogant and prideful to ever admit it to your elders and/or betters. Sad, but you are incredibly self-willed and arrogant, CS.
It doesn't matter if He was given it. Again, as said in analogy, the first Dolly is able to do for the second Dolly. You failed on grasping truths from that analogy so I don't expect you to get this either.
You say a LOT of naïve things and display a shallow understanding of how far 20-some years on the planet will take you. You will one day remember me saying this because it will bug you until you finally get to see I was right: You are a kid.
Having attended both secular universities and a Christian seminary, I am very confident to tell you that you are arrogantly wrong and misinformed.
:doh: I disagree and for obvious reasons probably to all but you.
You've never been to one. You 'preach' a lot about stuff you haven't much clue about. It is why I also hold most of your theology suspect as well. You are much too young and inexperienced in your few short years living on this planet to have the kind of prowess or authority you think you have.
1) I don't think you actually know this and 2) you've no idea which one I attended.
In this case, you aren't a minority, you are an incredibly small and almost non-existent minority. I know the IQ's, education, and mental prowess of my professors. The language professors have repeatedly said if you can fluently read the languages, there is no doubt that God is triune. They are listed in probably 3 of the English Bible translations you own.
Yeah, you aren't ever going to have that kind of prowess under your belt Cs.
Er, no. That is why your professor said you came in the same way you left.
I've no idea what indoctrinated you. You wound up an Unitarian just the same.
Whatever lets you sleep at night, cs.
Er, you don't. If He is God (and He is) and you logic your way to demoting Him in your lives, guess what?
Is it. or just a defense mechanism? You said it, I didn't. Be clear and less sloppy. This one is all on you.
keypurr
Well-known member
Csuguy, your wisdom level is high. You understand what the scriptures are saying. Lon will never see the content of God's words. The spirit in him is not from the Father. He has no idea who the Lord is. You, my friend, do. I am not a kid, I have been seeking his truth for over seventy years, Lon has a lot to learn. He thinks he can get to truth by waving his degrees. He should take the advice I gave him a few years back when I told him to ask for his college money back. He just missed the boat. Your seeking has paid off friend, you understand that Christ has a God and that there is only one true God. Lon can not see that, or he refuses to see that. I think he is sincere in his thoughts, but his thoughts are not truth.
Keep up the good work Csuguy, I believe God has enlighten you with much wisdom.
Blessings
Keep up the good work Csuguy, I believe God has enlighten you with much wisdom.
Blessings
keypurr
Well-known member
csuguy may I suggest that you get and explore the Aramaic English New Testament. the one you can find here.
www.aent.org
It has many notes about the Hebrew culture that you will find very interesting. This translation seem more accurate that the Greek to English Translations. It will cost you forty bucks but the information in it is priceless.
God bless.
www.aent.org
It has many notes about the Hebrew culture that you will find very interesting. This translation seem more accurate that the Greek to English Translations. It will cost you forty bucks but the information in it is priceless.
God bless.
keypurr
Well-known member
Lon, I have posted this before, you might have missed it os I will post it again.
ARAMAIC ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
YOCHANAN (JOHN)
Chapter 1
1. In the beginning was the Miltha. And that Miltha was with Elohim. And Elohim was that Miltha.
2. This was with Elohim in the beginning.
3. Everything existed through his hands……….
Miltha refers to the “Manifestation” of the Ruach haKodesh within Mashiyach. The physical body of Mashiyach is not the Word of YHWH, but his words and actions demonstrate the Will and Word of YHWH, which upholds observance of Torah.
Miltha is the spiritual son of Elohim (God).
Mashiyach refers to Messiah Y’shua (Jesus Christ)
YHWH is the name of the most high God.
Ruach haKodesh is the Holy Spirit.
Elohim is God or a god, it can refer to more than the creator.
Think about these words and ask the Lord for understanding of John 1.
ARAMAIC ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
YOCHANAN (JOHN)
Chapter 1
1. In the beginning was the Miltha. And that Miltha was with Elohim. And Elohim was that Miltha.
2. This was with Elohim in the beginning.
3. Everything existed through his hands……….
Miltha refers to the “Manifestation” of the Ruach haKodesh within Mashiyach. The physical body of Mashiyach is not the Word of YHWH, but his words and actions demonstrate the Will and Word of YHWH, which upholds observance of Torah.
Miltha is the spiritual son of Elohim (God).
Mashiyach refers to Messiah Y’shua (Jesus Christ)
YHWH is the name of the most high God.
Ruach haKodesh is the Holy Spirit.
Elohim is God or a god, it can refer to more than the creator.
Think about these words and ask the Lord for understanding of John 1.
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-The-Holy-Trinity/page5&p=2232356#post2232356
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Holy-Trinity&p=2232197&viewfull=1#post2232197
I have said it often. Once one denies the Triune Godhead, all manner of error follows:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-need-a-hell&p=4605258&viewfull=1#post4605258
AMR
keypurr
Well-known member
Your in the same sinking boat as Lon.
Neither of you really know God or the Lord who was appointed by God.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
It's definitely got a hole in it.
They know them a little bit.
However they both stopped seeking at the well long ago. :sigh:
There's one little head one big spirit :wave2:
csuguy
Well-known member
I will check it out - thanks. It will probably be a little while before I can really dive into any additional studies, however, as I am busy finishing up my last semester of my Masters in Computer Science.
csuguy
Well-known member
Lon - you apparently can't handle logical, scripturally based arguments. You've fallen back into your old habit of simply dismissing your opponent and attempting to assert authority - which will convince no-one.
*sigh*
I'm not going to accept your personal authority, nor the asserted authority of this or that theologian that you like - I only accept well reasoned arguments. You, however, refuse to give well reasoned arguments - once you are questioned you make appeals to authority; a logical fallacy. Unfortunately until you understand that your appeals to authority are fallacious this conversation cannot continue in any kind of productive manner.
You also need to learn some basic biology before you start speaking about clones - because you are making some empirically false claims about Dolly & company.
*sigh*
I'm not going to accept your personal authority, nor the asserted authority of this or that theologian that you like - I only accept well reasoned arguments. You, however, refuse to give well reasoned arguments - once you are questioned you make appeals to authority; a logical fallacy. Unfortunately until you understand that your appeals to authority are fallacious this conversation cannot continue in any kind of productive manner.
You also need to learn some basic biology before you start speaking about clones - because you are making some empirically false claims about Dolly & company.