󠅤 The Lord sent Jesus Christ

[101G]

Its time you submit to the Bible and its truth instead of your modalism/oneness heresy.

well it's time you submit to the bible, and TRUTH.

Listen, 101G can careless if the verses was speaking about ho chi minh. 101G is only interested in what the verses says. ONLY “ONE” PERSON has Eternal Life. Be ye it the Lord Jesus or ho chi minh. The point is this… Only means, and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively. Only one person, your Father, or your Son, ONLY “ONE PERSON has eternal Life. Which eliminates your other two persons.

101G

 

[civic]

well it's time you submit to the bible, and TRUTH.

Listen, 101G can careless if the verses was speaking about ho chi minh. 101G is only interested in what the verses says. ONLY “ONE” PERSON has Eternal Life. Be ye it the Lord Jesus or ho chi minh. The point is this… Only means, and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively. Only one person, your Father, or your Son, ONLY “ONE PERSON has eternal Life. Which eliminates your other two persons.

101G

I gave you plenty of Scriptures refuting your false teaching about the Father and the Son.

Its time for you to repent and take correction from Jesus and the Apostles. You place yourself above Them. Its very Saducee ....................

hope this helps !!!

 

[101G]

I gave you plenty of Scriptures refuting your false teaching about the Father and the Son.

Its time for you to repent and take correction from Jesus and the Apostles. You place yourself above Them. Its very Saducee ....................

hope this helps !!!

plenty of scriptures want help you. if one scripture contradict all your scriptures then you're caught in a ERROR.

now last time do you agree with this verse, 1 Timothy 6:16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

101G can careless if this "Who" is invisible, short, tall, hair or no hair, the only thing 101G is concerned about is this WHO here in the verse is the "ONLY" one that is eternal. YES, or NO?

101G.

 

[civic]

plenty of scriptures want help you. if one scripture contradict all your scriptures then you're caught in a ERROR.

now last time do you agree with this verse, 1 Timothy 6:16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

101G can careless if this "Who" is invisible, short, tall, hair or no hair, the only thing 101G is concerned about is this WHO here in the verse is the "ONLY" one that is eternal. YES, or NO?

101G.

its the Father

next fallacy

your read your false teaching into every passage about God, God the Father and God the Son.

 

[101G]

its the Father

next fallacy

your read your false teaching into every passage about God, God the Father and God the Son.

so you lied in that you believe in a three-person Godhead.
LOL, Oh my God. the context is about the Lord Jesus, and yes he JESUS is Father, and by him being the "ONLY" ONE who has Eternal LIFE, again that eliminates YOUR other two so-called persons as eternal.

you need not to reply, for you're expose. the only.... and "only" .... thing for you to do is go back and re-learn the truth.

hope this help

good day, in much GL.

101G

 

[civic]

so you lied in that you believe in a three-person Godhead.
LOL, Oh my God. the context is about the Lord Jesus, and yes he JESUS is Father, and by him being the "ONLY" ONE who has Eternal LIFE, again that eliminates YOUR other two so-called persons as eternal.

you need not to reply, for you're expose. the only.... and "only" .... thing for you to do is go back and re-learn the truth.

hope this help

good day, in much GL.

101G

More false accusations just like your false teachings about the Father and the Son. You are now resorting to the accuser of the brethren. This lets us know who your real father is.

 

[Red Baker]

not trying to get into your conversation,

No problem, it is an open forum for discussions, as long as we all do this in a respectfully manner, I truly was not in a personal debates/discussion with anyone.

but "Son" here is not biological in nature.

That's strange, no pun intended, but that sounds a little like something some liberal Politian's would say in the twenty-first century. There are only two genders, that is ~ in a biological/generation sense.

Son here It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristic, or character.

What do you mean by the word here? Also, son according to any obstetricians, or OBs will tell you that son, or daughter means what sex organ one has in their private part at birth.

When my second daughter was born back fifty four years years ago, a nurse came out and said to me, you have a son ~just a few minutes later the doctor came out and said you have a daughter, I said no, I have son, he said who told you that, and I told him, and he said, well I delivered her and she a girl, all girl, and she was. The nurse I assumed saw the umbilical cord with a quick glanced and told me it is a boy.

I believe (regardless of modern man said) you are what you are born with in your private parts, and that can be known the very second one see the light of day ~ actually, before then, one of my granddaughters is expecting a child and she knows already in her 16th week it is male child/son.

Enough on this point.

 

[101G]

More false accusations just like your false teachings about the Father and the Son. You are now resorting to the accuser of the brethren. This lets us know who your real father is.

no, my Father is not a GROUP of Three, and second, 101G will repent in calling you a Lier. you didn't lie, but was taught in ERROR, so 101G apologize for that. because that is not your fault in being taught wrong. but now that truth has come if you prefer to stay in a ERROR on the Godhead, then that's on YOU.

101G.

 

[Runningman]

Replying to the O.P.
the Lord is JESUS, who is God in the ECHAD of LORD/First and Lord/Last.

101G.

That's not what the Bible says. Did you come to that conclusion by piecing verses together?

 

[Runningman]

Greetings Runningman,

I believe in the incarnate Sonship of Jesus Christ, we do not believe and neither do we teach in the RCC doctrine that espouses the Trinity of the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ as promoted by the Nicene creed.


So much heresies in this short confession of faith. We do not beleive and neither do we teach in the the beginning was The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in the beginning was God, period, without qualifications. God is a Spirit that inhabits eternity, eternal both ways.

Isaiah 57:15​

“For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.”

Please be patience and let me give you my understanding of the Godhead, it will take a few posts.

I reject the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ, being begotten before all worlds.

Question #1~ Can true Divinity be deprived or propagated? The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures. What is real Divinity of the Most High God? The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind.

The answer to that questions is NO! So how can one believe in eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ? A Sonship relationship that was before the biblical testimony of Luke 1:11-35. I must stand upon God's own testimony of the conception of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Man.

Question #2~ Can there be true Divinity where any of these attributes are wanting in question #1? Surely not.

And we ask~"How can eternal generation of the Son of God be accepted as biblical truth, and for those still holding such doctrine still contend that Jesus Christ is self-existence and independent"? We shall prove that this is an impossibility and a contradiction of terms used in the eternal Sonship defense.

Those that hold to the incarnate Sonship and reject the eternal Sonship are the only ones that can explain and make sense that Jesus Christ is the Everlasting Father of all things~the I AM THAT I AM. We contend that Jesus Christ the Son of God possessed real Divinity that was underived in any sense. There is no possible medium. Either it is so, or not so. We know that Jesus Christ was God manifested in flesh before Jews and Gentiles and that he preached unto both, and both rejected him, and devils trembled before, for they knew him.

If we speak of Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God, then we must be able to comprehensibly define our terms used or confess that we are using terms that teach doctrines against the Son of God, of which the eternal Sonship position does, for no man living can comprehensibly define the eternal Sonship position, without making Jesus a begotten god. It can not be done.

The sum of this point is this: Those that use terms, such as eternal Sonship, eternal generation, in relation to God or Christ, ought at least to be able and willing to tell their own meaning in the use of those terms, or not use them. Fair enough?

I want to give you not only reasons why we reject the eternal Sonship, but would like to ask you, or anyone some questions, I have about ten or so. Consider:

When stripped of all artificial verbiage, the naked question returns: Is Jesus Christ absolutely, eternally independently, underived, the very Supreme and eternal God, that the word of God declares him to be?

We say, yes he is! That is why we must reject eternal generation in any way presented to us by men who profess to be wise. I would like to consider a few reasons why I know that the eternal Sonship position is a serious error.

Reason #1~The Eternal Sonship is a dogma that is discredited logically by self contradiction. To contend that Jesus was eternally begotten is a manifest contradiction of term. We ask: can an object begin and not begun? No. The saying within itself is most absurd. Why do not people consider this, and understand it? Acts 28:25-27 is the answer.

Please consider carefully: Eternity is that which has no beginning, nor stands in reference to time~Son supposes time, generation, and father; time is also antedent to such generation~therefore, the conjunction of the two terms: Son and eternity~is absolutely impossible as they imply different and opposite ideal. Words must have meaning, or else, how can we communicate with each other on a level where we can understand each other? I understand eternity and I also understand the word son, and so do my readers, and we should know how to use each word properly, without confusing the meaning of either.

Just getting started.

Thanks for sharing what you believe and that explains a lot. It seems you are not an orthodox Trinitarian which is nice to discuss sometimes.

So, would you say it is fair to say that, considering you have said "We do not beleive and neither do we teach in the the beginning was The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in the beginning was God, period, without qualifications..." that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not God, but are rather vessels or avatars used or inhabited by God? In a round about way, you are a Unitarian, but more fittingly you seem to be of the Oneness Pentecostal variety?

 

[Red Baker]

So, would you say it is fair to say that, considering you have said "We do not beleive and neither do we teach in the the beginning was The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I do not believe that, since there's no scriptures to support this teaching. Only in the sense of God purposing all things after the council of His own will before the foundation of the world. But God did not have a Son until around two thousand years ago, when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Highest, and was born of a virgin, the "only" record we have as to when God's Son was conceived and born.

that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not God, but are rather vessels or avatars used or inhabited by God?

I'm not saying that, because they are ~ it is a NT revelation, but it is only true according to each respective work in the redemption of God's people ~ in this sense there are three people, but one God.

In a round about way, you are a Unitarian, but more fittingly you seem to be of the Oneness Pentecostal variety?

No, I'm more in the middle of both sides of the debate. I'll post later on this.

I do not know what the Oneness Pentecostals teach as far as truly reading behind them, I know they believe different than the eternal Sonship group, but other than that, I truly do not know their teaching in depth, so I cannot honestly comment concerning their teaching, and the reason being, I never desire to look into them is because of their overall teaching, which is against the scriptures.

 

[Red Baker]

Question #4~ "Is it so, that there are many representations in the scriptures that teach that the Godhead in some mysterious sense is three, yet essentially ONE?"

It is very much so. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen" 2 Corinthians 13:14....The holy scriptures teaches us that in some mysterious scriptural sense, the Godhead are three, yet we know that there are titles, found in the scriptures of the name of God, that can be applied to each one of them individually, interchangeable, and equally. This is very important to remember. In innumerable scriptures, God, and Christ, are spoken of as two persons, yet are presented in an essential unity as one; so that each may affirm, that there is no other God besides Himself. This is important to remember. There are not two distinct Gods ~ together, they are ONE God!

The Divine nature of Christ, does all that God does equally ~ he is not absent; nor is he another God, but and the same God! And Yet, there is a personal and real distinction between God the Eternal Spirit, and Jesus his Son. The deity of Jesus Christ is not and cannot be excluded from any transactions done by God before the creation of the world, during the OT times before the birth of Jesus, and throughout eternity. They are essential ONE and CAN NOT be separated into two or three.

When we read that the Son created the worlds, then we understand that that is speaking of his Divine Nature ONLY, of being the I am THAT I AM. This is not really too deep, just following God's own witness to us concerning these things and giving the scriptures their proper senses.

When reading such scriptures as 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Corinthians 10:4-5; Romans 8:9; and 1 Peter 3:18-19; and others, then we understand that Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Man (which is used twice as many times as the Son of God in the bible) was a complex person, both God, and man, and the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ is none other than the One and True God that is from everlasting to everlasting, and these two in the word of God are essentially and scripturally by God's own testimony ONE.

Question #5~ "Can the Most High thus address a derived, dependent being, as God, without establishing idolatry?"

Absolutely not! Yet the Most High God did address his Son as God.

Hebrews 1:8~ Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne O God, is forever and ever."

So, Jesus is the Son, yet is God that shall reign forever and ever. That will come to pass the scriptures that are written: "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God." Matthew 5:8 and many more ~ Rev. 21:3,22,23; Rev. 22:3,4,9,16,19-20.

Question #6~ "Did Paul, or any other apostles, or prophets, ever lead us to believe that Jesus and God, were not essentially one." Never! But, what they taught us plainly was that Jesus was indeed God blessed for ever. Paul said these words: Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." ~Romans 9:5

Question #7~"Can a derived and dependent person be Almighty?"

Most certainly not! Yet, Jesus was the mighty God promised by the prophets as we read from Isaiah 9:6. Jesus called himself the Almighty, listen to his own words: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, which is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:1:8

If Jesus was the beginning of all things, and he was, then he was not the eternal Son, because, the word son, by definition, proves a beginning~if he is Almighty, and he is, then no one is greater than he is, none. He alone will be worshiped in that world to come, for he will reign as King forever more, world without end.

Question #8~From the great work, which was assigned to Jesus Christ, light is cast upon this important subject at hand. So we ask the conscience of every person taught in the sentiments of the gospel ~ Was not an infinite atonement necessary and demanded, according to the word of God, to take away our sins?" Again, "was not the righteousness of a perfect man, whose righteousness was equal to God, necessary to avail for sinful and lost man; in order to redeem him from sin and condemnation and to give the redeem person an entitlement to eternal life? Only Jesus Christ, who was both the Son of God, and as well, the Son of Man, could have been that perfect atonement for our sins. It was by one man that sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon all men, because all sinned in their father Adam. Jesus Christ was that perfect man, for he was the Son of God, begotten by him in the womb of a virgin named Mary.

We have the record of his birth recorded for us in the holy scriptures. The only record /witness, that we have of God's Son coming into being the Son of God, there is not another, but the one recorded in Luke 1. Any other witness is a lie and only vain speculations of man not receiving the witness of the Spirit of God, but are guilty of following what others teach concerning the Sonship of God's holy child.

Question #9~"Did Jesus Christ have a beginning?~Or, in order for us to help those who reading this to better follow God's word/witness to us, concerning His Son, we could ask also ask this question, with the one at the beginning of this sentence: Did Jesus have a beginning?"

The scriptures very carefully divide and protect the identity of Jesus Christ; and so should we. The questions above demand for us to stay within the bounds of the scriptures, as we should always do, to find our answers; for the answers to our questions are: yes and no.

Most should know that the name of Christ, speaks to his deity, and proves that he was indeed the Son of the Living God; whereas Jesus, is his earthly name, and speaks and proves his humanity. There was, and can be, only one Jesus Christ; for God had only one begotten Son, begotten by the power of the Highest in a womb of a virgin woman of Adam's race, named Mary.

Jesus Christ had no beginning! The scriptures are very plain concerning this truth.

1 John 1:1..."That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

This scripture gets lost among people's favorites, yet this scripture is powerful to the regenerate mind and lover of the word of God.

The God that created all things that have always been from the beginning, or from eternity, made himself visible, to human beings in the person of His Son, whom he had begotten, by his Spirit in the womb of Mary. The Infinite, Glorious Spirit, purpose and planned every perfect detail of his holy event~"God was manifested in the flesh"~ seen of angels, (for the first time!) and preached unto sinners, and allowed men like John to lay his head on his chest, and allowed sinners to even spit in his face! I cannot even begin to express, nor do I have the ability, to express in words, how great our God is, and the length he went to redeem his chosen race!

John said it so plain: "that which was from the beginning." There is no room for debate; Jesus Christ was the Word of Life, that had no beginning! The eternal Sonship doctrine by definition goes against the scriptures before us. By definition, (as we have proven,) that eternal and son cannot be used together, for son, by definition, brings with it a beginning, or words cease to have any meaning, and anyone can use words to teach anything!

1 John 2:13a.... "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning...."

John 1:1...."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD."

In 1 John 1:1~John called Jesus Christ, the Word of life. Paul said by him all things consist, for he created all things, for he alone is the Word of Life. Paul said again, "Who is the image of the invisible God-" Colossians 1:15

Jesus Christ is not the second person of the Trinity~HE IS GOD! period! He was not conceived in the beginning~he was God FROM THE BEGINNING that created all things!

John 1:13.... "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

God was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. The Word was not begotten by the power of the Highest, Jesus, the Son of God was begotten. The Word that was from the beginning, joined himself to the tabernacle (fleshly body of Jesus) and lived among men. The Eternal Spirit of God never ceased to be who he is~A SPIRIT that inhabiteth eternity, who rules over all of his creation! Read Isaiah 57:15 and John 4:24!!

Jesus had a beginning, and it is clearly revealed for us in the NT from Luke 1. We know his mother and who his suppose father~Joseph. We know where he lived and where he died. Jesus was fully man and fully God, and two natures never interfere with his work of redemption but worked in perfect harmony to accomplish God's eternal purpose which he purposed in himself. Eph. 1:9

 

[101G]

@Runningman,

Replying to the O.P.
the Lord is JESUS, who is God in the ECHAD of LORD/First and Lord/Last.

101G.

Runningman clearly said, "That's not what the Bible says. Did you come to that conclusion by piecing verses together?"


Let's see what the Bible says. 101G came to that conclusion on what the bible say. Listen and Learn. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." Runningman, the bible said, the LORD is the First... and with ..... the Last. so, what is the Lord in Flesh and Bone, the Last, as in Last Adam, meaning Lord, as in Jesus Christ the Lord, remember he said, John 13:13 "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am."

so, is the LORD, whom you know as Father, the First ...... is he also the Last, the Son the Lord? let's see what the bible say. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." BINGO.

conclusion as to WHAT THE BIBLE SAY, the "Lord" the Last, is the "LORD", the First. just as the book of revelation clearly states, Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."

you are reproved.

101G.

 

[Runningman]

@Runningman,

Runningman clearly said, "That's not what the Bible says. Did you come to that conclusion by piecing verses together?"


Let's see what the Bible says. 101G came to that conclusion on what the bible say. Listen and Learn. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." Runningman, the bible said, the LORD is the First... and with ..... the Last. so, what is the Lord in Flesh and Bone, the Last, as in Last Adam, meaning Lord, as in Jesus Christ the Lord, remember he said, John 13:13 "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am."

so, is the LORD, whom you know as Father, the First ...... is he also the Last, the Son the Lord? let's see what the bible say. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." BINGO.

conclusion as to WHAT THE BIBLE SAY, the "Lord" the Last, is the "LORD", the First. just as the book of revelation clearly states, Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."

you are reproved.

101G.

So the first and last is not inherently immortal? Sometimes it's better to ask the right questions.

Revelation 1 (KJV)
17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

[101G]

So the first and last is not inherently immortal? Sometimes it's better to ask the right questions.

Revelation 1 (KJV)
17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

the FIRST and the LAST is the ONLY IMMORTAL ... ONE and not ONES. for the First and Last is the same one person as previous stated in

• #906

and revelation of 1:17? what died? flesh or Spirit? only flesh, which is the first death.

101G.

 

[Peterlag]

the FIRST and the LAST is the ONLY IMMORTAL ... ONE and not ONES. for the First and Last is the same one person as previous stated in

• #906

and revelation of 1:17? what died? flesh or Spirit? only flesh, which is the first death.

101G.

“I am the first and the last.” The phrase “the first and the last” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (Isa. 44:6; 48:12), and three times in Revelation of the Son (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). Trinitarians make the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the Son, they must both be God. However, there is no biblical justification on which to base that assumption. When the whole of Scripture is studied, we can see that the same titles are used for God, Christ, and men. Examples include Lord, Savior and King of kings. If other titles apply to God, Christ, and men without making all of them into “one God” then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean God and Jesus were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not.

 

[civic]

“I am the first and the last.” The phrase “the first and the last” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (Isa. 44:6; 48:12), and three times in Revelation of the Son (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). Trinitarians make the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the Son, they must both be God. However, there is no biblical justification on which to base that assumption. When the whole of Scripture is studied, we can see that the same titles are used for God, Christ, and men. Examples include Lord, Savior and King of kings. If other titles apply to God, Christ, and men without making all of them into “one God” then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean God and Jesus were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not.

Yet the Bible declares there is only One who is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

You have yourself in a giant pickle with YHWH.

 

[Peterlag]

Yet the Bible declares there is only One who is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

You have yourself in a giant pickle with YHWH.

You are assuming the word beginning must start when God made the stars. The beginning could be when Jesus started his ministry. I have the same conversation with many on here about the word all as it pertains to Colossians where all things were made. It's like the mother that asked the father if there are any cookies left. And the dad said no your son ate all of them last night. That does not mean little Johnny ate all the cookies in the world.

 

[civic]

You are assuming the word beginning must start when God made the stars. The beginning could be when Jesus started his ministry. I have the same conversation with many on here about the word all as it pertains to Colossians where all things were made. It's like the mother that asked the father if there are any cookies left. And the dad said no your son ate all of them last night. That does not mean little Johnny ate all the cookies in the world.

Only YHWH is identified as the First and the Last and besides Him there is no other god. Read and believe God and not the teaching of man you believe in.

 

[101G]

“I am the first and the last.” The phrase “the first and the last” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (Isa. 44:6; 48:12), and three times in Revelation of the Son (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). Trinitarians make the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the Son, they must both be God. However, there is no biblical justification on which to base that assumption. When the whole of Scripture is studied, we can see that the same titles are used for God, Christ, and men. Examples include Lord, Savior and King of kings. If other titles apply to God, Christ, and men without making all of them into “one God” then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean God and Jesus were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not.

first mistake of the day, three times in Isaiah, 1. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." 2. Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." 3. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

and Five times in Revelation. Oh by the way, did you not say you have nothing to do with revelation?... oh well, but 5 times in Revelation. 1. Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." 2. Revelation 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" 3. Revelation 2:8 "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;" 4. Revelation 2:19 "I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first." 5. Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."


NOW, one thing you said is of INTREST, but shows your Lack of UNDERSTANDING, you said,

When the whole of Scripture is studied, we can see that the same titles are used for God, Christ, and men. Examples include Lord, Savior and King of kings. If other titles apply to God, Christ, and men without making all of them into “one God” then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean God and Jesus were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not.

not in context, but please show where these titles apply to men, if you like we can discuss, NOT ARGUE, but discuss, the term saviour which apply to men and women. but the titles "Lord", and not "lord" are only applied to God .... in context. as well as King and king. so, if you like we can start with "saviour", you have the floor.

in Much GL.

101G.