Sorry, but no, I don't.
Elhoim overthrew Sodom.
Jehovah overthrew Sodom. (Deut 29:23)
Jehovah and Elohim refer to the same person.
Jehovah is His name. Elohim is what He is.
Sorry, but no, I don't.
Elhoim overthrew Sodom.
Jehovah overthrew Sodom. (Deut 29:23)
Jehovah and Elohim refer to the same person.
Jehovah is His name. Elohim is what He is.
M
mee
Guest
and who was it that rained fire and sulpher ............Jehovah ,the same God as the one in Amos 4;11 i for the life of me cannot see any thing to do with lots of Gods ,there is only one and that is Jehovah psalm 83;18 i think i can see a pre-concieved idea in your thoughts. just read the bible as it is without taking on pre-concieved trinity doctrines
A very interesting question to ask is, if the Jews were given the understanding that God is one Being/Person, can we understand God in the NT in the same way. Obviously many people can.
To say that the Son talked to the Father, that makes two; there was a Man, a Dove, and a Voice at Jesus' baptism, that makes three, is to understand God using a simplistic notion that reflects our natural thinking, and does not fully appreciate the spiritual, supernatural Being that God is.
In no way do I underestimate the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ who I believe is Almighty God.
To say that the Son talked to the Father, that makes two; there was a Man, a Dove, and a Voice at Jesus' baptism, that makes three, is to understand God using a simplistic notion that reflects our natural thinking, and does not fully appreciate the spiritual, supernatural Being that God is.
In no way do I underestimate the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ who I believe is Almighty God.
M
mee
Guest
I and the Father are one.John 10;30
Or, "at unity." Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation read John 17;21
in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth.
Or, "at unity." Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation..................Jesus followers are in unity with Jesus the same way that Jesus is in unity with his father. and again at 1 corinthians 3;8
Now he that plants and he that waters are one, but each [person] will receive his own reward according to his own labor
Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, showing a oneness in cooperation......so we can see that this oneness does not mean that Jesus and Jehovah are the same thing it means unity and cooperation.
Dor
Bible Thumper
Mee is Jesus....
a. God
b. another God
c. does the Bible lie?
a. God
b. another God
c. does the Bible lie?
S
Silas
Guest
Yes, the same person. "I over threw you as God." Two seperate person there, sir. The "I" and "God." Yes their one, but there is pluraity there. The borrow from the saint Dor's trilamma:
"Mee is Jesus....
a. God
b. another God
c. does the Bible lie?"
Which do you choose?
S
Silas
Guest
Mee, this isnt rocket science. The verse says that "I", speaking of God in the singular, rained down fire from God. There is a clear distination there Mee. Thus says the LORD God and His Reedeemer the LORD of Host. There is another clear distination there. Again, as Dor so nicely put it, you only have 3 choices:
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is another God, thereby forcing you to say that there are two God when the God of the Bible says that there is no other God but Him.
3. The Bible lied.
Those are your choices sir.
I believe Jehovah of the OT is Jesus of the NT.
God's name under the old covenant was Jehovah.
God's name under the new covenant is Jesus.
So, which "person" overthrew Sodom?
BTW, haven't you been told that it is very naughty to use the word "separate" when talking about the three persons
M
mee
Guest
if we stick to bible teaching this is what the bible teaches us about Jesus , and the bible never liesJohn 3;16
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life
"Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: ‘This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’"—MATTHEW 3:17.
(Luke 9:35) And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.".................its good that when we stick to what the bible really teaches we dont need to add on any manmade doctrines it makes perfect sense on its own .
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
this is such a stupid argument. as i have pointed out about 80 times, the same person can have more than one name, title or way of being referred to, for example:
bananabrain
husband of mrs bananabrain
bananabrain's first name
moderator of the judaism board at cr
father of mini-bananabrain
bandleader of the bananabrain band
employee of...
nephew of...
uncle of...
friend of...
etc.
yet THESE ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON, just described in terms of my RELATIONSHIPS AND CHARACTERISTICS. le-havdil, G!D can be described in exactly the same way. why is this so hard?
furthermore, your attempts to shoehorn jesus into the text of the old testament (G!D Walked, so that must have been jesus, forsooth) simply are not borne out by the Text. there is no linguistic credibility in this argument.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bananabrain
husband of mrs bananabrain
bananabrain's first name
moderator of the judaism board at cr
father of mini-bananabrain
bandleader of the bananabrain band
employee of...
nephew of...
uncle of...
friend of...
etc.
yet THESE ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON, just described in terms of my RELATIONSHIPS AND CHARACTERISTICS. le-havdil, G!D can be described in exactly the same way. why is this so hard?
furthermore, your attempts to shoehorn jesus into the text of the old testament (G!D Walked, so that must have been jesus, forsooth) simply are not borne out by the Text. there is no linguistic credibility in this argument.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Hi Mee –
More on: "I and the Father are one." John 10;30
You say Or, "at unity." Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation
That's your qualification unfounded by the text, or by the Greek lexicon:
Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, - This is the Greek cardinal number – how does 'one' as 'one thing' signify a cooperation of more than one, or many things?
To prove your point, you must show where this word in common usage to imply co-operation. I've checked a significant number of scriptural references and can find none (so far) that imply a collective or cooperative singularity.
+++
Let's look at this another way:
Jesus was addressing an audience – be it the disciples or the mass of the people – who were fiercely monotheistic, and the above text is one among a number which seem to indicate Jesus' affirmation of his Divinity.
Now, I argue that if Jesus had meant sonship by co-operation, by analogy, not in any real sense, but only relatively, then He would have said so, to not have done so is tantamount to suggesting that He was intentionally vague as a means of misleading if not actually deceiving his audience.
Remember that He was accused of blasphemy on more than one occasion, and eventually crucified for it, so we can be sure that his audience did not interpret his words as you choose to.
From this we can draw the following conclusion, the argument posited by C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, among others:
If Jesus was indeed a prophet only, and not Divine, then either He was:
a - mad - because He believes Himself to be God, when He is not, or
b - bad - He set out to perpetrate a deception in seeking his own aggrandisement – a con-trick that apparently backfired and got him hung.
Thomas
More on: "I and the Father are one." John 10;30
You say Or, "at unity." Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation
That's your qualification unfounded by the text, or by the Greek lexicon:
Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, - This is the Greek cardinal number – how does 'one' as 'one thing' signify a cooperation of more than one, or many things?
To prove your point, you must show where this word in common usage to imply co-operation. I've checked a significant number of scriptural references and can find none (so far) that imply a collective or cooperative singularity.
+++
Let's look at this another way:
Jesus was addressing an audience – be it the disciples or the mass of the people – who were fiercely monotheistic, and the above text is one among a number which seem to indicate Jesus' affirmation of his Divinity.
Now, I argue that if Jesus had meant sonship by co-operation, by analogy, not in any real sense, but only relatively, then He would have said so, to not have done so is tantamount to suggesting that He was intentionally vague as a means of misleading if not actually deceiving his audience.
Remember that He was accused of blasphemy on more than one occasion, and eventually crucified for it, so we can be sure that his audience did not interpret his words as you choose to.
From this we can draw the following conclusion, the argument posited by C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, among others:
If Jesus was indeed a prophet only, and not Divine, then either He was:
a - mad - because He believes Himself to be God, when He is not, or
b - bad - He set out to perpetrate a deception in seeking his own aggrandisement – a con-trick that apparently backfired and got him hung.
Thomas
Hi Bananabrain –
this is such a stupid argument. as i have pointed out about 80 times, the same person can have more than one name, title or way of being referred to,
In the Catholic/Orthodox traditions, this is 'modalism' and an error, as the names refer to a unity by relation only, not a unity in essence.
Thomas
this is such a stupid argument. as i have pointed out about 80 times, the same person can have more than one name, title or way of being referred to,
In the Catholic/Orthodox traditions, this is 'modalism' and an error, as the names refer to a unity by relation only, not a unity in essence.
Thomas
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
i have no idea what that actually means, though. would you mind explaining it?
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
lunamoth
Episcopalian
S
Silas
Guest
I believe Jehovah of the OT is Jesus of the NT.
God's name under the old covenant was Jehovah.
God's name under the new covenant is Jesus.
So, which "person" overthrew Sodom?
BTW, haven't you been told that it is very naughty to use the word "separate" when talking about the three persons
Your theology is new to me. Do you adhere to modalism? God is such a hard suject to grasp. The truth is, we will never be able to understand Him (not this side of eternity, at least). I just calm my hurting brain with both affairming and resting in scripture. The scriptures say that God is ONE. Yet still, the scriptures say that the one God has three seperate persons; all with their own thoughts and distintion. My finte brian cant grasp it and so Im just left to worship. The Bible calls the Father, Son, and Spirit, God. They all have different distintion and they all have the attributes of God in scripture as well as they all recieve worship as God in scripture. Some how those three seperate beings are One in essence; though they still be seperate. How? I dont know? Does your brain hurt yet?
S
Silas
Guest
Mee, can we PLEASE stick to the topic at hand...please? Pretty please? You seem to always go into something else and we get lost. Lets stay with the script this time. Please no adlibs. Ready? I'm gonna qoute again what I said last time. Please, please, please, with a JW watch tower magazine on top, would you answer the question?
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Jesus is the Messiah.. Prophet, King and Priest all rolled up into one. He is not a liar and He wasnt a crazy man making stuff up.. He claimed to be the Lord of the Old Testament.
Please do not come onto this forum and be disrespectful.. We are not allowed to go to Judaism and do the same thing.. you would put a stop to it immediately being the moderator.. for some reason the Christian mods feel sorry for you and think you are entitled to be a jerk here and wont moderate you.. so I feel like I need to correct you..
Jews are the Fathers of our faith we love you
Some how those three separate beings are One in essence; though they still be separate. How? I don't know? Does your brain hurt yet?
Are you saying the same thing as Thomas in post #52?
Words like "person" and "essence" and "substance" do make my brain hurt!
My understanding of God in the OT, and in the NT, does not require these concepts.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
S
Silas
Guest
Thats a good sign, I feel. It shows that you're human and not as smart as good. Thats a humbling and good thing! As for what Thomas was saying. He was talking about modalistic monarchianism or Modalism. Its a hersey that states God isnt Triune, but instead becomes different modes at different times, e.g, God became the Son in redemption and them became the Spirit in regeneration, and then changed back into the Father. Thats not Bible. The Bible states that God has always been what He is - Triune in nature but One in essence.