‘Jesus was WITH GOD’ therefore Jesus WAS GOD?

[101G]

@Zwing

read this, 'Lucy' May No Longer Be Our Oldest Found Human Ancestor

now, back to the bible. "what is the first woman Name".

101G.

 

[Zwing]

LOL, LOL, even that's now wrong. but biblically speaking, "What is the First woman name... please?".

101G.

In the Yahwist narrative, the name was חַוָּה, (modern “Khavva”, ancient “Khawwa”), indicating either “life” or something alive, deriving as it does from adjective חַי (khay, “alive”).

 

[Zwing]

@Zwing

read this, 'Lucy' May No Longer Be Our Oldest Found Human Ancestor

Yes, yes. But we have named no others, which is the point here. I suggest we name the next older example “Joan Jett”, in honor. Yet the greater point is, that these beings provide a greater basis for credence than does חַוָּה, since I can point to the skeleton of Lucy and say “Habeas corpus”, while you with your stories have nothing to support their veracity, thus rendering them baseless, and no more than “hearsay”.

 

[wellwisher]

According to trinitarian christians God is three persons who share one being. So according to trinitarians it is possible to be with God, and at the same time be God. if God is three persons in one being then that is possible

God the son was with God the father. And they are both God since God is three persons in one being. Thats the argument trinitarian make.

I do not believe in the trinity, but i know much about the doctrine and what most christians believe

The easiest way to understand the trinity and also answer the topic question is with an analogy.

There is a man named Joe, who is a father to his children, a husband to his wife and son to his parents. Joe is one person but he has three hats based on how he acts in these three unique relationships. He is intimate with his wife in ways he is not with his parents or children. He is authoritative and firm but fair with his children in ways he is not with his parents or wife. He is submission and respectful with his parent in ways he is not with his wife or children.

Joe is always Joe; One God analogy, but depending on which of the three relationship he is engaged, he puts on that hat; analogy of the Son. God is the whole, while the Son is a one hat God wears.

The Old Testament was God as the Father. God; hat, interacted like he was a father to his children. The flock were his children and these children reacted like he was their tough father.

The New Testament is about the hat of the Son. The story of Jesus is about the life of a unique child. Jesus was born of a virgin mother, at a vulnerable time in history. Jesus preached unconditional love, instead of becoming the Messiah expected, who was expected to be more like another tough Father. The flock sort of became surrogate parents, to a loving and precocious child; love and forgiveness. Mother Mary is important to the plot of the parent and son dynamics, with her having to birth, raise and then bury her beloved child. Christians can relate to her; mother child relationship and unconditional love.

The Holy Spirit, which was given by the Son, after the Son, is like the husband and wife hat; intimacy of the spirit. This is different from the farther and son hats. It is unique marriage, between God as the spirit and humans; Saints. This is the Third Testament, and yet to be written Testament. The data has been generated over the past 2000 years, but it is not yet compiled as a separate volume to finish the Bible Trinity Testament; whole family of God. It is not clear what everyone is waiting for. We are still stuck at the binary Testament.

 

[Sargonski]

They saw Jesus as the Son whose life comes from His Father and who honours and obeys His Father.
That does not go as far as subordinationism because it does not mean that the Son is a lesser divinity. All it means is that the Son submits to the will of His Father.

That is Subordinantism 101 you are talking .. which is good .. talked yourself right out of the Trinity .. and yes .. the folks writing Hebrews did indeed believe that Jesus was a lesser divinity than the Father in addition to being subordinate.

Thats what that whole "Co Equal" contradiction was about "Subordinate" or Co Equal .. is one above the other is the question .. then you have procession .. does one come before the other...

None of the Early Church Fathers believed Jesus was "Homoousios" -- one substance .. .. sure a little of the divine spark but only a part .. not .. the ALL SPARK itself. Wasn't until the middle of the 3rd century that something resembling the modern Trinity Dogma arose. Pope Dyonisius declaring the doctrine Heresy 248- 264 AD

So Jesus is subordinate to the Father .. does not go against the Will of the Father .. as we see when he asks for the cup to be taken from him.. which is similar to Satan .. also a Son of the Father .. subordinate to the will of the Father - as per Job ..

and now don't things get fun

 

[Trailblazer]

But it SHOULD be a short thread but for the ones who desire fallacies and fantasies as part of their belief.

Just like so many other threads here.

 

[Zwing]

Just like so many other threads here.

The entire problem is that Christians try to make the impossible seem possible, which effort during debates becomes a hilarity of perpetual gesticulation. Please, pass me the popcorn…

 

[Soapy]

Jesus will turn everything over to the Father after his reign. Do you remember that?

Jesus has been given authority to rule in place of Almighty God, his Spiritual Father, YHWH, the one true God.

The purpose of this rule is to ‘bring all things back under the true rulership of himself. It’s all written in the scriptures.

And yes, after all things have been brought back under his rulership Jesus hands back the rulership to God.

But that’s not the end.

All peoples will then be tested as to keeping to that rulership. Satan will be allowed to tempt all people for a thousand years.

Of course these time periods are symbolic so we mustn’t try to use them as any kind of prediction.

The final end comes when God sets Jesus as the judge over all people including the angels and sets them apart according to their deeds: the good to eternal life and the wicked to eternal destruction.

Thus fulfilling the prophecy from Isaiah wherein the messiah is entitled ‘Everlasting Father’.

‘Father’, meaning:

• ‘He who gives life’

Therefore, Jesus GIVING EVERLASTING LIFE to all those whom he deems worthy, makes him ‘Everlasting Father’.

Thereafter, all wickedness, all sin, all who are sinful, all who are unworthy… and finally DEATH itself will be destroyed NEVER TO BE REMEMBERED.

Then, finally then, Jesus takes his seat on the ethereal throne of his ancestor, King David, as ruler over all creation, with the elected saints as kings in rulership with him - that is, these kings will replace the order of the angels who are currently in positions of authority, ‘Stations’, over creation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please, pass me the popcorn…

When you are finished with the popcorn please pass it back to me.

 

[Soapy]

The entire problem is that Christians try to make the impossible seem possible, which effort during debates becomes a hilarity of perpetual gesticulation. Please, pass me the popcorn…

Trinitarians and Modalists ‘Christians’.

 

[Soapy]

When you are finished with the popcorn please pass it back to me.

Do you really want his pooped out popcorn?

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you really want his pooped out popcorn?

I have to have something to eat during these shows that last forever....
I finally got so hungry that I ate half a canister of Chex Mix!

 

[Sargonski]

get a new computer (smile)

No help is need, El was not the God of Abraham.

101G.

My puter is fine mate .. but thanks for the inquiry

According to Modern Biblical Scholarship .. El was the God that Abe and MelchiZedek were worshiping .. and is only the ringy dingy fundamentalist Schools -- "Get your Pastor Papers on-Line" bunch who are still resisting reality.

What was the name of the God that MelchiZedek .. Canannite Priest King -- was worshiping with Abe .. by what name did they know this God ? "Most High" of the Canaanite Pantheon ? ..

Sup G -- asked you this many times. Do you not know the name of your God ? God of Abraham. By what Name did Abe know this God Most High --- El Elyon -- El Olim - The Supreme one ..

Tell us G ..

 

[Windwalker]

101G, are you a Modalist?

Modalist believes that Jesus is God, Father, Son, and Spirit of God!!

No they don't. Modalists believe there is only one God that manifest in three modes: Father in creation; Son in redemption; Holy Spirit in emenation. Jesus was God in human flesh, according to them. So as a man, the human Jesus he was also the Father to whom he prayed. The flesh prayed to the eternal in him.

I know this because I used to be part of a church that were modalists.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus is the spiritual Son of God.

Did God have spirit babies? Did he have a Wife and they procreated together?

It makes as little sense to say Jesus is both God AND the Son of God… that Jesus is GOD, and the Spirit of God, as much nonsensical sense as Trinitarians claiming that Jesus was WITH GOD and therefore WAS GOD!

I think the problem is you don't understand scripture. When John 1:1 says the Logos was God, that is pretty clear. However, the use of the Greek denotes the nature of God, or "the Divine". So John 1:1 could be translated, "The Logos was with (pros or 'with' means in an intimate 'face to face' relationship with) God, and the Logos was Divine in nature".

Does it make sense that the nature and being of God should be easily comprehended by your mind? Is your mind the measure of Divine truth? To use your language, 'don't be ridiculous'.

Why do you and Trinitarians makes these illogical, nonsensical, contradictory, irrational claims? What do you get from lying about God

So, if you don't understand something complex, the other person is lying? What may I ask is wrong with you?

What did Satan promise you?

Again, what is wrong with you?

 

[101G]

In the Yahwist narrative, the name was חַוָּה, (modern “Khavva”, ancient “Khawwa”), indicating either “life” or something alive, deriving as it does from adjective חַי (khay, “alive”).

101G asked, ... a simple question. "What is the First woman name... please?". here is an EXAMPLE of what 101G been speaking against.
A transliteration of the Hebrew chawwah or chavvah, which means "life giver" "living" and appears in our English versions as Eve (Genesis 3:20, see the King James Version margin).

the answer "EVE" is ..... drum roll .... WRONG, let 101G get the Holy jeopardy ERROR buzzer out..... BUZZ, and another BUZZ.

again, this is what God, and 101G is speaking against. ..... people don't LISTEN. well let's see what's wrong here. 101G asked "WHAT", "WHAT" is the First woman name? the correct answer is ...... "Adam". for this is ... "WHAT" she is in Name, and not "WHO" she is in name. let's prove it by the scriptures. Genesis 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;" Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." later after the Sin she was Given a PERSONAL NAME of "Eve", the mother of all LIVING. but "WHAT" she is in Name is a "Adam", that that's "WHAT" she is in name.

people don't listen, 101G plainly asked "WHAT was the first woman name?", not who was the first woman in name. just like many didn't here what Moses ASKED God about his name, listen, Exodus 3:13 "And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"

WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, is his Name........ not "WHO", but Moses asked "WHAT". just like the First Woman Name, "WHAT" was her name. this is how people are destroyed .... they are not LISTENING to God as to UNDERSTANDING his words.

this is how the false name Jehovah, and Yahweh got out there by failing to realized that "I AM" or H1961 הָיָה hayah (haw-yaw) v. is a VERB, as to "WHAT" God is in Name vs "Who" God is in Name. verbs are not proper nouns. the devil has deceived many, and yet they still believe the LIE.

so my friend, Zwing, examine what you been told. now the exposure of these false man-made names.

"Jesus or Jehovah, AKA Yahweh"​

So where did the names come from. these name came from, what is know as the tetragrammaton, and men tampered with it by adding vowels to these four letters. the tetragrammaton is a term from the Greek word, τετραγράμματον, meaning, "a word having four letters". It is the Hebrew written word, or four letters, (יהוה), Yodh, He, Waw, He, hence the translation into English, YHWH, or JHVH by some. these four letters, suppose to be the unpronounced name of God. and from these four letters come the man made names Yahweh, Hebrew, and Jehovah, English.

The word "JEHOVAH" was formed by merging the three vowels (e, o, and a) into the Romanized (Latinized) four letter version JHVH to get, JeHoVaH. and the word "YAHWEH" was formed by merging the vowels (a, and e), into the four letter version to get, YaHWeH. so we have the English man made, and the Hebrew man made form of God's supposed unpronounced name. here is the mistake. they, (the translator), added vowels to the four letter consonant, to make up a name to pronounce. one can never add or take away from the WORD of God. they added vowels to give God a personal name, because they knew that YHWH is a verb, and not a noun. and because the suppose name was lost, which the Jews said was forbidden to pronounce, they made a guess at the name where pointers should be. this was a grave mistake on their part. when you add to the word of God you just put the spiritual noose around your neck. arbitrarily, the translators injected the vowels into the four letter consonant to come up with the man made names names, "YaHWeH", and, "JeHoVaH",

101G.

 

[rosends]

they, (the translator), added vowels to the four letter consonant, to make up a name to pronounce. one can never add or take away from the WORD of God. they added vowels to give God a personal name, because they knew that YHWH is a verb, and not a noun. and because the suppose name was lost, which the Jews said was forbidden to pronounce, they made a guess at the name where pointers should be. this was a grave mistake on their part. when you add to the word of God you just put the spiritual noose around your neck. arbitrarily, the translators injected the vowels into the four letter consonant to come up with the man made names names, "YaHWeH", and, "JeHoVaH",

101G.

No, that's wrong. The vowels that were added were specific ones that were imported from another Hebrew word, in that order, as instructions for what word to use instead of pronouncing the 4 letters, themselves. That's why the vowel points on the four letters are different in certain cases (such as Gen 15:8), when we pronounce a different word instead of the 4 letters. They are not a guess but an important and intentional choice, unrelated to any proposed pronunciation of the 4 letters.

Unfortunately, people reading the vowels mistakenly assumed that they were used to dictate the pronunciation of the 4 letters and tried to make a pronunciation out of that.

The 4 letters, by the way, do not constitute a verb. Their form is not one of the presentations of the "to be" verb in Hebrew. They are constructed as a mashup of the to-be verb in 3 different tenses.

 

[101G]

No, that's wrong. The vowels that were added were specific ones

thanks for proving my point... vowels were added. and every time one ADD to the Word of God, as said you put the spiritual noose around one's neck.

101G.

 

[Zwing]

are constructed as a mashup of the to-be verb in 3 different tenses.

That is interesting. Past, present and future, I assume?

 

[rosends]

That is interesting. Past, present and future, I assume?

Yes. There is no actual present tense of to be is Hebrew so the past (haya=was) and future (yihiyeh=will be) and the word for "present tense" which is hoveh.