Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Thus says TWM the Trinitarian and HIS opponent 101G the anti-Trinitarian we will discuss this later.
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.
- Thread starter Towerwatchman
- Start date
why try to put words in my mouth, when did I say I'm anti-Trinitarian? find that post.
PICJAG, 101G.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
I too believe Jesus is God!
But can you clarify your Trinitarian view since you said this before...
So...
Which noun is the word God in your QUESTION above?
1) first center of consciousness
2) second center of consciousness
3) third center of consciousness
4) one being
5) divine nature
6) other, please explain
Which noun is the word God in your ANSWER above?
Can you clearly document where it says the Logos was Jesus before the Word became flesh?
But you can not clearly document that Jesus was the Word before the Word became flesh.
Why do you keep listing John 17:5 when has been explained to you many times since he was on earth and was known as Jesus he could not have said I the Word was with you before creation began and he now has to speak in the present tense and say I was with you before creation began? The fact is you will never be able to clearly document there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh and instead you all have to make a scripture say something it does not. I am still waiting for concrete documentation of there being a Son of God before the Word became flesh?
Plus you are saying Jesus was there before the Word became flesh and the Word was there too. You can not have the Word and Jesus there before the Word became flesh and then the Word becomes flesh and you then have Jesus. Jesus as the Word as you are trying to say can not become Jesus too.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Do you mean Jesus Christ The Son of God OR Jesus Christ The Man???
johnny guitar
Well-known member
WHO was WITH The Father sharing ALL glory BEFORE the world was?????
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Notice the hypocrisy and duplicity.
You are upset because I posted the following.
"Thus says TWM the Trinitarian and HIS opponent 101G the anti-Trinitarian we will discuss this later."
Why would you conclude that I am writing about you in the following? Is it because of "His"
"His" =belonging to or associated with a male person or animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
Are you concluding that 101G is associated with the person previously mentioned TWM, thus establishing two individuals?
Then be consistent.
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me, there is no God."
"YHWH The Lord of Host" is associated with the person previously mentioned "YHWH The King of Israel", thus establishing two individuals.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
The fourth noun would be the 'being'. Notice a square is made of four lines. So when we describe a square as four lines we are using five nouns.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
The polite thing would be to answer my question before you ask yours.
So therefore, tell us, who was the Logos before the incarnation?
Ignorance will not get you anywhere. YHWH is JESUS. the Lord of Host.
and as for this subject, it is closed for me I know who the "his" is in the verse, so argue with yourself,
2 Timothy 2:16 "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."
please READ my motto below...
PICJAG, 101G.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Concrete evidence you have been given. Seems what you want is direct evidence that Jesus is the Logos. A verse that states explicitly “Jesus is the Logos”. So let’s handle this as it would be handled in the highest arena of truth. = A Court of Law.
The following might help.
Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, does not prove something on its own but points us in the right direction by proving something related to the question at hand.
Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to greater weight than the other.”
The nature of circumstantial evidence is such that any one piece of evidence may be interpreted in more than one way. For this reason, jurors have to be careful not to infer something from a single piece of evidence. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a powerful collection, however, and each additional piece collaborates those that came before until, together, they strongly support one inference over another. An explanation derived from circumstantial evidence becomes more reasonable as the collection of corroborating evidence grows and the alternative explanation has been deemed unreasonable. [Cold Case Christianity]
The Scriptural evidence that Jesus is the Logos is circumstantial, but internally the verses do not disagree with each other but support each other, and as more and more are accumulated builds a powerful collection of scripture that points to only one conclusion. = Jesus is the Logos in John 1:1.
In a Court of Law, it would be reasonable to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is the Logos in John 1:1.
Hint. It is poor scholarship to keep asking for evidence that you know does not exist. {Explicit} And it is dishonest scholarship to keep ignoring evidence that satisfies your requirements. [Circumstantial]
God Bless
TWM
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
So you have a motto, And????? How does that apply to "His" in Isa 44:6?
Yahchristian
Well-known member
For context, here was your question and answer...
"How can Jesus’ blood be God’s blood? Simple Jesus is God."
So...
Which noun is the word God in your QUESTION above?
1) first center of consciousness
2) second center of consciousness
3) third center of consciousness
4) the being
5) the divine nature
6) other, please explain
Which noun is the word God in your ANSWER above?
It seems you may be answering 4 to both questions. But I would like for you to confirm that.
meaning don't be ignorant when knowledge is available. and right here in, Genesis 1:1 that is knowledge to Isaiah 44:6 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
BEGINNING: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218
My source for the definition, Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.
this KNOWLEDGE gives us the UNDERSTANDING of God as the the ECHAD of himself as the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" this same "LORD", all caps as in Isaiah 44:6
well, well, well, now what do Genesis 1:1 in the "BEGINNING" have to do with Deuteronomy 6:4? it establish the "LORD" .... as in Isaiah 44:6 as the "FIRST" who is "GOD" in Genesis 1:1. do you follow so far?
see, in Isaiah 44:6 you clain that "LORD" the King of Israel is not the same one person as the REDEEMER, who is the "LORD"... hello, of hosts. well that ignorance at it's best. for the REDEEMER is the SAVIOUR. and the Saviour is GOD who is the "FIRST". lets see it in scriptures. listen and LEARN, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." is this not the Lord JESUS who saves us? yes, because he SAVED us, and Listen as to who the saviour is, "behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you."
NOW is the REDEEMER, and the SAVIOUR is the SAME ONE "PERSON", the "LORD?", let the bible tell us. Isaiah 49:26 "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob."
Towerwatchman, did you here "GOD?" if you didn't listen again, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer"
did you see the word, "THY" saviour, and "THY" Redeemer, as in 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."
his is in reference to Jacob, Israel, .... HIS REDEEMER, is "THY", (Jacob, Israel), REDEEMER. it is Jacob, Israel who is being redeemed.
but the the scripture that sank your boat is Isaiah 49:26, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob".
yes, the SAME ONE "LORD" who is GOD, in Deuteronomy 6:4. the same ONE "GOD" who who came and REDEEMED, and SAVE us from our sins. (Isaiah 35:4), the SAME ONE "LORD" in Isaiah 49:26, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer"
can you see now? that the LORD is Saviour, and Redeemer, the same One person.
and who is he the saviour and redeemer of? listen, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob"
Jacob? is this what I told you before? .......... yes, you need to READ my motto below. and re-read it so more.......
YIKES!.PICJAG, 101G.
PS, now how do we say "MOTTO?".... just READ BELOW, and LEARN.
Exactly all you have is circumstantial evidence and I am talking about direct evidence that we know does not exist that there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh. Just say you are only able to present circumstantial evidence for there being a Son of God before the Word became flesh and do not say I have been given concrete evidence like you said above.
It was not Jesus or God would clearly have let us know there was a Jesus before the Word became flesh.
The Word because the Word became flesh and only then is there a documented Jesus.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
I asked this question in two different threads...
You first gave this answer in one thread...
Then five minutes later you gave this answer in the other thread...
You first gave this answer in one thread...
Then five minutes later you gave this answer in the other thread...