well prove by scriptures that 101G is in ERROR.
I already did that.
It was very easy to do.
well prove by scriptures that 101G is in ERROR.
LOL, LOL, meaning you cannot... by... next.I already did that.
It was very easy to do.
101G states correctly that the Lord Jesus is the Father, and the Son
explain please?The longstanding collapsing of everything into the 'One' is based on the error of accepting the Greek view of substance and causality.
LOL, LOL, meaning you cannot... by... next.
101G.
LOL, when one believes a false doctrine, especially when the Lord Jesus say "he", ONE PERSOB, made man male and female in the beginning. and people do not understand what he, God, means when he said Let "US", and "OUR" .... which is he himself to come in flesh, as the ECHAD of "Last". when people cannot understand that, then they are in a false belief."by...next"?
Terrible.
the Lord Jesus say "he", ONE PERSOB,
This current reality, is based upon a will, a consciousness... which Spoke it. And that was not God. Just as the acts of those around you reflect their kind of thinking...and desires and that is not always perfect.explain please?
101G.
Sorry I asked. I need an explanation for your explanation. Actually, forget it. No offense meant, but I don't believe truth requires such a confused and complex mix of words to understand it.no problem. Diversity is nothing but the ECHAD as Ordinal First and Ordinal Last. this word "Diversity" is just another word for " Offspring", (G1085 γένος) or "ANOTHER, (G243 Allos). let's see it in Scripture. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
OFFSPRING: G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096
see, offspring by the KJV can be translated "diversity". and this same word OFFSPRING which express KIN is Correct. because the Lord Jesus is our KINSman Redeemer, because he God came in Flesh to Redeem us.
now this is confirmed in the OT. supportive scripture, Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." here, that Hebrew term "FELLOW" is
H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.
note definition #2. first, concretely, meaning in Flesh bone and blood. and second, kindred man. there it is KINSman, or Another. as the KJV can translate it.
now Another. question? the same in the ECHAD of Equal share, .... "Diversity" or separate and distinct, as the trinity theory states. well the bible support the ECHAD in EQUAL SHARE. for the term "ANOTHER" is G243 Allos which means, "Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort". the numerical difference in the EQUAL SHARE is clearly expressed by the Bible... i.e. First and Last, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end or Root and Offspring. but it is better seen as Father, Son. this is the numerical difference. now the same sort, meaning the same PERSON. let the dictionary speak. one can find this information online at dictionary.com. here is the link to the term "Sort". https://www.dictionary.com/browse/Sort
noun, 1. a particular kind, species, variety, class, or group, distinguished by a common character or nature: 2. character, quality, or nature. ..... HELLO.
so, from the OT and the NT this Diversity/Another, or the ECHAD of God in the Equal Share is clearly seen. and there are other scriptures, both OT and NT support this Diversity/the ECHAD of God in the Equal Share.
if you have any question, just ask.
all the above definitions are from the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.
only the term "Another"/G243 Allos is from the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
now 101G have given you scripture and dictionary to back up what 101G has printed.
101G.
only in a certain way is that true.well prove by scriptures that 101G is in ERROR.
see, 101G states correctly that the Lord Jesus is the Father, and the Son, who is the Comforter, the advocate, yes the TRUE and "ONLY" TRUE GOD, the Holy Spirit, who holds all the titles in an ECHAD of the EQUAL SHARE of his own-self. now if you cannot understand this, then prove 101G in ERROR by Scriptures, as 101G said.
101G.
His feminine spirit is His core of love.well prove by scriptures that 101G is in ERROR.
see, 101G states correctly that the Lord Jesus is the Father, and the Son, who is the Comforter, the advocate, yes the TRUE and "ONLY" TRUE GOD, the Holy Spirit, who holds all the titles in an ECHAD of the EQUAL SHARE of his own-self. now if you cannot understand this, then prove 101G in ERROR by Scriptures, as 101G said.
101G.
worship means to adore and to love.In Revelation 4 and 5, all creation worships "Him who sits on the throne, and ... the Lamb", yet the Lamb Himself NEVER bows down to worship the ONE "who sits on the throne."
I'm not stupid. You would not have put up the link to "Examining the Oneness Claim ..." if you didn't think that that's where I was coming from.Where did I make such an assertion?
I'm not stupid. You would not have put up the link to "Examining the Oneness Claim ..." if you didn't think that that's where I was coming from.
Once again, I am not Oneness, even though I believe the 3 Persons in the Trinity are each other (I understand that this is not the classical understanding of the Trinity), and yet, at the same time, they are distinct from one another. The article you posted in #88 does what a lot of long drawn-out "examinations" do. It starts with an assumed conclusion and then searches from Genesis to Revelation (and from Jewish Rabbis to "Bible scholars") to prove that conclusion. The problem is the "examination" is NOT the word of God and the in-depth "analyses" also are just the words of men.Examining the Oneness Claim that Jesus is the Father, Department of Christian Defense
“I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father [pros ton patera]” (John 16:28;...christiandefense.org
Once again, I am not Oneness, even though I believe the 3 Persons in the Trinity are each other, and yet, at the same time, they are distinct from one another. The article you posted in #88 does what a lot of long drawn-out "examinations" do. It starts with an assumed conclusion and then searches from Genesis to Revelation (and from Jewish Rabbis to "Bible scholars") to prove that conclusion. The problem is the "examination" is NOT the word of God and the in-depth "analyses" also are just the words of men.
Instead of trusting the word of God as it is, man wants to trust his own thoughts and analyses about the word, and make those his final understanding of the word, which often times is the opposite of what the word simply says, as I believe happens here.
Do you believe the Father is God? I do.
Do you believe the Son is God? I do.
Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God? I do.
So if each of them is God, and there is only One God, then they MUST be each other.