101G
Well-known member
ERROR, "EQUAL SHARE" ECHAD, listen Ordinal First and Ordinal Last..... when will they ever Learn.Even if Jesus was talking to the Father that still means that they are 2 separate people.
101G.
ERROR, "EQUAL SHARE" ECHAD, listen Ordinal First and Ordinal Last..... when will they ever Learn.Even if Jesus was talking to the Father that still means that they are 2 separate people.
Is there a translator in the house who can translate 101G's words into understandable English?ERROR, "EQUAL SHARE" ECHAD, listen Ordinal First and Ordinal Last..... when will they ever Learn.
101G.
God can, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"Is there a translator in the house who can translate 101G's words into understandable English?
No getting around the shared throne , the shared , worship, glory and praise the YHWH declared several times withdrawn never be shared by another.Yes and the Father called the Son "God" - " He (God) says (to the firstborn, i.e. Jesus) ...Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, ... Therefore God, Your God, has anointed you ..." Hebrews 1:8-9 If the Father calls Him God, that's good enough for me. Why is that not good enough for you?
Also, you didn't quote the whole verse, just the part you thought proved your point:
John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ whom You have sent".
Eternal life is not just knowing the Father, but the Father AND the Son - they are a package deal. You can't have One without the other.
In John 5:20, John says the same thing: "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE. LITTLE CHILDREN, GUARD YOURSELVES FROM IDOLS."
So being in the Father and in His Son Jesus Christ IS HAVING THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE. ANYTHING ELSE IS IDOLATRY.
If we are IN THE FATHER, BUT NOT IN THE SON, then we are committing idolatry.
Tell me Wrangler, in Revelation 5, which is a scene in heaven, when the four living creatures, the twenty-four elders, multiplied millions of angels, and every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, worship Him who sits on the throne (the Father) and the Lamb (the Son, Jesus) - Why is it that the Lamb Himself does not turn around and fall before the Father to worship Him?
EVERY OTHER CREATED BEING OR THING WORSHIPED THE FATHER. WHY NOT THE LAMB?
correct, the Son is God/YHWH in the ECHAD as the EQUAL SHARE of himself.Conclusion: the Son is YHWH and equal with the Father and receives the identical worship , praise, honor and glory as the Father.
Let's look at Deu 6:4:God can, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258
definition #2. see it? now follow. the LORD here is the First.... correct. now this, 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."
THE "FIRST" IS "WITH" THE "LAST?" is this two persons? let the bible tell us, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." now, how many person is I? one... lol, see you have no clue of the ECHAD
now, the EQUAL SHARE, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
remember the "WITH" above in Isaiah? the Lord Jesus NATURE/Form is equal with, not equal to, but with. how do 101G know this? for the Root word for form
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
is
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something). NOW, WHAT IS ANOTHER WORD FOR "PORTION", OR "ALLOTTED?" ANSWER, "SHARE". LOOK IT UP PLEASE.
this is why You are IGNORANT of God Nature. pick up a dictionary sometimes........ok.
101G
LOL, personal oponion.... trash can, Get a KJV.What you're trying to do is the following:
(Deu 6:4) Hear, O Israel,The Lordour God is one Lord.
Sorry, I cannot buy that manipulation attempt.
get a KJV ...... (smile).Mind you, if you look at the Greek, it's not so straight forward. I need to investigate further the κύριος εἷς ἐστιν portion.
(Deu 6:4) Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
Yea, put that KJV in the trash can. The KJV is the worst translation available today in English.LOL, personal oponion.... trash can, Get a KJV.
get a KJV ...... (smile).
101G
The Greek OT (LXX) is what the Apostles used to write their Epistles. Between the KJV and the Greek LXX, I'll take the Greek LXX. Sorry.LOL, personal oponion.... trash can, Get a KJV.
get a KJV ...... (smile).
101G
What? You cannot even follow one of the first rules of Bible interpretation? CONTEXT!! You can't even see that the author of Hebrews MAKES JESUS THE ENTIRE THEME of chapter one? Not David.No, he did not. The Father said over and over again that he is the only God.
You are quoting from Hebrews, which is quoting from Psalms written by and about David.
Your flippant attitude towards God's word is unconscionable!This is another attempt at a back door rationalization, an Appeal to Ignorance. X did not happen, which proves Y.
There are many chapters of the people were peple did not fall down and worship the Father. That does not make all those people God.
LOL. The entire Bible* is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day! How about that for CONTEXT?What? You cannot even follow one of the first rules of Bible interpretation? CONTEXT!!
You can't even hold to the specific topic in a debate. let along the context of a specific Bible passage. We were talking about Hebrews 1, and apparently you're not able to refute my interpretation of those verses, so you dodge that and go for monotheistic Jews who reject the trinity. I would be glad to discuss that, after you defend your position that Hebrews 1 is primarily about David, which you failed to do. Or will you just do another "hit and run"?LOL. The entire Bible* is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day! How about that for CONTEXT?
With possible exception of Luke.
Getting people to stay on point is difficult at times. I hope to see you guys in a good dialogue with Hebrews 1.You can't even hold to the specific topic in a debate. let along the context of a specific Bible passage. We were talking about Hebrews 1, and apparently you're not able to refute my interpretation of those verses, so you dodge that and go for monotheistic Jews who reject the trinity. I would be glad to discuss that, after you defend your position that Hebrews 1 is primarily about David, which you failed to do. Or will you just do another "hit and run"?
LOL. You brought up context.You can't even hold to the specific topic in a debate.
What Bible are you reading? My Bible says that God is greater than Jesus, knows more than Jesus, sent Jesus, told Jesus what to say and how to say it. Jesus submitted to the will of God and died as God willed. God is eternal, unchanging and cannot die. All this is THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF being the same plane, category and essesnce.it is absolutely obvious that Jesus is "on the same level, on the same plane, in the same category, of the same essence, as God Himself
Of course the lamb is created. "The lamb" is a short hand as "the son" is a short hand. Both are properly speaking OF God. The lamb of God is how you know is NOT God.THE LAMB WAS NOT AND IS NOT A CREATED BEING?
The fact that you're not even curious about why the Lamb Himself would not worship the Father, not even in heaven itself - reveals not only your attitude but also confirms that ...
This is another attempt at a back door rationalization, an Appeal to Ignorance. X did not happen, which proves Y.
I thoroughly addressed your rebuttal that Hebrews 1 is primarily about David in #251. Instead of showing me where I misinterpreted Hebrews 1, your response was to switch topics to monotheistic Jews who reject the Trinity. However, let me try to get this back on track. Most likely, the author of Hebrews was a monotheistic Jew, who probably never even heard of the Trinity. However, he DID quote the Father, in chapter one, calling His Son "God" twice and "Lord" once, so it's very likely that He did believe that Jesus was Himself God, and that the Holy Spirit was God. The apostle John believed Jesus was God, so did Matthew, Paul did, Peter did, Isaiah believed the Son was God, Micah did, and others did. So to assert that the entire Bible was written by monotheistic Jews who rejected the Trinity is false - I think they believed in the concept of the Trinity, even though it had not yet been called that.LOL. You brought up context.
Rather than address my rebuttal, you resort to Ad Hominem.