YHWH: Worship ONE GOD, not MANY GODS. Worship Me, alone!

[TrueBeliever37]

‘First and Last’ just means ‘Only’.

Jesus is the ‘only lamb slaughtered for the redemption of mankind’.

Jesus is the ‘only true son of God’.

God is the ‘only true God’.

Yes, there is only one ‘First and Last’.

But take the context into account.

There are MANY firsts and Lasts BY THEIR CONTEXT!

Adam WAS THE FIRST but he didn’t LAST!

Jesus was the NOT THE FIRST to be born ‘Holy and sinless’ BUT HE WAS THE LAST!! The LAST ADAM!

Jesus is THE FIRST to be raised from the dead BY GOD… and he is THE LAST to be done so…. because all coming resurrections are BY JESUS… not God!

Interesting enough, the definition of ‘Dead’ used by the scriptures is that a person is ‘taken out of active participation in the physical world; body decaying but spirit “inert”, sleeping in the bosom of God’.

To a human Being, because the ‘dead’ person is no longer able to participate in the physical world, we take a dramatic view that the person is ‘GONE ETERNALLY’. The spiritual view is that the SOUL still exists but is inert… capable of being re-energised in the physical world when a body is available for the spirit to occupy. The existence of the spirit means that memories still exist of that person, that soul. However, if the Spirit is DESTROYED (and only God or an appointee of God, can destroy the spirit because it is a holy creation BY GOD alone!) then no memories will exist of that person, that soul…

So by your explanation it really amounts to nothing to say you are the first and the last. Because everyone can claim they are the first and the last. - That is a Bogus explanation.

I would agree it means he is the only God.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The gospel of John is highly corrupted. It has been controversial since time immemorial!!

It is the only book where it claims that Jesus called himself ‘God’ … DESPITE there being no reason for the claim.

1. Jesus performed miracles …. Nothing wrong with that. Acts 10:37-38 tells that GOD anointed Jesus WITH HOLY SPIRIT AND POWER… and it is by this that Jesus ‘went about doing good and healing the sick!’ and raised up the dead.
2. Jesus walked on water,.. Yeah, and so did Peter!!
3. back at 1, the disciple and the apostles healed the sick and raised the dead… in fact ELIJAH AND ELISHAH raised the dead before Jesus did…
4. Jesus said, ‘I am’…. Whoa,…!!! I say ‘I am’ many many times… in fact in the very next chapter a man born blind who was madd to see said, ‘I am’….!!
5. Jesus said he was God because he was EQUAL TO GOD (oh dear,.. semantics gone out the window here!) … Jesus countered that saying that he did not call himself God but only said he was the ‘SON OF GOD’ (God was his Father!)… ‘how is that blaspheming!!!??’ he asked?

More….

No… not once is there any suggestion that Jesus was claiming to be God…

But, Trinitarians say nothing when the Jews said to Jesus: ‘You have a demon’. That should mean then that absolutely, Jesus is SATAN!

But of course he wasn’t!!! Common sense ruled there, eh!!!

Wow - So your defense when you are proven wrong, is to claim the scriptures that contradict your doctrine are corrupted without any proof whatsoever.

 

[Soapy]

So by your explanation it really amounts to nothing to say you are the first and the last. Because everyone can claim they are the first and the last. - That is a Bogus explanation.

I would agree it means he is the only God.

I did not claim that Jesus is the only God… You can keep on saying and kind of believing it but ultimately you will find out that you were wrong!

Jesus himself DISCLAIMED that he called himself ‘God’ and pointed out to the Jews, who accused him of this blasphemy, that he had only said that ‘God is my Father’. This, of course, is the same as saying that he is ‘The Son of God’.

Jesis then went on to explain and define what he meant by saying;

• ‘If I am not doing the works of my Father then do not believe me!’ (John 10:37)
• “Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, … My Father, who has given them [The apostles] to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” (John 10:25-29)

 

[Soapy]

Wow - So your defense when you are proven wrong, is to claim the scriptures that contradict your doctrine are corrupted without any proof whatsoever.

I gave you proof but you did not believe me. (John 10:37)

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I did not claim that Jesus is the only God… You can keep on saying and kind of believing it but ultimately you will find out that you were wrong!

Jesus himself DISCLAIMED that he called himself ‘God’ and pointed out to the Jews, who accused him of this blasphemy, that he had only said that ‘God is my Father’. This, of course, is the same as saying that he is ‘The Son of God’.

Jesis then went on to explain and define what he meant by saying;

• ‘If I am not doing the works of my Father then do not believe me!’ (John 10:37)
• “Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, … My Father, who has given them [The apostles] to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” (John 10:25-29)

You are ignoring the fact that he had just told them "I and my Father are one". Then he was telling them if I am not doing the works of the Father then don't believe me. But if I am believe me because of the works. John 10:24-42

 

[Soapy]

You are ignoring the fact that he had just told them "I and my Father are one". Then he was telling them if I am not doing the works of the Father then don't believe me. But if I am believe me because of the works. John 10:24-42

I and the Father AGREE.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I gave you proof but you did not believe me. (John 10:37)

Oh no you don't. I can't let you get away with that. You said the book of John was corrupted, and gave no proof. Don't try to disguise what you said.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I and the Father AGREE.

That is NOT what that verse said.

In another scripture he said not my will but thine be done. (The flesh didn't want to suffer even though it was the will of the Spirit for the flesh to suffer and die.)

 

[Soapy]

That is NOT what that verse said.

In another scripture he said not my will but thine be done. (The flesh didn't want to suffer even though it was the will of the Spirit for the flesh to suffer and die.)

Wow!!! So you are saying that:

1. Jesus the flesh, had a Will of its own
2. Jesus the spirit, had a Will of its own
3. God has a Will of his own
4. The Father has a Will of his own

• 1 and 2 are separate Will which often conflict with each other : SCHIZOPHRENIA!!
• 2 and 3 are separate Wills but are THE SAME!!
• 2 and 4 are exactly the same because ‘I and the Father are One’ but conflict with 1!!

Only Trinitarians can build complete nonsense out of straightforward truth:

• Jesus is sinless and holy man with a Will that agrees with his spiritual Father: God

Jesus had a conflicted Will just before he was killed on the cross wherein he prayed to his Father; to God, asking if there could be another way the redemption could be carried out. But he recovered himself saying:

• ‘Not my Will but Yours’

Yes, it was the Will of the flesh ,.. BECAUSE Jesus WAS FLESH, BONE, and BLOOD, before he was crucified. No flesh WANTS to be cruelly killed… and the manner of Jesus’ coming death then was extremely cruel… made worse by the sinlessness and innocence, of Jesus who was also going to take on the SIN OF ALL MANKIND… of course there might be slight hesitation … The promise was that Jesus would he resurrected by the Father… Jesus faulted as to whether this could really be true… Could the Father really bring back to eternal life …

If Jesus was GOD, why would he doubt?
————————————-
You write so much rubbish it’s hard to know where to start the criticism of your belief.

You are like a devils advocate. You just keep writing any old nonsense when you can’t refute the truth.

Since the Father GIVES to the Son and the son agrees with the Father’s gifts, then there are OF ONE ACCORD.

If, as you are insinuating, they are the SAME … something… THEN WHY WOULD THE FATHER NEED TO GIVE TO THE SON:

• “They were YOURS and you have them to me!”
• “All that I have is given me from the Father”
• “As the Father has life in him so he has GRANTED the son to also have life in him”
• “All power and authority has been given to me (from the Father… from God)”

But I see that you realise that ‘Father’ means someone or thing that gives life to another.

A Father gives life to a Son …

God, the Father, gave life to all creation; he BROUGHT IT INTO BEING.

All Judgement has been GRANTED by GOD to the Son: “For the Father judges no one but has placed all judgement into the hands of his Son’

Jesus SHALL BE ‘Eternal Father’ at the end of time when he “GRABTS ETERNAL LIFE TO THOSE HD JUDGES WORTHY for his kingdom.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Wow!!! So you are saying that:

1. Jesus the flesh, had a Will of its own
2. Jesus the spirit, had a Will of its own
3. God has a Will of his own
4. The Father has a Will of his own

• 1 and 2 are separate Will which often conflict with each other : SCHIZOPHRENIA!!
• 2 and 3 are separate Wills but are THE SAME!!
• 2 and 4 are exactly the same because ‘I and the Father are One’ but conflict with 1!!

Only Trinitarians can build complete nonsense out of straightforward truth:

• Jesus is sinless and holy man with a Will that agrees with his spiritual Father: God

Jesus had a conflicted Will just before he was killed on the cross wherein he prayed to his Father; to God, asking if there could be another way the redemption could be carried out. But he recovered himself saying:

• ‘Not my Will but Yours’

Yes, it was the Will of the flesh ,.. BECAUSE Jesus WAS FLESH, BONE, and BLOOD, before he was crucified. No flesh WANTS to be cruelly killed… and the manner of Jesus’ coming death then was extremely cruel… made worse by the sinlessness and innocence, of Jesus who was also going to take on the SIN OF ALL MANKIND… of course there might be slight hesitation … The promise was that Jesus would he resurrected by the Father… Jesus faulted as to whether this could really be true… Could the Father really bring back to eternal life …

If Jesus was GOD, why would he doubt?
————————————-
You write so much rubbish it’s hard to know where to start the criticism of your belief.

You are like a devils advocate. You just keep writing any old nonsense when you can’t refute the truth.

Since the Father GIVES to the Son and the son agrees with the Father’s gifts, then there are OF ONE ACCORD.

If, as you are insinuating, they are the SAME … something… THEN WHY WOULD THE FATHER NEED TO GIVE TO THE SON:

• “They were YOURS and you have them to me!”
• “All that I have is given me from the Father”
• “As the Father has life in him so he has GRANTED the son to also have life in him”
• “All power and authority has been given to me (from the Father… from God)”

But I see that you realise that ‘Father’ means someone or thing that gives life to another.

A Father gives life to a Son …

God, the Father, gave life to all creation; he BROUGHT IT INTO BEING.

All Judgement has been GRANTED by GOD to the Son: “For the Father judges no one but has placed all judgement into the hands of his Son’

Jesus SHALL BE ‘Eternal Father’ at the end of time when he “GRABTS ETERNAL LIFE TO THOSE HD JUDGES WORTHY for his kingdom.

NO that is you trying to represent what I say falsely. An utterly worthless post.

 

[Soapy]

So by your explanation it really amounts to nothing to say you are the first and the last. Because everyone can claim they are the first and the last. - That is a Bogus explanation.

I would agree it means he is the only God.

Repeating reply to this post.

What do you mean that my explanation is bogus?

It is perfectly valid and true. You just cannot stomach the truth being shown to you!

What are you going say ‘First and Last’ means?
That it DOESN’T mean ‘Only’… that ‘Only’ is BOGUS?

Check it out and deny this:

• Jesus is the ‘First and Last’ son of God in the flesh who sinless, holy, and righteous in the eyes of God: the only such son of God!
• Adam is the ‘First and Last’ human created from dust of the earth from no other element of humanity: the only such creation by God!

Yes, there are a thousand and more possible ‘first and last’s examples but as we are discussing scriptures, any credible poster will acknowledge the uniqueness of ‘First and Last’ in regard to Jesus Christ.

• Jesus is the ‘First and the Last’ raised from the dead by Almighty God; the Father

You are going to say that that is ‘bogus’? That Jesus is the ONLY man raised up from the dead to eternal life by God, the Father?

Is it not true thereafter that all who are raised up from the dead to eternal life or eternal death will be by Jesus Christ at the resurrection?

STOP DEMONISING THE TRUTH and embrace reality.

The scriptures warns you concerning ‘Grieving the Spirit of Truth’ ((I guess you’ll say that that is ‘bogus’, too.))

 

[Soapy]

NO that is you trying to represent what I say falsely. An utterly worthless post.

Aha… You recognise the nonsense that you present as your belief.

Yes, your reaction shouts loudly of your surprise at seeing clearly what is you really said!

Jesus is a human Being with a body and a Spirit. The body does not have a WILL. It is merely a vehicle and a home for the Spirit to dwell in and control… it is the Spirit that has the Will.

So, Jesus has ONLY ONE WILL. And that is a Will of a HUMAN BEING.

His Will though is tuned towards doing the Will of his Father…. To do the Will of God.

Thus, the Will of Jesus is the same Will as his Father.

His Will agrees with the Will of God: ‘Jesus and the Father… are of one Will.

But hear yourself:

• Jesus and the Father being one means that Jesus is GOD

So, in effect, you are saying that Jesus IS THE FATHER!

But, when you see it pointed out to you, you quickly disassociate yourself with your own claim!

Guess what? This is EXACTLY what occurs with every trinitarian I have ever encountered.

Your reaction is EXACTLY how all Trinitarians react when the fallacy of trinity is shown to them: DENIAL OF THEIR OWN IDEOLOGY.

What happens next is that the trinitarian and group as a whole, go away and devise a comeback like those grevious nonsense on gotQuestion and CARM websites.

But, your disturbing revelation to yourself goes a long way to show just how Trinitarians will try to counter everything that is the truth in exchange for the lie:

• “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1: 25)

You ‘worship’ Jesus Christ, who is the created human Son of God.

Jesus was created by God - and you worship Jesus AS GOD?

• “Praise, Glorify, Honor’ the Son
• “Praise, Glorify, Honor’ the Father
  
• “Praise, Glorify, Honor’ the Only True God: Yahweh
  
• “Worship” the Only True God: Yahweh

An Angel told the disciples that the man they just witnessed being taken up into Heaven will return in like kind … the MAN, Jesus Christ!:

• “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

Who is going to return in the same way?
When will this man return:

• “He [Jesus] said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” (Acts 1:7)

What do you read? That Jesus DID NOT KNOW the times nor the dates of his return because such is set BY THE FATHER!

Not to stress THE OBVIOUS but… since only GOD knows the date and times of the return of the Son of man… the Son of man cannot be God; Jesus cannot be God… (why does this even need pointing out to anyone!!)

Jesus says himself that it is ‘The Son of Man’ who will return to judge the world:

• “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.” (Matt 16:27)

The power and authority (Glory) are owned by the Father - LOANED to the Son of Man. That’s why it says “in his Father’s glory”!

The angels are the creation and ownership of the Father LOANED to the Son. That’s why it says “his (Father’s) Angels”.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Repeating reply to this post.

What do you mean that my explanation is bogus?

It is perfectly valid and true. You just cannot stomach the truth being shown to you!

What are you going say ‘First and Last’ means?
That it DOESN’T mean ‘Only’… that ‘Only’ is BOGUS?

Check it out and deny this:

• Jesus is the ‘First and Last’ son of God in the flesh who sinless, holy, and righteous in the eyes of God: the only such son of God!
• Adam is the ‘First and Last’ human created from dust of the earth from no other element of humanity: the only such creation by God!

Yes, there are a thousand and more possible ‘first and last’s examples but as we are discussing scriptures, any credible poster will acknowledge the uniqueness of ‘First and Last’ in regard to Jesus Christ.

• Jesus is the ‘First and the Last’ raised from the dead by Almighty God; the Father

You are going to say that that is ‘bogus’? That Jesus is the ONLY man raised up from the dead to eternal life by God, the Father?

Is it not true thereafter that all who are raised up from the dead to eternal life or eternal death will be by Jesus Christ at the resurrection?

STOP DEMONISING THE TRUTH and embrace reality.

The scriptures warns you concerning ‘Grieving the Spirit of Truth’ ((I guess you’ll say that that is ‘bogus’, too.))

It means what YHWH let us know it means in Isaiah 44:6 - I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
He is the first and the last and there is no other God.

So I wasn't saying ONLY was wrong. Your post in general was BOGUS.

But that same meaning has to apply when the Messiah said he was the first and the last. But you won't acknowledge that.

 

[Soapy]

It means what YHWH let us know it means in Isaiah 44:6 - I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
He is the first and the last and there is no other God.

So I wasn't saying ONLY was wrong. Your post in general was BOGUS.

But that same meaning has to apply when the Messiah said he was the first and the last. But you won't acknowledge that.

Ha ha ha …. Ho ho ho…!!

Trinitarians are comedians…

• “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Oh dear, trinitarian joke coming up…!

Yhwh is the only true God and beside him there’s no other.

But Trinitarians says:

• Jesus is God and he was WITH GOD

This, of course, translates to:

• Jesus is God next to God

which contradicts what our creator, the almighty God: YHWH, told us.

Trinitarians call Yhwh a liar…!!

Trinitarians place Jesus on the holy mount calling him ‘God’:

• “He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes 2:4)
• “They [Trinitarians] will oppose and will exalt him [Jesus] over everything that is [Yhwh] God or even worshipped, so that they [Trinitarians] set him [Jesus] up in [Yhwh’s] God’s temple proclaiming him [Jesus] to be [Yhwh] God”

And you post a proof saying ‘Beside me there is no God’ … while professing that:

• Jesus was God beside God

True comedy of errors!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Ha ha ha …. Ho ho ho…!!

Trinitarians are comedians…

• “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Oh dear, trinitarian joke coming up…!

Yhwh is the only true God and beside him there’s no other.

But Trinitarians says:

• Jesus is God and he was WITH GOD

This, of course, translates to:

• Jesus is God next to God

which contradicts what our creator, the almighty God: YHWH, told us.

Trinitarians call Yhwh a liar…!!

Trinitarians place Jesus on the holy mount calling him ‘God’:

• “He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes 2:4)
• “They [Trinitarians] will oppose and will exalt him [Jesus] over everything that is [Yhwh] God or even worshipped, so that they [Trinitarians] set him [Jesus] up in [Yhwh’s] God’s temple proclaiming him [Jesus] to be [Yhwh] God”

And you post a proof saying ‘Beside me there is no God’ … while professing that:

• Jesus was God beside God

True comedy of errors!

You seem unable to understand simple sentences. I didn't profess Jesus was God beside God - That is you twisting my words.

I have said the Messiah was YHWH. YHWH was here on earth in a fleshly body. Can you not understand that simple concept?

And how many times do I have to tell you I am NOT a Trinitarian? I have noticed when you are unable to provide answers to the questions I ask you, you have to resort to pretending I am a Trinitarian.

 

[Soapy]

You seem unable to understand simple sentences. I didn't profess Jesus was God beside God - That is you twisting my words.

I have said the Messiah was YHWH. YHWH was here on earth in a fleshly body. Can you not understand that simple concept?

And how many times do I have to tell you I am NOT a Trinitarian? I have noticed when you are unable to provide answers to the questions I ask you, you have to resort to pretending I am a Trinitarian.

Keep in saying that I am unable to provide answers to questions you ask me. That’s your attempt at a ‘get back’? Puh!!

‘Messiah’ was YHWH?

Shaking dust off my sandals - Bye bye!!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Keep in saying that I am unable to provide answers to questions you ask me. That’s your attempt at a ‘get back’? Puh!!

‘Messiah’ was YHWH?

Shaking dust off my sandals - Bye bye!!

No it was my attempt to get you to discuss things using scriptures, without pretending I am a Trinitarian whenever you have difficulty defending your position.

I had also hoped you would actually try to respond to the points made, rather than resort to saying things like Ha Ha Ha, True Comedy of Errors, Shaking dust off my sandals, and just giving your opinion with no scripture to back it up, etc. Why not try an actual attempt to refute the point you disagree with using scriptures?

For instance you have trouble when I point out things like YHWH saying he was the first and the last, the ONLY God. Isaiah 44:6 Then I show you where the Messiah said he was the first and the last. Revelation 22:12-13 When you have difficulty giving a reasonable response, you either avoid it, resort to some kind of mockery, or pretend I am a Trinitarian to disguise your lack of being able to provide a reasonable response.

 

[Brian2]

Hi, Brian2. Many versions say in the beginning the Word (usually a capital W, although as many realize there were no distinctions in upper and lower cases in the early writings...) was, and the Word was God and the Word was -- WITH God. No matter how a person deciphers it, that's two. The Word God and the Word WITH God. (Two.)

True.

Let's look at the King James for a moment, where it says:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So -- the "Word," generally known to be the SON of God, was WITH God, and the KJV says as well that the Word was WITH God in the beginning. So those two verses tell us that the Word who was God was WITH God. Two. Therefore, one must conclude that -- ?? (I leave that up to you right now. )

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
It seems to rest on how one views the 2nd "God".
It seems to be legitimate grammatically to have "a god" (even if many scholars disagree) But of course there was only one God who was never created, never came into existence. Verse 3 does tell us that the Word was never created/never came into existence.
If the Word was "a god" who did not come into existence then the Word was God. That is the conclusion that the NWT leads us to conclude.
If the 2nd "God" is translated right in the KJV it seems to be saying that the Word who was with "the God" was that God.
That does not sound right.
I go with the idea that the 2nd "God" is more of a description of the Word and what He is like................exactly life the God that He was with.
This agrees with other descriptions of who and what Jesus is, in the New Testament.
Exactly how that should be translated is problematic no doubt.
The Greek word for "Divine" was not the word that was used so it is probably not appropriate.
Whatever word or phrase we use should carry with it the conclusion that the whole passage (John 1:1-3) shows about the Word, that He did not come into existence (He has always been in existence) and was with the God (the Father in other parts of the New Testament) before the creation of anything.

 

[Soapy]

True.



John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
It seems to rest on how one views the 2nd "God".
It seems to be legitimate grammatically to have "a god" (even if many scholars disagree) But of course there was only one God who was never created, never came into existence. Verse 3 does tell us that the Word was never created/never came into existence.
If the Word was "a god" who did not come into existence then the Word was God. That is the conclusion that the NWT leads us to conclude.
If the 2nd "God" is translated right in the KJV it seems to be saying that the Word who was with "the God" was that God.
That does not sound right.
I go with the idea that the 2nd "God" is more of a description of the Word and what He is like................exactly life the God that He was with.
This agrees with other descriptions of who and what Jesus is, in the New Testament.
Exactly how that should be translated is problematic no doubt.
The Greek word for "Divine" was not the word that was used so it is probably not appropriate.
Whatever word or phrase we use should carry with it the conclusion that the whole passage (John 1:1-3) shows about the Word, that He did not come into existence (He has always been in existence) and was with the God (the Father in other parts of the New Testament) before the creation of anything.

Total hogwash.

Whichever way Trinitarians try to disguise their confusion, it always comes out the same: That they claim that ‘God was with God’ while trying to say that the God that was with God is the same God that God was with.

Brian2, even your new explanation smacks of deceit in your struggle to explain nonsense.

You ALMOST had it when you say it must be a description of some sort….!

Yeah, you read what I said, Yeah!

The term and Title, ‘God’, must be first DEFINED.

Then you will see that there are two uses of the word, ‘God’. One is the TITLE OF THE FATHER… the other is the ADJECTIVE attached to the WORD, ‘God’!

Even today, we say something like: “He was amazing, that was a monumental performance, … He was a God!’

I use ‘a God’ to reference similar performances of the same ilk but could also say:

• ‘The judge was majestic, gloriously intelligent ruling on that matter - He sure is GOD in his courtroom’

So, the word that [The] God [of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] spoke in the beginning (Gen 1:1…’Let there be light…!’) was a masterful, overwhelming, ruling, glorious, majestic, almighty,… word. The word of God was ‘God’!!

• ‘God: Title’
• ‘God: Adjective’

[The] God spoke a word, too, that in time a messiah would come … and what [The] God speaks must come true… must take place … must …take on flesh!!!

And, indeed, in the fullness of time, the word of [The] God DID COME TRUE… DID TAKE ON FLESH!!!

Notice that a verse says that in the fullness of time:

• ‘GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF A WOMAN’

The Son was not ‘SENT FROM HEAVEN’ but was ‘SENT’ AFTER HE WAS BAPTISED at the river Jordan.

• “what about the one whom the Father set apart (sanctified) as his very own (Chosen) and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:36)
• See also Acts 10:37-38

He was ‘SENT’ AFTER he was ANOINTED:

• what does anointed mean?? Sanctified… set-aside for kingship and priesthood
• what does this anointing make Jesus:… it made him ‘CHRIST’ … and CHRIST means… ‘MESSIAH’

So if it is the anointing that made Jesus ‘Christ/Messiah’ then how could Christ/Messiah have present-existed…?

And a voice came FROM HEAVEN saying: ‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased!’ which ties in with Isaiah 42:1 where [The] God says:

• “Behold my SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN… I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT ON HIM and he will bring justice to the nations”

And Jesus, being ANOINTED WITH HOLY SPIRIT AND POWER, was then SENT (led by the Holy Spirit OF [The] God) into the wilderness TO BE TEMPTED OF THE DEVIL.

What was the point and purpose of the temptation??

It was to TEST Jesus to see if he would mis-use his POWERS:

1. Extreme Hunger drive him to manipulate the elements to make sustenance for his flesh body
2. Save himself from a definite death or dire injury by falling from a height
3. ACQUIRE THE THRONE OF DAVID - the rulership over creation - WITHOUT the stress, pain, suffering, HUMILIATION, and DEATH that he would / Will otherwise have to endure
4. ((Other temptations not mentioned))

Trinitarians say Jesus was Almighty God… what purpose would there be to ALMIGHTY GOD being TEMPTED… Temptation is only any use if the tempted is trying to GAIN something they do not already have… What is there that ALMIGHTY GOD not have … nothing!!! Everything God RECEIVES [back] is only what he FIRST GAVE OUT!

Hence: ‘GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED’!

Jesus was tempted… BUT RESISTED the temptation, preferring, though stumbling to an extent, to stick to the Will of the Father…:

• “Father, if there could be another way… [nonetheless let it be] NOT MY WILL BUT YOURS!”
• “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)
• “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.” (John 12:27)

 

[Soapy]

Our image was marred somewhat by the sin of our first parents and so we are being transformed and still are not the perfect image.

Can you show what you just said to @Clear, when you come across him. His ‘Historical Data’ and unspiritualness tells him that no one has inherited sin … He might be interested in what you just said (in other words, demand that you are wrong because his ‘Historical Data’ says otherwise!