What does it mean to "deny" Jesus, according to the NT?

[sincerly]

It's important to recognize that "Godhead" is modern spelling of what was "Godhede" which was "Godhood".

Shermana, what is important is that there is a Creator GOD. That "Godhead" is seen in Col.2:8-10,(and was spelled-- θεότης theotēs), " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:"

 

[sincerly]

Are you incapable of anything but Non-sequiturs? I was not talking about the effect of the Sacrifice itself but the Trinitarian concept and how silly it is for Trinitarians to get all weepy about Christ's sacrifice if He's God, and then I provided a reason why the episode proves Jesus was not God.

Again, I bring up the return to sacrifices in Zechariah 14 which you called "Symbolic" but when asked if you think anything else in Zechariah 14 is symbolic, you shrugged.

So, when are the animal sacrifices to resume? It's been almost 2000 years since the last one.

Why would Jesus even waste his time talking about making offerings on the altar if his words would be void 2 days later?

No waste of time or effort. Jesus "fulfilled" that which HE came to accomplish. And Yes, that sacrifice would never have to be repeated by Jesus. Praise GOD(The Father), Jesus(HIS Son), And the Holy Spirit for loving Mankind and Me enough to make that sacrifice.

Why don't you explain what you think it means to be "set free", do you think that means freedom from having to obey rules? Even Paul disagrees with that.

So? why do you think/conclude that would be my answer.?
I assure you that Jesus Christ would NOT have had to die on that cruel cross had the "Commandments"/Sacrificial/Ceremonial laws/Rules been able to be "set aside"/"be voided", or "otherwise negated".
And who has been the recipient of those animal's blood for the Atonement of sins(disobedience) since that first animal was skinned?---Mankind.

GOD never said the it was possible for an animal to pay man's death penalty. That method was put in place only until "the(promised) Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world" should arrive "in the fullness of time."

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, what is important is that there is a Creator GOD. That "Godhead" is seen in Col.2:8-10,(and was spelled-- θεότης theotēs), " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:"

Do you have any intention of actually debating the specifics of what I say? Do you think repeating the translation somehow trumps the actual discussion of the grammar?

Apparently you are a KJV-onlyist, am I wrong? Do you think the English translation doesn't need to be examined in the Greek?

The fullness of godhood bodily means he was a godlike being. Again, it's an issue of what the word "god" means.

What makes you think that your own insistence on the English translation isn't the philosophy of men which was made with deceit?

 

[Shermana]

That which isn't following the Scriptures given by GOD are your erroneous conclusions.

I assume you think there's no possibility at all that YOUR conclusions aren't erroneous or not following the Scripture, or that your conclusions are the philosophies of men. Do you think merely telling me that you think I'm not following the scripture somehow defeats anything I say?

So, when are the animal sacrifices to resume? It's been almost 2000 years since the last one.

When Christ returns to rule from Jerusalem presumably. About the same time that if the Egyptians don't go up to celebrate Succoth they will get struck with plagues and droughts.

No waste of time or effort. Jesus "fulfilled" that which HE came to accomplish. And Yes, that sacrifice would never have to be repeated by Jesus. Praise GOD(The Father), Jesus(HIS Son), And the Holy Spirit for loving Mankind and Me enough to make that sacrifice.

Again, the word "fulfilled" is such a misunderstood issue. Paul said to "Fulfill the Law of Christ", does that mean you do away with the Law of Christ?

So? why do you think/conclude that would be my answer.?
I assure you that Jesus Christ would NOT have had to die on that cruel cross had the "Commandments"/Sacrificial/Ceremonial laws/Rules been able to be "set aside"/"be voided", or "otherwise negated".

So you call Jesus a liar when he said that not one iota will be rendered void. There is absolutely no scriptural distinction between any of the Laws into categories of "Sacrificial" and "Ceremonial Law" that is all the BS of preachers looking to find a way to still get tithes while condemning the rest of the Law.

Now I will ask you again, this is a very, very commonly dodged and avoided question by "Christians" with a similar interpretation/mentality as yours, what has Christ set you free to do exactly? Do you think you are free to sin? What is the definition of sin according to 1 John 3:4?

And who has been the recipient of those animal's blood for the Atonement of sins(disobedience) since that first animal was skinned?---Mankind.

Your point?

GOD never said the it was possible for an animal to pay man's death penalty. That method was put in place only until "the(promised) Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world" should arrive "in the fullness of time."

So what was the point of the sacrifices? Why would God command them for sins if they had no saving value?

Also, it's the BOOK WRITTEN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, you have revealed your KJV-onlyism more than once, that's probably why you refuse to answer if you are.

 

[Oryonder]

Originally Posted by sincerly
NO! that isn't the "Trinity Doctrine".

The Trinity Doctrine of Christianity (the one created at Nicea as presented in the Nicene Creed) claims that Jesus "is" God- The Father.

Im not sure what Trinity Doctrine you are referring to ?

 

[sincerly]

The Trinity Doctrine of Christianity (the one created at Nicea as presented in the Nicene Creed) claims that Jesus "is" God- The Father.

Im not sure what Trinity Doctrine you are referring to ?

I don't recite the "Nicene Creed", but you are wrong on that account. Here it is:

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man;​

As you can see, GOD the Father is not GOD the SON. NOR is GOD the SON---GOD the Father----in that Creed.

 

[F0uad]

As Jesus declared in John 4:24-26, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he]."

You have shown that Jesus(p) is the messiah ''according to John'' the point is?


Just to reply on the rest you have said: The father is not the son. If the Father is not the Son then the are two different individuals. Therefore making them two different Gods, if you belief that the Son is also a God.

 

[sincerly]

Hi Shermana, I''ll lump several of your post together to conserve time and space.

Do you have any intention of actually debating the specifics of what I say? Do you think repeating the translation somehow trumps the actual discussion of the grammar?

Apparently you are a KJV-onlyist, am I wrong? Do you think the English translation doesn't need to be examined in the Greek?

The fullness of godhood bodily means he was a godlike being. Again, it's an issue of what the word "god" means.

What makes you think that your own insistence on the English translation isn't the philosophy of men which was made with deceit?[/quote]

(1) I have given specific answers to your "discussion". The "words" in context express a different meaning/message than you try to make it doing.

(2) All the various translations are done from the Greek; and I have access to 12-13 different translations. However, most translations still give the same message.

(3) (Col2:6-10)The "in him dwelleth the fullness" indicates Not just a "godlikeness", but all the characteristics of the "God-head"---(GOD The Father, GOD the Son, and GOD The Holy Spirit.)

(4) It's called context and consistency of/with other scripture.

I assume you think there's no possibility at all that YOUR conclusions aren't erroneous or not following the Scripture, or that your conclusions are the philosophies of men. Do you think merely telling me that you think I'm not following the scripture somehow defeats anything I say?

There is that "assumming" again. You have written what you "assume". I have shown the in context Scripture meanings of words and usage.
As far a defeating what you say or believe, no one but you can change what you believe. However, I can tell you what the in context messages are indicating to me.

When Christ returns to rule from Jerusalem presumably.

Since there will be NO Sin in the New earth and New Jerusalem, Why a sacrifice?

Again, the word "fulfilled" is such a misunderstood issue. Paul said to "Fulfill the Law of Christ", does that mean you do away with the Law of Christ?

That wasn't a parable, but, agreed, many claim not to comprehend the meaning.
Jesus said to HIS Father before the arrest---"I have finished the work you gave me" and on the Cross---"It is finished".
The only law which was completed/ended was those related to the earthly sanctuary/sacrificial system(patterned after the one in heaven.)

So you call Jesus a liar when he said that not one iota will be rendered void. There is absolutely no scriptural distinction between any of the Laws into categories of "Sacrificial" and "Ceremonial Law" that is all the BS of preachers looking to find a way to still get tithes while condemning the rest of the Law.

No, again, your assumption. Jesus said none would pass away until all be fulfilled."
Jesus did "fulfill" HIS portion---with---"It is finished", but The Father hasn't finished HIS LONG wait for that Last person to accept or reject HIS Salvational offer.

Are you saying there is no distinction in the Decalogue and the Dietary laws; or the health/sanitary laws ; or the divine laws governing the sanctuary services; or the civil laws governing interpersonal relationships???

And who has been the recipient of those animal's blood for the Atonement of sins(disobedience) since that first animal was skinned?---Mankind.

GOD never said the it was possible for an animal to pay man's death penalty. That method was put in place only until "the(promised) Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world" should arrive "in the fullness of time."

Your point?

So what was the point of the sacrifices? Why would God command them for sins if they had no saving value?

Also, it's the BOOK WRITTEN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, you have revealed your KJV-onlyism more than once, that's probably why you refuse to answer if you are.

It is by shed blood that there is remission of Sins. There was value in those sacrifices before Christ died on the Cross to be one's propitiation for sins.

1Pet.1:17-20(HNV), "If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man's work, pass the time of your living as strangers here in reverent fear: knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, the blood of Messiah; who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake,..."

Rev.13:8(HNV), "All who dwell on the eretz will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed. "

Shermana, the "book' is OF THE LAMB WHO WAS SLAIN.----Jesus Christ.

Now I will ask you again, this is a very, very commonly dodged and avoided question by "Christians" with a similar interpretation/mentality as yours, what has Christ set you free to do exactly? Do you think you are free to sin? What is the definition of sin according to 1 John 3:4?

The "setting free" is/was from the penalty of sin/death---NOT the LAW/Decalogue.
The Decalogue--by its knowledge--SIN is revealed. (Rom.3:20)
"Sin is a transgression of the Law"/Decalogue.
OBEY---And LIVE.

 

[sincerly]

The Trinity Doctrine of Christianity (the one created at Nicea as presented in the Nicene Creed) claims that Jesus "is" God- The Father.

Im not sure what Trinity Doctrine you are referring to ?

The one you supposedly concluded it said---"claims that Jesus "is" God- The Father".

 

[sincerly]

You have shown that Jesus(p) is the messiah ''according to John'' the point is?


Just to reply on the rest you have said: The father is not the son. If the Father is not the Son then the are two different individuals. Therefore making them two different Gods, if you belief that the Son is also a God.

Yes, the "Messiah" who Daniel prophesied would Come and die for the sins of mankind along with others(prophets) from Moses (writing concerning the "Seed of the woman".)

The "GOD" you are referring to is "ONE GOD"-HEAD made up of three distinct BEINGS, each acting in harmony with each other. (i.e.) GOD the Father; GOD the Son; And GOD the Holy Spirit.

 

[Shermana]

(1) I have given specific answers to your "discussion". The "words" in context express a different meaning/message than you try to make it doing.

So basically you're just saying that you have the right context and I don't, that sure defeats what I said doesn't it. (Cough).

(2) All the various translations are done from the Greek; and I have access to 12-13 different translations. However, most translations still give the same message.

Most Translations are from Orthodox Trintiarians, but either way, there are often times they are simply copying each other and going by a traditional rendering to placate their audience, thank goodness we have the Secular scholarly versions, even if they are the minority. Either way, godhead means godhood.

(3) (Col2:6-10)The "in him dwelleth the fullness" indicates Not just a "godlikeness", but all the characteristics of the "God-head"---(GOD The Father, GOD the Son, and GOD The Holy Spirit.)

Fulness of godhood. I've gone over what Godhead means. Repeating yourself doesn't defeat what I said, no matter how much you'd like to think so.

(4) It's called context and consistency of/with other scripture.

Okay, so does that in any way explain why you have the right context and I don't? I'm accusing YOU of having the wrong context, except I'm demonstrating so with word definitions and going over the uses of the word in other examples. Have you done similarly?

There is that "assumming" again. You have written what you "assume". I have shown the in context Scripture meanings of words and usage.

I think you mean to say you've shown your interpretation of the context, are you saying that my context is wrong? If so, feel free to show where you demonstrated that I have the wrong context, I think I've done my part for my own statements.

As far a defeating what you say or believe, no one but you can change what you believe. However, I can tell you what the in context messages are indicating to me.

To YOU. Now you get it. See, telling me that I have the wrong context or that you have the right context is nice and all, but that's what we all say about our own definitions. The key is in debating this context. That's what I was asking you initially. Your answer to my question is basically "Because I'm right".

Since there will be NO Sin in the New earth and New Jerusalem, Why a sacrifice?

There will be no sin in the New Jerusalem among the true Messianic Jewish believers, the rest will still need sacrifices.

That wasn't a parable, but, agreed, many claim not to comprehend the meaning.
Jesus said to HIS Father before the arrest---"I have finished the work you gave me" and on the Cross---"It is finished".

The only law which was completed/ended was those related to the earthly sanctuary/sacrificial system(patterned after the one in heaven.)

Nothing of this sort is anything close said in the Gospels.

No, again, your assumption. Jesus said none would pass away until all be fulfilled."

Your assumption is that "All be finished' means only his work on the cross. Your assumption involves his words "Until heaven and earth collapse" to be meaningless.

Jesus did "fulfill" HIS portion---with---"It is finished", but The Father hasn't finished HIS LONG wait for that Last person to accept or reject HIS Salvational offer.

Same thing, your assumptive idea of what "fufilled" and "finished" means basically means that when Jesus says "Until Earth and Heaven collapse" means absolutely nothing. The way the grammar works, no matter your translation, Jesus was saying that Heaven and Earth must collapse first before "All is accomplished". The words "All is accomplished" is referring to the entirety of all events until Heaven and Earth collapse. Why would he say "Until Heaven and Earth collapse" if it has no meaning? Take out the commas from your translation and it makes total sense.

Are you saying there is no distinction in the Decalogue and the Dietary laws; or the health/sanitary laws ; or the divine laws governing the sanctuary services; or the civil laws governing interpersonal relationships???

Yes, are you saying there is??? Feel free to show biblically where this distinction is made.

It is by shed blood that there is remission of Sins. There was value in those sacrifices before Christ died on the Cross to be one's propitiation for sins.

And there will be value again according to Zech 14.

1Pet.1:17-20(HNV), "If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man's work, pass the time of your living as strangers here in reverent fear: knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, the blood of Messiah; who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake,..."

Your point? That has nothing to do with the fact that it says the "Book written before the Foundation of the world". You can't be slain before the foundation of the world. You can be recorded to be slain in the Book, but not actually slain.

Rev.13:8(HNV), "All who dwell on the eretz will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed. "

Shermana, the "book' is OF THE LAMB WHO WAS SLAIN.----Jesus Christ.

Have you read the rest of the passage? it's talking about ALL SOULS. Seriously, have you read Revelation beyond your cherry picked sheet of verses?

The "setting free" is/was from the penalty of sin/death---NOT the LAW/Decalogue.
The Decalogue--by its knowledge--SIN is revealed. (Rom.3:20)
"Sin is a transgression of the Law"/Decalogue.
OBEY---And LIVE.

So then do you believe that there's no penalty for rape, murder, theft, and adultery and other sins?

Why obey and live? Doesn't that defeat what you just said if you must obey to live?

 

[Shermana]

Yes, the "Messiah" who Daniel prophesied would Come and die for the sins of mankind along with others(prophets) from Moses (writing concerning the "Seed of the woman".)

The "GOD" you are referring to is "ONE GOD"-HEAD made up of three distinct BEINGS, each acting in harmony with each other. (i.e.) GOD the Father; GOD the Son; And GOD the Holy Spirit.

I thought it was "3 distinct persons in one Being"? If they are 3 distinct beings, that would be 3 distinct co-equal gods wouldn't it? And that's not even beginning to go over the actual definition of "person".

Again, the word "Godhead" as a nominative simply doesn't exist, it's a recent invention and a distortion of the grammar. It means "godhood" or "deity" in the qualitiatve, adjective sense.

Feel free to explain how "Seed of a woman" in any way means what you think it means here.

 

[F0uad]

The "GOD" you are referring to is "ONE GOD"-HEAD made up of three distinct BEINGS, each acting in harmony with each other. (i.e.) GOD the Father; GOD the Son; And GOD the Holy Spirit.

So you agree they are three god's since they are three individuals?

A individual (Different person) by definition means your not a part of the same ''body/mind'' and if you are a part of the same body/mind they are not three individuals but one.

So choose.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Yes, the "Messiah" who Daniel prophesied would Come and die for the sins of mankind along with others(prophets) from Moses (writing concerning the "Seed of the woman".)

The "GOD" you are referring to is "ONE GOD"-HEAD made up of three distinct BEINGS, each acting in harmony with each other. (i.e.) GOD the Father; GOD the Son; And GOD the Holy Spirit.

I thought it was "3 distinct persons in one Being"? If they are 3 distinct beings, that would be 3 distinct co-equal gods wouldn't it? And that's not even beginning to go over the actual definition of "person".

Did you see person in my post above??

Again, the word "Godhead" as a nominative simply doesn't exist, it's a recent invention and a distortion of the grammar. It means "godhood" or "deity" in the qualitiatve, adjective sense.

Those (Thayer's Lexicon)who were doing the translation to "Godhead" from the Greek "Theotes"/"Theios"---found that Greek usage in their writings as well as those of Philo and Josephus. Therefore, it is hardly a "recent invention." Paul used the term in relationship to GOD the Father and Jesus.

Feel free to explain how "Seed of a woman" in any way means what you think it means here.

As the Scriptures state in Gen.3:15 and the prophetic birth of Jesus the "seed of man" would NOT be involved in the Birth of Jesus. A virgin Female would give Birth to Jesus via the Holy Spirit. Therefore, producing the Emmanuel="GOD with us". I believe that which was written and that which was recorded to have occurred/been fulfilled.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, the "Messiah" who Daniel prophesied would Come and die for the sins of mankind along with others(prophets) from Moses (writing concerning the "Seed of the woman".)

Okay, so when do you plan on explaining how that verse is in any way talking specifically about Jesus?

The "GOD" you are referring to is "ONE GOD"-HEAD made up of three distinct BEINGS, each acting in harmony with each other. (i.e.) GOD the Father; GOD the Son; And GOD the Holy Spirit.

Too bad for you that you haven't actually shown that "Godhead" is a nominative and not a Qualitative.

Did you see person in my post above??

So then you believe in 3 separate co-equal gods? I may be a Henotheist, but I don't believe any of the "Angels" (gods) are equal to the "god of the gods". Do you realize that your position is not the classical Trinity OR Modalist definition whatsoever and that is defacto Polytheist?

Those (Thayer's Lexicon)who were doing the translation to "Godhead" from the Greek "Theotes"/"Theios"---found that Greek usage in their writings as well as those of Philo and Josephus. Therefore, it is hardly a "recent invention." Paul used the term in relationship to GOD the Father and Jesus.

It doesn't matter if they translate it as "Godhead", what matters is the actual definition. The word "Godhead" is olde English spelling for godhede, which means "godhood". Do you understand the difference between a translation and a definition? Apparently not. Are you saying that all the translations that say "Divine" and such are wrong because Thayer's uses "Godhead"? If so, why and how?

Also, please explain what you mean about Philo and Josephus specifically, show the grammar in context so we can see that it's not referring to the Qualitative when they reference it, thanks. Paul used the term about quality, not relationship. How do you get "relationship" exactly?

As the Scriptures state in Gen.3:15 and the prophetic birth of Jesus the "seed of man" would NOT be involved in the Birth of Jesus. A virgin Female would give Birth to Jesus via the Holy Spirit. Therefore, producing the Emmanuel="GOD with us". I believe that which was written and that which was recorded to have occurred/been fulfilled.

Emmanuel = God IS with us, as I've shown. Also, Isaiah 7:14 is not even talking about Jesus, as I've learned, it's talking about a child born in the time of King Hezekiah, which a reading of the whole passage of Isaiah (something most Trinitarians don't do: Read the whole passage) clearly indicates. Beyond that, you haven't shown in any way how Genesis 3:15 is even talking about the Messiah to begin with.

 

[Oryonder]

I don't recite the "Nicene Creed", but you are wrong on that account. Here it is:

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man;
​

As you can see, GOD the Father is not GOD the SON. NOR is GOD the SON---GOD the Father----in that Creed.

You should read your own links.

Consubstantial means (of the same substance) This was the actual wording used up unto a couple decades ago

The original Greek word (which you would know if you had clicked on the word consubstantial) was homoosious.

From your link :

(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Latin consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ

To the Greeks (the language of the Bible), and the people of that time, there were two types of substances

One was what God was made of .. and the other was what everthing else was make of Trees, Angels, Humans and so on.

The reason Constantine insisted on the word "homoosious" was to settle the debates over the divinity of Jesus that were raging in the Church.

The early Church Fathers were subordinantists - believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

Perhaps your Church does not recite the Nicene creed so it must be "non demominatinal"

Every demomination that I know of recites the Creed which is the doctrinal expression of the belief that Jesus is/was "The Father"

 

[sincerly]

So basically you're just saying that you have the right context and I don't, that sure defeats what I said doesn't it. (Cough).

The "right context" is that which was associated with the subject.

Most Translations are from Orthodox Trintiarians, but either way, there are often times they are simply copying each other and going by a traditional rendering to placate their audience, thank goodness we have the Secular scholarly versions, even if they are the minority. Either way, godhead means godhood.

What is your "secular version"? Wikipedia?

OK, Godhead=Godhood=deity=Divine= GOD. And in Jesus dwelleth the fulness of the term.

I think you mean to say you've shown your interpretation of the context, are you saying that my context is wrong? If so, feel free to show where you demonstrated that I have the wrong context, I think I've done my part for my own statements

.

Ditto.

To YOU. Now you get it. See, telling me that I have the wrong context or that you have the right context is nice and all, but that's what we all say about our own definitions. The key is in debating this context. That's what I was asking you initially. Your answer to my question is basically "Because I'm right".

Ditto. and the Context is and will always be fact/truth.

There will be no sin in the New Jerusalem among the true Messianic Jewish believers, the rest will still need sacrifices.

Since there will be no sin there, who are the "rest"? Mal.4:1-3 doesn't give any making of sacrifices to "ashes".

Nothing of this sort is anything close said in the Gospels.

The Scriptures are all the writings from Genesis to Revelation---Not just the Gospels.

Your assumption is that "All be finished' means only his work on the cross. Your assumption involves his words "Until heaven and earth collapse" to be meaningless.

Same thing, your assumptive idea of what "fufilled" and "finished" means basically means that when Jesus says "Until Earth and Heaven collapse" means absolutely nothing. The way the grammar works, no matter your translation, Jesus was saying that Heaven and Earth must collapse first before "All is accomplished". The words "All is accomplished" is referring to the entirety of all events until Heaven and Earth collapse. Why would he say "Until Heaven and Earth collapse" if it has no meaning? Take out the commas from your translation and it makes total sense.

Now aren't you doing a lot of assumming? Your reading comprehension of what I have written is terribly flawed.
Jesus "finished HIS Redemptive/Saving work on the Cross" before HE sent HIS Followers as witnesses of HIS message and the witness would stand as an acceptance or rejection of the "Everlating Gospel"/HIM.
The earth is still Standing firm---at this time.

Yes, are you saying there is??? Feel free to show biblically where this distinction is made.

Those are another subject as most of this is.

And there will be value again according to Zech 14.

Only the portion of Zechariah which wasn't referring the the Babylonian Captivity and had to do with the final earth made new will be of value.

Your point? That has nothing to do with the fact that it says the "Book written before the Foundation of the world". You can't be slain before the foundation of the world. You can be recorded to be slain in the Book, but not actually slain.

I take it by your answer that prophecy wasn't a part of GOD'S communication with those HE was Holding out HIS Arms to be a part of the Everlasting Kingdom?
Do you think GOD didn't have a Plan? And That fact---was sure as HE PROMISED---and can NOT LIE?

Have you read the rest of the passage? it's talking about ALL SOULS. Seriously, have you read Revelation beyond your cherry picked sheet of verses?

Apparently, you haven't read the 13th Chapter of Revelations.

So then do you believe that there's no penalty for rape, murder, theft, and adultery and other sins?

That hasn't been my belief.

Why obey and live? Doesn't that defeat what you just said if you must obey to live?

Your comprehension of my beliefs is very faulty. And, therefore, it makes me doubt that you even belief that which you claim to believe.

 

[Shermana]

The "right context" is that which was associated with the subject.

Okay. So how have you proven in any way that I have the wrong context and you have the right? Do you think that telling me my context is wrong is a substitute for a word study as I have given?

What is your "secular version"? Wikipedia?

Are you completely unaware that many translations have "Divine" for "Godhead'? Are you in any way shape or form keeping track to what I'm saying? Anyways I have provided the link from Word Etymology. And this is just the English term. We haven't even begun to discuss the basic Greek grammar which I will be forced to get into if you don't believe Word Etymology.





You can also look at this, which says the same thing I'm saying, not exactly a Secular source (They have a Trinitarian bias which if anything proves even Trinitarians are aware of this "Godhead" nonsense) but close enough. As you can see, the word "Deity" in the "Abstract noun" sense is not the same as a nominative form, it is a qualitative.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/fulness.html

And if you don't believe what I say about the word "Deity" meaning a nature rather than a being in this case (though in English the word can mean both and thus needs context...such as the Greek where its based on), take a look yourself"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Deity?s=t

2. divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity.

3. the estate or rank of a god: The king attained deity after his death.

OK, Godhead=Godhood=deity=Divine= GOD. And in Jesus dwelleth the fulness of the term.

Even the word "Deity" has the same problem. It CAN mean, in English, a nominative, but it can Also mean a quality, like "The angel had deity", and that's what the Greek term implies. It seems you're not taking any account to what the Greek actually means. Even the word "Divinity" has the same issue. I can say "The angel was a Divinity" or "The Angel had Divinity". You can't have "Fulness of Deity" in the sense of being a Deity, but in the sense of the qualitative attribute of Deity-hood. Thus, "deity" and "Divinity" in English may have two different meanings, but the Greek from which they derive has one clear, Adjective-qualitiative-noun based meaning. Let me explain: The word "God" is not an adjective. You can't have the "Fulness of god". What you can have is the "Fulness of godhood". God is not something that has levels of being. God IS a being. "Godhood", as the definition of "Godhead" means: "Divine NATURE". There's a difference between Divine Nature and God. I am Human, and I have human nature. I am NOT Human nature.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=godhead&allowed_in_frame=0
godhead

c.1200, from god + M.E. -hede, cognate with -hood and Ger. -heit. Along with maidenhead, this is the sole survival of this form of the suffix. O.E. had godhad "divine nature

."Now if you want to argue with Word Etymology, knock yourself out. "Had godhad". You cannot have "had god", you can have had "Godhood". Godhead = Godhede = Godhood. That's how it works. You obviously don't want to accept the basic definition that virtually every source on the matter (other than Strong's one use of the term to placate their audience that has a similar grammar-distorting love for the term) says, it's your credibility. If I have to show you more sites that explain that Godhead = godhood or "divine nature" (i.e. The quality of godhood) then so be it.

So as you can see, it's a cognate of "-hood" which means "godhood". It was originally spelled godhede, or in german, "gottheit". Not "Gottkopf". It's like the term "Maidenhead". This is why many translations use "Divinity" in the qualitative as the translation.





.

Ditto.

I think I quite plainly showed that other translations have it as "Divine" and that your definition of "Godhead" is only supported by you, and all you've done is shown that they've translated it as godhead. Do you have any clue what you're doing?

Ditto. and the Context is and will always be fact/truth.

Right, and repeating yourself is not demonstrating what the right context is. You're not even taking into account the actual Greek grammar or the other translations, you're simply saying that because a translation uses "Godhead" that you can make it whatever definition you want without consulting the actual grammar.

Since there will be no sin there, who are the "rest"? Mal.4:1-3 doesn't give any making of sacrifices to "ashes".

What does Malachi 4:1-3 have to do with this? The gentiles will be the ones making sacrifices. They have to obey Succoth or be struck by plagues. I remember you said this was just a metaphor, then when I asked you if the rest of Zechariah 14 was metaphor, you got silent.

The Scriptures are all the writings from Genesis to Revelation---Not just the Gospels.

Okay, so nothing in the entire scriptures backs what you're saying, but given your propensity for non-sequitur use of scripture, I'm sure you can think of something that loosely fits.

Now aren't you doing a lot of assumming? Your reading comprehension of what I have written is terribly flawed.

You're accusing me of having terrible reading comprehension? Well then, let's see how wrongly I interpreted what you wrote. Feel free to explain how exactly I didn't read what you said correctly?

Jesus "finished HIS Redemptive/Saving work on the Cross" before HE sent HIS Followers as witnesses of HIS message and the witness would stand as an acceptance or rejection of the "Everlating Gospel"/HIM.
The earth is still Standing firm---at this time.

If the Earth is still standing, then Heaven and Earth haven't collapsed. When he said "Til all is fulfilled" that is not necessarily the same as the "Finished" work on the cross. You should really take a lesson from your own discussion on "assumption". Are you aware that when it says "It is finished" it's not the same word as "Til all is fulfilled"? Do you even factor the Greek into your explanations? It says that Heaven and Earth must collapse first before all is fulfilled. If you don't like that, then that's on you. He's talking about until ALL events in history are "fulfilled". The "Finished" work on the cross, a separate word is totally different. I understand you're probably a KJV-onlyist, but just because it uses the same word in English doesn't mean its the same word in Greek.

Those are another subject as most of this is.

You are the one who brought it up as your contention!

Only the portion of Zechariah which wasn't referring the the Babylonian Captivity and had to do with the final earth made new will be of value.

Okay, so whatever shoots down your argument is just "metaphor" but the rest is literal. How convenient. Not even gotquestions.org dares go that far.

I take it by your answer that prophecy wasn't a part of GOD'S communication with those HE was Holding out HIS Arms to be a part of the Everlasting Kingdom?

Feel free to explain how you get that from my answer. Talking about reading comprehension? What does that have ANYTHING to do with what I said?

Do you think GOD didn't have a Plan? And That fact---was sure as HE PROMISED---and can NOT LIE?

I think you're talking to yourself at this point.

Apparently, you haven't read the 13th Chapter of Revelations.

Why would you say that? When I tell a person he hasn't read a passage, I generally explain why.

That hasn't been my belief.

I asked you a question. So what's the penalty then and how does it fit with what you said earlier? If you're going to say "nuh uh", at least do the honorable thing and explain in detail why you don't believe this in accordance to the rest of your belief? Do you believe there is a code of conduct involved or not?

Your comprehension of my beliefs is very faulty. And, therefore, it makes me doubt that you even belief that which you claim to believe

Feel free to clarify what your beliefs are, but going to the extreme of saying that because you feel I misunderstood your words that you feel I don't believe what I claim to believe is quite an audacious and dishonest step of Hubris. Please explain why you'd make that conclusion, and feel free to explain in detail where I am in error. Notice that I asked you a question. Did I ASSERT what you believed? You got offended by merely asking you. Why is that? I don't care if you doubt that I believe what I say, but what's odd is why you'd make that conclusion. Especially after failing to actually address the question in detail.

 

[sincerly]

OK, Godhead=Godhood=deity=Divine= GOD. And in Jesus dwelleth the fulness of the term.

The subject is Jesus Christ the verb was dwelleth. The context is the Colossians belief and recoginition of Jesus as GOD the SON. And the fact that Jesus was the one whose sacrifice recociled them to GOD the Father.
Jesus is "diety" and "Divine" in the various scriptural passages under consideration.
The context makes it nominative and Jesus possessing all the attributes(Fullness) of GOD.

 

[Shermana]

OK, Godhead=Godhood=deity=Divine= GOD. And in Jesus dwelleth the fulness of the term.

The subject is Jesus Christ the verb was dwelleth. The context is the Colossians belief and recoginition of Jesus as GOD the SON. And the fact that Jesus was the one whose sacrifice recociled them to GOD the Father.
Jesus is "diety" and "Divine" in the various scriptural passages under consideration.
The context makes it nominative and Jesus possessing all the attributes(Fullness) of GOD.

Ummm, way to go totally avoiding everything I presented. Your context is simply wrong, circular and presumptive. At face value, the text is talking about his godlike qualities, and I said, the word "god" does not refer to GOD alone. The "Fulness of godhood" is talking about a state of godliness, i.e. Angelicness. Would you like to try actually addressing what I said about the grammar and how the word "Deity" and "Divinity" in English can be used to define qualities? Are you even aware that the BIble is not written in English? Do you want to try taking on the grammatical issues I presented or are you content to repeat yourself without addressing the Greek grammar and Theological issue in question?