Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two Videos that solidifies the Three in One and puts oneness to rest.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Neal View Post

    Crickets from TrueBlue. Lots of thunder and no rain.
    The projection is strong with this one. I create a topic, the thread itself, use scripture to back up my assertions, and the only response I get is equivalent to nu-huh. You spout conjecture and wild claims without any support for those claims. You try and say I cherry pick scripture, when I ask what part of the scripture you have a problem with, you state you don't have a problem with the scriptures but my use of them. Then you tell me to pick a topic?! When I point back to the OP you claim I have nothing to say. You have not responded to the topic whatsoever.

    Let me clarify it for you. The topic is, The Trinity and the scriptural proofs for the three distinct persons of the Trinity, followed by scriptural proof and explanation of it.

    Now you have your topic. The topic has been supported with scripture, now is you have something showing otherwise outside of "nu-huh", then begin. Or else admit, Oneness has been laid to rest.
    Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' Winston, 1984, George Orwell,

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Neal View Post

      James, this is a continuing concern of yours. What I didn't have time for was to argue against every error on those videos. I still feel that way. I wanted him to give me his strongest point. Since TrueBlue refused I just went with the first point on the video.

      Regarding your question, the one who swore to Abraham was God. The angel of the Lord is a theophany or a temporary manifestation of the LORD. I would like to discuss further. I think that this is a good example and reason why the early Christians who were Jewish didn't have a hard time with believing that Jesus was God and at the same time holding to the strict monotheism of the their Jewish heritage. In other words the Apostles and early Jewish Christians had a high Christology without the doctrine of the Trinity.
      Well neal I'm glad you want to speak further on this subject. Now, you mentioned that it was God who swore the oath and it was God who spoke from heaven to Abraham at Genesis 22. I agree with you that it was God, but why does the text at Genesis 22:11, and 15 through 17 explicitly state it was the angel of the Lord speaking and swearing the oath to Abraham?

      I mean to say why does God speak from heaven at Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:35,36 and yet at Genesis 22 He speaks as the angel of the Lord? Why is there a distinction of persons made in these verses where they are both identified as God? In fact, you have in the NT at Mark 1:11 the following: "and a voice came out of the heavens; Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased." You see neal, this proves there is a distinction of persons within the Trinity who are the one God based on their nature/essence.

      Oh yea, I did read the article you referenced a couple of times and I found it interesting that the author quotes Matthew 23:9 where Jesus is speaking and He says, "And do not call anyone on earth your Father; for one is your Father, HE WHO IS IN HEAVEN." So, even if you say, "Well the Lord God is omnipresent and can be in two places at the same time" this still does not account for them "logically" being two distince persons in their own right.

      In short neal, if God is one person according to you and the article you referenced why is it necessary for the angel of the Lord (at Genesis 22:11,15-17) to speak out of heaven when the author (Moses) could have simple stated that "God spoke out of the heavens and swore the oath?" Even the writer of the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 6:13,14 says, "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, HE SWORD BY HIMSELF, saying, I will surely bless you; and I will surely multiply you," Abraham. This means and can only mean that the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, a theophany/Christophany.

      IN THE ANGEL OF THE LORD,
      james

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Neal View Post

        I'm inferring from your response that you listened to a couple videos and that is the extent of most of your Biblical knowledge here. I'm sorry. When I was a new Christian 35 years ago, I wasn't aware of how false teachers twist and cherry pick scripture to their own agenda. Clearly this is what the video teacher is doing.

        Since you refuse to cooperate with my request to give me something specific, I'll just start with where the video teacher starts - Deuteronomy 6:4 and the Hebrew word Echad which means "one".

        While they acknowledge that the word Echad means "one" like we use the word "one" in English they are teaching that Deuteronomy 6:4 means God is a unity like Adam and Eve are one (echad) flesh in Genesis 2:24 rather than absolutely one. To take a direct quote from the video at 2:39 minutes "In fact there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity".

        I think some Trinitarians may take issue with his use of the word "unity" here, but let me get to my main point.

        Whether Echad means an absolute one in number or a compound unity in the OT depends on the context. Just as we know from the context of the English word "one" about whether it means absolutely one in number or a unity such as Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24. It's clear from Genesis 2:4 that Adam and Eve are two persons or beings and the unity here is regarding their union as husband and wife. If Adam and Eve were gods, then this would be polytheism. Many Trinitarians use the unity of Adam and Eve to illustrate the unity of the triune God, but this analogy is totally polytheistic in its implications.

        So, the video teaches analogy to Adam and Eve in reference to the LORD as Echad is inferring polytheism since Adam and Eve are two beings. Of course that is denied, but the denial is weak.

        Read the context of the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 6:4.

        I've counted the SINGULAR PRONOUNS referring to the LORD in this chapter as this:

        HIS - 8 times
        Him - 2 times
        He - 8 times
        Total of 18 singular pronouns referring to the One LORD of Deuteronomy 6.

        Here is the number of plural pronouns referring to the LORD in this chapter:

        Them, they, us, we, etc: 0 times
        Total of 0 plural pronouns referring to the One LORD of Deuteronomy 6.

        You're being lied to by this video teacher.


        Here is a link that gives a complete breakdown on the word Echad and how it is used in the first five books of the OT - the books of Moses. http://halfshekel.com/echad/index.html

        Echad as a union - 0.8%
        Echad as a quantity - 93%
        Echad as an ordinal - 6.2%


        To put the usage of Echad in perspective, less than 1% of the time does it refer to a unity. That's 1 time in Genesis (Adam and Eve) and 2 times in Exodus.

        There is nothing in Deuteronomy 6 that would suggest we understand Echad as a unity.

        Now for the kicker. Less than 3 minutes into the video he tells an outright lie. He took 2.5 minutes to slowly bait you with a distorted view of Echad and then he drops the bomb...

        "In fact there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity".

        Here are just a sample of scriptures that refute this:

        2 Kings 19:19 Now, LORD our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone, LORD, are God."

        Psalm 86:10 For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God.

        Isaiah 43:10-11 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

        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.

        Isaiah 44:8 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

        Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

        Isaiah 45:21-22 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

        Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,


        Repeated phrases such as By myself, you alone, none else beside me, I AM and the thousands of SINGULAR pronouns in the OT referring to God disagree with the video teacher.

        So, I started the conversion. I'll count on you to stay on subject here.
        Nice and lengthy, but no worries I read it. Look, I acknowledge there are a some places that use the singular form when talking about God. I appreciate the couple of scriptures posted also, nice work. If the verses you posted were the only verses that existed when referring to God, I would be forced to accept your argument, but they aren't.

        Whether Echad means an absolute one in number or a compound unity in the OT depends on the context. Just as we know from the context of the English word "one" about whether it means absolutely one in number or a unity such as Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24. It's clear from Genesis 2:4 that Adam and Eve are two persons or beings and the unity here is regarding their union as husband and wife. If Adam and Eve were gods, then this would be polytheism. Many Trinitarians use the unity of Adam and Eve to illustrate the unity of the triune God, but this analogy is totally polytheistic in its implications.
        Although I agree that the use of Echad is a weak, very weak, In fact personally I would never use it as an argument for the Trinity, I just don't think it's the correct argument. I don't believe you are putting the example of Adam and Eve in its proper context. It's just an example where the word is used to denote unity.
        I'm inferring from your response that you listened to a couple videos and that is the extent of most of your Biblical knowledge here
        Your condescension noted, I have read the bible and studied the Early Christian Fathers. In fact when I first watched the video I thought it was striking how about 50% of the OT video seemed pulled straight from Justyn Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Who makes many of the same arguments about the Angel of the Lord.

        Seeing as you took on the weakest of the arguments in the video, and frankly that is giving it too much credit, what do you think of the Angel of the Lord. I think the video does an ok job as to pointing out that Angel of the Lord is also God. I don't think they did very well showing the distinction between The Angel of the Lord(Jesus) and LORD(Father). The very name I think does enough to explain that. Angel(Messenger, Jesus,) of the LORD(Father). In the following two verses

        Exo 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.
        Exo 23:21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.

        Clearly the LORD(Father) is directing Moses to follow the angel(Jesus). How do we know who this Angel is? Because Moses was to obey him, and the Angel had powers to forgive transgressions.
        Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' Winston, 1984, George Orwell,

        Comment


        • #19
          Blue,

          Nice and lengthy, but no worries I read it. Look, I acknowledge there are a some places that use the singular form when talking about God. I appreciate the couple of scriptures posted also, nice work. If the verses you posted were the only verses that existed when referring to God, I would be forced to accept your argument, but they aren't.
          Some places??? There are literally well over seven thousand singular pronouns referencing God in the Old Testament if you count them. There are exactly four (4) verses in the Old Testament where God says "us" or "our". Four. Two of these four are clearly God speaking to the heavenly host (angel to guard the Garden and to the prophet Isaiah- "send me").
          This leaves two verses! However, even these two verses are not a clear reference to a plurality of Triune persons because in Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language says that the plural "us" in Genesis spoken by God is a "plural of self-deliberation".

          https://hebrewsyntax.org/hebrew_reso...BH)%20EHLL.pdf

          Ephesians 1:11 says "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"

          So you have just two verses with NO clear support for plurality of persons.

          vs.

          Over 7 thousand singular references to God in the Old Testament.


          Although I agree that the use of Echad is a weak, very weak, In fact personally I would never use it as an argument for the Trinity, I just don't think it's the correct argument. I don't believe you are putting the example of Adam and Eve in its proper context. It's just an example where the word is used to denote unity.
          I'm glad you agree with Echad. The Adam and Eve analogy is very popular among Trinitarians to show how God is one.

          Your condescension noted, I have read the bible and studied the Early Christian Fathers. In fact when I first watched the video I thought it was striking how about 50% of the OT video seemed pulled straight from Justyn Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Who makes many of the same arguments about the Angel of the Lord.
          My apologies for condescension. Justin was one of the first to teach the new and developing Logos doctrine and the Logos was something less than the supreme God in his view.

          Seeing as you took on the weakest of the arguments in the video, and frankly that is giving it too much credit, what do you think of the Angel of the Lord. I think the video does an ok job as to pointing out that Angel of the Lord is also God. I don't think they did very well showing the distinction between The Angel of the Lord(Jesus) and LORD(Father). The very name I think does enough to explain that. Angel(Messenger, Jesus,) of the LORD(Father). In the following two verses

          Exo 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.
          Exo 23:21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.

          Clearly the LORD(Father) is directing Moses to follow the angel(Jesus). How do we know who this Angel is? Because Moses was to obey him, and the Angel had powers to forgive transgressions.
          I just took the first one, because you didn't give me what you feel is the strongest argument until now.

          This angel of the Lord was a theophany or a temporary manifestation of the LORD. Many scriptures clearly show that Jesus is the LORD Himself come to us in the flesh. Your scriptures from Exodus are a good example as to why the early Jewish Christians came to have a high Christology and worshipped Jesus while keeping their strict monotheistic Jewish heritage before the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by 3rd century Europeans. Since the earlier theophany's were worshipped as God without attributing to God multiple personalities, it was nature for the early Christians to worship Jesus as the ultimate and permanent image of God's self.

          Comment


          • #20
            So neal, why would you erroneously assume that the infrequent usage of a word or even phrase (even if it's only one) somehow trivializes what is being explicitly said? Proof of something is not based on how many times a word or pharse is used neal. I don't care if it's used a thousand thousand times, if it has another meaning even once that eliminates the thousands of times you think it means the opposite.

            I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. You have at John 14:23 Jesus saying, "If anyone loves Me, He will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him, and make OUR ABODE with Him." Now, you can say till the cows come home that God is one singular person and that one person according to oneness theology is Jesus Christ who is as schmit defines God, "Jesus is the Word, the God, the flesh, the Spirit, the man, the Father, the Son, the Alpha & Omega, the Lord God Almighty, He is all!" then obviously there WOULD BE NO NEED TO DISTINGUISH God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. One would ONLY expect to see the same continued metaphorical applications all throughout the Bible. But YOU DO NOT.

            So here you have, (and I can give numerous other examples) of Jesus distinguishing Himself from His Father at John 14:23 and He uses the pronouns "We and Our" in the same verse. In fact, look at Revelation 3:20 where Jesus is talking again, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I WILL COME IN TO HIM AND WILL DINE WITH HIM, AND HE WITH ME." See what I mean neal? Here you have a singular use of "I" and at John 14:23 you have the pronouns being used, We and Our.

            And this last paragraph of yours is useless, "
            This angel of the Lord was a theophany or a temporary manifestation of the LORD. Many scriptures clearly show that Jesus is the LORD Himself come to us in the flesh. Your scriptures from Exodus are a good example as to why the early Jewish Christians came to have a high Christology and worshipped Jesus while keeping their strict monotheistic Jewish heritage before the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by 3rd century Europeans. Since the earlier theophany's were worshipped as God without attributing to God multiple personalities, it was nature for the early Christians to worship Jesus as the ultimate and permanent image of God's self."

            How come Thomas at John 20:28 who was an orthodox Jew not follow the so-called Jewish heritage of strict monotheism when He clearly worshipped Jesus Christ when He said, "The Lord of me and the God of me?" And don't make me laugh, "as God without attributing to God multiple personanlities?" I don't teach nor do I believe such a thing as God having mulitple personalities like from that movie "Sybll" suffering from dissociative identity disorder. Give me a break neal!

            IN THE ANGEL OF THE LORD,
            james

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by james View Post
              So neal, why would you erroneously assume that the infrequent usage of a word or even phrase (even if it's only one) somehow trivializes what is being explicitly said? Proof of something is not based on how many times a word or pharse is used neal. I don't care if it's used a thousand thousand times, if it has another meaning even once that eliminates the thousands of times you think it means the opposite.

              I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. You have at John 14:23 Jesus saying, "If anyone loves Me, He will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him, and make OUR ABODE with Him." Now, you can say till the cows come home that God is one singular person and that one person according to oneness theology is Jesus Christ who is as schmit defines God, "Jesus is the Word, the God, the flesh, the Spirit, the man, the Father, the Son, the Alpha & Omega, the Lord God Almighty, He is all!" then obviously there WOULD BE NO NEED TO DISTINGUISH God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. One would ONLY expect to see the same continued metaphorical applications all throughout the Bible. But YOU DO NOT.

              So here you have, (and I can give numerous other examples) of Jesus distinguishing Himself from His Father at John 14:23 and He uses the pronouns "We and Our" in the same verse. In fact, look at Revelation 3:20 where Jesus is talking again, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I WILL COME IN TO HIM AND WILL DINE WITH HIM, AND HE WITH ME." See what I mean neal? Here you have a singular use of "I" and at John 14:23 you have the pronouns being used, We and Our.

              And this last paragraph of yours is useless, "
              This angel of the Lord was a theophany or a temporary manifestation of the LORD. Many scriptures clearly show that Jesus is the LORD Himself come to us in the flesh. Your scriptures from Exodus are a good example as to why the early Jewish Christians came to have a high Christology and worshipped Jesus while keeping their strict monotheistic Jewish heritage before the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by 3rd century Europeans. Since the earlier theophany's were worshipped as God without attributing to God multiple personalities, it was nature for the early Christians to worship Jesus as the ultimate and permanent image of God's self."

              How come Thomas at John 20:28 who was an orthodox Jew not follow the so-called Jewish heritage of strict monotheism when He clearly worshipped Jesus Christ when He said, "The Lord of me and the God of me?" And don't make me laugh, "as God without attributing to God multiple personanlities?" I don't teach nor do I believe such a thing as God having mulitple personalities like from that movie "Sybll" suffering from dissociative identity disorder. Give me a break neal!

              IN THE ANGEL OF THE LORD,
              james
              You're conflating many things.

              1. The discussion was about the Old Testament. The two verses in the Old Testament, as I said, are not a clear teaching about a multi-personal God and can best be understood as described by the Encyclopedia of the Hebrew Language. I mean if Genesis 1:26-27 said something even close to, "God the Father said to God the Son, let us make man in our image and they made man in their image", then you would have a strong point, but the usage of "us" and "our" in one verse in the context of singular verbs and singular pronouns in verse 27 makes this very, very, very weak for you. The Hebrew Encyclopedia explanation best harmonizes with the 7 thousand singular pronouns in the OT and with Ephesians 1:11 and the strict monotheistic statements of Isaiah 40-50... None else beside me... by myself, etc. It's beyond the pale to say that the OT teaches or even infers a multi-personal God.

              2. John 14:23. What happened from the OT to the NT? The Son of God was begotten. John is not speaking of a plurality of divine persons in the Godhead, but a plurality of God existing as he always has and God existing as a man. This is what changed from OT to NT. Jesus was speaking from the context of his incarnation in contrast to God who is above all and over all as He always has been.

              In the OT when God appeared in the form of an angel (a theophany), and spoke in first person singular this did not mean that he ceased filling heaven and earth while he was a theophany. Oneness teaches a great big God who can do multiple things at the same time.

              The bottom line is that Christ is that Spirit. The believer only receives One Spirit. not two or three.

              3. I didn't quite follow you on the last statement with John 20:28. I teach Jesus is God. Thomas was confessing that Jesus is that one God. Thomas would not understand the concept of a multi-personal God, but he would understand the concept of the One God manifesting himself. God is really big James. He can do more than one thing at a time. When God became flesh he functioned and perceived as a man. Christ was not a human shell animated by a 2nd divine personality, but the One God truly incarnate as a man and perceiving and functioning as a man. The difference between the OT theophany's and the incarnation was the theophany's were temporary images of God, but in the incarnation the image of God was a permanent and authentic human being.
              Last edited by Neal; 09-01-17, 09:26 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TrueBlue? View Post
                The Trinity in the OT (14 mins)
                https://youtu.be/BNt5NKSse0Y

                The Trinity in the NT (10 mins)
                https://youtu.be/OaXjVU05odE
                Thank you for these links, excellent videos, I learn't a lot and highly recommend them.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mr_Rusty_Bucket View Post
                  Thank you for these links, excellent videos, I learn't a lot and highly recommend them.

                  LOL - silly. See here for exegetical refutations: https://apostolicacademics.com/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Puddin' View Post


                    LOL - silly. See here for exegetical refutations: https://apostolicacademics.com/


                    Do you do debates? At the moment I am interested in debating a pro-tither, but after that the Son of God is he eternal or created might be an option.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mr_Rusty_Bucket View Post



                      Do you do debates? At the moment I am interested in debating a pro-tither, but after that the Son of God is he eternal or created might be an option.
                      The flesh certainly loves to rationalize faithlessness and being lukewarm and disconnected from the body of Christ!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mr_Rusty_Bucket View Post

                        Thank you for these links, excellent videos, I learn't a lot and highly recommend them.
                        Your welcome
                        Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' Winston, 1984, George Orwell,

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TrueBlue? View Post
                          The Trinity in the OT (14 mins)
                          https://youtu.be/BNt5NKSse0Y

                          The Trinity in the NT (10 mins)
                          https://youtu.be/OaXjVU05odE
                          A way seems so right to a man until he hears another view. These videos would make a scholarly Trinitarian ashamed. For example, the teaching about "Echad" used by novices to justify the Trinity is completely false. This doesn't even qualify as a weak argument, but a complete sham.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TrueBlue? View Post

                            Nice and lengthy, but no worries I read it. Look, I acknowledge there are a some places that use the singular form when talking about God. I appreciate the couple of scriptures posted also, nice work. If the verses you posted were the only verses that existed when referring to God, I would be forced to accept your argument, but they aren't.



                            Although I agree that the use of Echad is a weak, very weak, In fact personally I would never use it as an argument for the Trinity, I just don't think it's the correct argument. I don't believe you are putting the example of Adam and Eve in its proper context. It's just an example where the word is used to denote unity.


                            Your condescension noted, I have read the bible and studied the Early Christian Fathers. In fact when I first watched the video I thought it was striking how about 50% of the OT video seemed pulled straight from Justyn Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Who makes many of the same arguments about the Angel of the Lord.

                            Seeing as you took on the weakest of the arguments in the video, and frankly that is giving it too much credit, what do you think of the Angel of the Lord. I think the video does an ok job as to pointing out that Angel of the Lord is also God. I don't think they did very well showing the distinction between The Angel of the Lord(Jesus) and LORD(Father). The very name I think does enough to explain that. Angel(Messenger, Jesus,) of the LORD(Father). In the following two verses

                            Exo 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.
                            Exo 23:21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.

                            Clearly the LORD(Father) is directing Moses to follow the angel(Jesus). How do we know who this Angel is? Because Moses was to obey him, and the Angel had powers to forgive transgressions.
                            Messenger (Angel) of Elohym that appeared in OT are Cherubim.

                            Psalms 18:9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet.

                            10And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.

                            Cherubim were all over drawn in OT Temple including curtain/veil, on the ark of the covenant above the mercy seat, etc.

                            Yahuah appeared using cherubim of glory. We have that record in NT:

                            Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

                            Acts 7: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

                            Heb 2: 2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

                            The above are the three witnesses showing that The Angel/Messenger of Elohym was not The Son.

                            Elohym who declared Himself as Yahuah through Angelic beings/cherubim and Father of Israel (firstborn son) is invisible.

                            Exo 4:22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus said יהוה, “Yisra’ĕl is My son, My first-born,



                            Last edited by dannyfortruth; 09-26-18, 05:01 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

                              Messenger (Angel) of Elohym that appeared in OT are Cherubim.

                              Psalms 18:9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet.

                              10And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.

                              Cherubim were all over drawn in OT Temple including curtain/veil, on the ark of the covenant above the mercy seat, etc.

                              Yahuah appeared using cherubim of glory. We have that record in NT:

                              Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

                              Acts 7: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

                              Heb 2: 2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

                              The above are the three witnesses showing that The Angel/Messenger of Elohym was not The Son.

                              Elohym who declared Himself as Yahuah through Angelic beings/cherubim and Father of Israel (firstborn son) is invisible.

                              Exo 4:22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus said יהוה, “Yisra’ĕl is My son, My first-born,


                              You have demonstrated that angels can be Cherubim . Yet, The Lord has also been called Angel. For we all know that the Lord alone may redeem one from their sins.

                              NKJ Genesis 48:16 The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; Let my name be named upon them, And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." (Gen. 48:16 NKJ)

                              Unless you know of other beings that can redeem one from sins, I only know of one.
                              Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' Winston, 1984, George Orwell,

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TrueBlue? View Post

                                You have demonstrated that angels can be Cherubim . Yet, The Lord has also been called Angel. For we all know that the Lord alone may redeem one from their sins.

                                NKJ Genesis 48:16 The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; Let my name be named upon them, And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." (Gen. 48:16 NKJ)

                                Unless you know of other beings that can redeem one from sins, I only know of one.
                                That's what you have been taught.

                                Yahuah is The Redeemer of Israel:


                                Isaiah 44:6 “Thus said יהוה, Sovereign of Yisra’ĕl, and his Redeemer, יהוה of hosts, ‘I am the First and I am the Last, besides Me there is no Elohim.

                                H1350

                                Original: גּאל

                                Transliteration: gâ'al

                                Phonetic: gaw-al'

                                BDB Definition:
                                1. to redeem, act as kinsman-redeemer, avenge, revenge, ransom, do the part of a kinsman
                                  1. (Qal)
                                    1. to act as kinsman, do the part of next of kin, act as kinsman-
                                Yahuah spoke in the Spirit of Messiah until literally fullfilled by Him by manifesting in flesh.

                                Heb 2:12 For both He who sets apart and those who are being set apart are all of One, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers,

                                He took on the seed of Abraham and called all those born of Abraham(Israel) His brethren - kin.

                                17 For, doubtless, He does not take hold of messengers, but He does take hold of the seed of Aḇraham.

                                Till then He used Angelic beings because He is invisible. We have the testimony of this in NT. Why do you reject it in order to uphold your doctrine of Trinity?

                                There is no Trinity anywhere in scriptures. NT is continuation of The OT.

                                Christianity divorces itself from the Law and don't see the NT patterned after OT law (from physical to spiritual).

                                The Angel of Yahuah (as rightly says Angel of and not Yahuah Himself). Yahuah used Cherubim to denote His presence and also to speak because He is invisible.

                                Who is The Father? He is Elohym of Israel. And who is Israel? His firstborn son!

                                Then who is The only begotten Son? As you can see, He is representation of Israel, the firstborn son.

                                Since it's Israel, the firstborn son which needed redemption, Yahuah fullfilled the role of the firstborn son as The only begotten Son and also fullfilled it's OT sacrifices on altar.

                                Israel failed the test in 40 years of wilderness journey while it's representation, The Son of Elohym fullfilled obedience in 40 days of wilderness testing.

                                I'm not making this up but read Exod 4:22, Hos 11:1 and compare with Mat 2:15.

                                Read the above three scriptures which shows The Son represented Israel as the firstborn son of Yahuah.

                                Therefore, The Son is not the 2nd Person of Trinity.

                                Deut 8:2 “And you shall remember that יהוה your Elohim led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you, prove you, to know what is in your heart, whether you guard His commands or not.

                                3 “And He humbled you, and let you suffer hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, to make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that comes from the mouth of יהוה.

                                Compare:



                                Mat 4:1 Then יהושע(Yahusha) was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tried by the devil.

                                2 And after having fasted forty days and forty nights, He was hungry.

                                3 And the trier came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of Elohim, command that these stones become bread.”

                                4 But He answering, said, “It has been written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of יהוה.

                                The distinction we see in NT between The Father and The Son is not between two Persons of Trinity but rather between Elohym and Israel (whom The Son represented).

                                Since Israel has Elohym as The Father, The Son who represented Israel too has Elohym as The Father:

                                John 20:17 יהושע (Yahusha) said to her, “Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My Elohim and your Elohim.’ ”






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X