The Trinity

[outhouse]

Are you aware of passages that say No god was created before nor after YHWH?

you do understand that elohim very well may be before yahwey, and many other gods the polytheistic early hebrews worshipped.

much was written in the OT at a later date when they made the switch to monotheism around 600BC during the time of second isaiah

 

[Mark2020]

much was written in the OT at a later date when they made the switch to monotheism around 600BC during the time of second isaiah

Got a proof?

 

[Mark2020]

No it isn't. The whole reason I posted all that was to show that Jesus was NOT YHWH. And John 1:1c, once again, should be read as "And a god was the word". The very context of "salvation" in Joel 2:32 is quite different than what most Christians preach as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780372/Non-trinitarian-Translations-of-John-11

​

What the Scholars Really Said​

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

 

[Shermana]

Sounds like something out of the New World Translation. (A Jehovahs Witness bible)

Take a look at that link, the verse was used as "a god" early as the 17th century when the first major English versions were coming out.Go back many pages and you will see what I said about the angels being called as gods and you will understand what I am saying. Yashua was the highest of the angels, the first, among Creation, and the Source and Prototype, the "We" in "Let us make man in our image" is referring to the "gods", the "angels". The Septuagint translates "Elohim" as "angels" in Psalm 8:5. And elsewhere it says, "Man is made a little less than the gods".

Anyways, I totaly disagree with you on this. Gods word cannot be seperated from God, but rather it subsists eternaly in God. Everything God creates, does, he does through his Word. To honor Gods Word is to honor God himself. When a prophet speaks Gods word, he makes the Word vissable to mankind. Yet Jesus is the Word made flesh.

The understanding of "Word" needs to be understand. Yashua is his Logos, he is the Wisdom, the Highest and Source of the possible manifestations of beings. He is greater than the angels ("gods"), though a "god" himself, the highest of the gods, of the created gods. He is the "first and the last" in that he is first-created, and the "Last Adam", the Father is the "First and the last" in that he is the Source and End of all things, nothing will exist before or after him. Likewise with Yashua, no man was made directly by G-d's power before Adam, and no soul was made before Yashua the Most High of the angels. He is the personified "Wisdom" of the Most High god.

However, since you say the word is "a god", do you believe the word to be Eternal and to always have existed? Are you aware of passages that say No god was created before nor after YHWH? Is 43:10

The Logos existed before all other souls, it was the First created soul, the first Emanation and the representative of the most High to all creation, though nonetheless a separate soul, still capable of error. There was no god before the most high god who is the "god of the gods" (Elohei ha-Elohim) such as in Psalms 136:2.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

First and the Last, as explained in other threads, is not an exclusive title to the Most High such as Alpha and Omega, which is another subject, which only the Father calls himself.

What is your understanding of the Trinity?

A concept invented by the Trinitarian. That is the only way to perceive it. It is a series of misinterpreting passages of Yashua representing himself as the representative of the Will of the Most High, and the Guilt of Offering in Isaiah 53:10, it is an attempt to syncretize Gentile beliefs by people who lived 100+ years after Jesus and John and James and Paul, and it is the linchpin . Gotquestions best explains it as inexplainable and not comprehensible by the human mind.

Also, Jesus isnt just a prophet or a man with a name simalar to Gods...

As I've mentioned, his name is not "I am". He does not say "I am" as a name, but as a statement, and it means "I was", it is used in the same tense as "Abraham" was. Many translations such as the NLT use it as "I existed before Abraham", though some dubiously capitalize the "I AM" in a knock-off of the capitalization of "Lord".

Jesus is the Image of God

That is correct, Yashua is the "Image", the representative. The first emanation made flesh. The Logos. The Incarnation of the Wisdom of the Most High, the first created soul among all souls, and the Last to be given life directly by the Father.

and I will warn everyone like yourself that to look to the Image of God and say "NOT GOD" is dangerous

.

I will warn that those who hold to a misunderstanding of the Incarnation of the Christ are in danger.

Your Jesus is giving off an image of "Lesser God" from what i can see.

That's right. But with lower case g.

Is your Jesus exactly expressing the Fathers very being or not?

Yes, but your definition of expressing is perhaps different than mine. Mine is as the Message bearer, yours is as the Incarnate himself. Mine is as the First created soul incarnate serving as the "Guilt Offering", the Ultimate Martyr.

God has given us an Image of himself to Worship, honor, call Jehoavh, call God, and love as we love God.

Just as it was permissible to worship King David, it may be permissible to "bow down" to Yashua and accept him as King. The word "worship" is misunderstood, it means "Bow down to". Jesus was not the Incarnation of the Most High, but the most high among created souls, the first Angel above all.

 

[javajo]

I believe that all false teachers, false religions and cults "deny the Lord that bought them". They reject Jesus as the Lord God and that he purchased all who trust him with his blood. They don't deny him as having "taught" them, but as having "bought" them, a "damnable heresy", indeed.

2 Peter 2

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

 

[outhouse]

Got a proof?

the OT is proof.

E and J are the best evidence each writing about elohim and yahwey seperately, making each very independant of each other.




Reasonable Faith: Question 107 - Ancient Israelite Polytheism?

this is explains a little




now this explains it in detail down to a T, it misses a few points but for the most part is very accurate

[youtube]MlnnWbkMlbg[/youtube]
3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) - YouTube

 

[Mark2020]

the OT is proof.
E and J are the best evidence each writing about elohim and yahwey seperately, making each very independant of each other.

I saw the vid before.
That's not proof.
I need some solid proof.

 

[Shermana]

​

What the Scholars Really Said​

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Scholars & NWT

You'll have to explain why the PH.Ds and scholars listed on my own link aren't "real" scholars.

 

[Mark2020]

You'll have to explain why the PH.Ds and scholars listed on my own link aren't "real" scholars.

No, read the title well.
It's actually what your scholars really said.

 

[outhouse]

I saw the vid before.
That's not proof.
I need some solid proof.

I need solid proof man didnt create yahwey or elohim from previous religions in the levant.

prove your gods are real and ill prove their both different

 

[Mark2020]

I need solid proof man didnt create yahwey or elohim from previous religions in the levant.

prove your gods are real and ill prove their both different

You're the one giving the claim, you're the one who have to prove your claim.

 

[outhouse]

you dont diictate rule in a debate lol


so you cant prove man didnt make elohim or yeshua, can you??

 

[icebuddy]

Take a look at that link, the verse was used as "a god" early as the 17th century when the first major English versions were coming out.Go back many pages and you will see what I said about the angels being called as gods and you will understand what I am saying. Yashua was the highest of the angels, the first, among Creation, and the Source and Prototype, the "We" in "Let us make man in our image" is referring to the "gods", the "angels". The Septuagint translates "Elohim" as "angels" in Psalm 8:5. And elsewhere it says, "Man is made a little less than the gods".

What is you understanding of Heb 1:5 that says God has never said to an angel what you might be claiming?

Also, if you keep reading in Heb 2:5 it says No Angel can rule the world to come. How do you explain this if you believe Jesus is an angel

Third, you argue that Jesus is not God, although I have many proof texts to show. Can you show any proof that Jesus is called an angel in the bible?

Finally, You keep saying Jesus or Yashua is first created, but there is no passage that supports this in the bible. You have used the word "Firstborn", but I believe you have put your own spin upon a word that doesnt mean Created and is only used as a Earthly term, for Birthing only happens upon the Earth and we have no proof that Birthing happens in heaven. Jesus became "Firstborn" at the point of his birth to Mary.

He is greater than the angels ("gods"), though a "god" himself, the highest of the gods, of the created gods.

This is Polytheism and I disagree with you. Jesus isnt created and the bible never uses the words Created of Jesus or that Jesus is an angel.

He is the "first and the last" in that he is first-created, and the "Last Adam", the Father is the "First and the last" in that he is the Source and End of all things, nothing will exist before or after him.

You seem to insert your own belief here. Saying that First and Last when applied to Jesus means something totaly different that the original text. With your own thinking we can down play everything. For I too am the "First and the Last". Im the First one in my family to have metal in my arm and the Last one to wear a members only jacket. Do you understand what you are doing? Look at the passage Psalm 102:5,6 for a second. Who is that talking about? I will get back to you after your answer.

The Logos existed before all other souls, it was the First created soul, the first Emanation and the representative of the most High to all creation, though nonetheless a separate soul, still capable of error.

You seem to sprinkle a little truth with bizzare private interpitation on things. Whos teaching you this?

First and the Last, as explained in other threads, is not an exclusive title to the Most High such as Alpha and Omega, which is another subject, which only the Father calls himself.

The last book in the Bible is Revelation. it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ. in it we read at Rev 22:12-end that Jesus calls himself "Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End". how do you explain this away?

A concept invented by the Trinitarian. That is the only way to perceive it.

Again i disagree with you. We are the only people lifting Jesus up to the highest point with the Father and Holy Spirit. It would seem to me that the Devils plan would be to tear Jesus down, not to lift him up. With all that you said, when we die and stand before the court explaining ourselfs, if you are right and Im wrong, what is my fault? Lifting the Image of God up too high? Worshipping the Image of God? Personalizing the Holy Spirit? Fellowshipping with Jesus? What exactly?

On the other hand, If I am right and you are wrong.... Who is teaching you this?

As I've mentioned, his name is not "I am". He does not say "I am" as a name, but as a statement, and it means "I was", it is used in the same tense as "Abraham" was.

in Exodus 3:14 was God Almighty saying the same thing? I was... Angain, you are down playing Jesus and his words. Look to what Thomas said to Jesus at John 20:28 when Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and My God", then Jesus rebukes him right? No, Jesus says blessed are you because you have seen "ME" and also blessed are those that have "NOT SEEN" (You and ME) and believe the same also. How do you explain that away?

Many translations such as the NLT use it as "I existed before Abraham", though some dubiously capitalize the "I AM" in a knock-off of the capitalization of "Lord".

The NLT is a paraphase not a literal translation. It doesnt matter anyways because there are 100's of other passages pointing to Jesus as YHWH of the Old Testament.

Ask yourself a question: Who is the Rock of the Old Testament Prophets? Every Jew on the Planet would Say YHWH or God is their Rock. Read 1 Cor 10:1-5 where Paul says "Dont be ignorant", ignorant of what? That it was Jesus who was their Rock.

That is correct, Yashua is the "Image", the representative. The first emanation made flesh. The Logos. The Incarnation of the Wisdom of the Most High, the first created soul among all souls, and the Last to be given life directly by the Father.

Again, a little bit of truth with bizzare private interpitation...

I will warn that those who hold to a misunderstanding of the Incarnation of the Christ are in danger.
That's right. But with lower case g.

i can see the Devil smiling now, how sad... Ask yourself another question. If you where a Jew and knew for a fact that when you died that your spirit went to be with God Almighty who gave it, would you ever say to anyone else to recieve your spirit at death.

Act 7:59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"

Yes, but your definition of expressing is perhaps different than mine. Mine is as the Message bearer, yours is as the Incarnate himself. Mine is as the First created soul incarnate serving as the "Guilt Offering", the Ultimate Martyr.

Do you believe Jesus died for all your sins or just the sins of Adam? Are all your future sins forgiven is the real question...

Just as it was permissible to worship King David, it may be permissible to "bow down" to Yashua and accept him as King. The word "worship" is misunderstood, it means "Bow down to". Jesus was not the Incarnation of the Most High, but the most high among created souls, the first Angel above all.

WOW, you are right the word Worship is misunderstood. But I have a good one for you to think about. Remember that God pre-knows the plans of the devil and puts things into his bible to show the real truth, are you ready for this? If so, look for my next post...

in Love,
tom

 

[Mark2020]

you dont diictate rule in a debate lol

Not me.
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim"
You jumped in giving a claim and required people to disprove it. You should do your work.

 

[outhouse]

there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim"

but first a claim is made that a diety is a trinity, that hasnt been met yet and still debated today and flat refused by many.

 

[idav]

but first a claim is made that a diety is a trinity, that hasnt been met yet and still debated today and flat refused by many.

Cause the monotheists understand that the trinity borders on idolatry. At least Judaism and Muslim understand it along with many Christians.

 

[outhouse]

in one of these many trinity post I have stated the trinity was invented to keep monotheism the way it is.

 

[Mark2020]

but first a claim is made that a diety is a trinity, that hasnt been met yet and still debated today and flat refused by many.

Read:

Not me.
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim"
You jumped in giving a claim and required people to disprove it. You should do your work.

 

[idav]

in one of these many trinity post I have stated the trinity was invented to keep monotheism the way it is.

Yeah cause they couldn't get away with worshiping a human any other way.

edit: Requires defying logic even.

 

[Shermana]

in it we read at Rev 22:12-end that Jesus calls himself "Alpha and Omega,

I have only time for this one right now, that's an Angel speaking the words of the Father, we have another speaker confusion issue going on. Jesus never calls himself Alpha and Omega, you have to deliberately misread chapter 22 and totally ignore the Angel speaking. It's easy to get Jesus to say what you want when verses are cherry picked, this one is very commonly abused.

Also, the NLT does in fact literally translate "I am" as "I existed", the same word for "Abraham was" actually is, at face-value "Come to be", not even in the past tense. Thus, to get Jesus to say "I am", you must read it as "Before Abraham will be". Doesn't quite work in Greek like that. I have addressed this in full detail on other threads. The verb "I am" is not the same as in English, French is more similar with Je Suis being used for multiple tenses. That is why the NLT and the "American Translation" by Edgar Goodspeed say "I existed before Abraham was", it is to specifically go against the common misconception that Jesus called himself "I am" rather than made a statement.

Also, what you call "Bizarre personal interpretation" was Philo's logos Theology whom John's readers were mostly familiar with. It was commonplace back in 70 A.D.