Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Fuzzy thinking to call the God who says "none besides me" a plurality of God Persons

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

  • Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post

    What are some of his titles or roles and names(?) such as the Elohim of Israel and so forth. Please keep in mind that many including my self are not familiar with Hebrew or Aramaic expressions so when you mention them give the English equivalent if possible.

    Please mention God in relationship with Israel because much of these titles, names or roles have to do with his chosen people called out from the world, I need much more understanding in these areas.

    Just a little bit at a time because I can not take much information at once and digest it.

    God bless you,

    SeventhDay
    Hebrew Yahuah Elohym has been replaced by Lord God in LXX (Septuagint). Even Adonai Yahuah has been replaced by Lord God.

    Gen 2:4 These are the births of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that יהוה Elohim made earth and heavens. (Masoretic text reading)

    Gen 2:4 This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, (LXX reading)

    Now come to Isaiah 25:8

    He will swallow up death in victory; and ADONAI YAHUAH will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for YAHUAH has spoken **\i ****. (Eth Cepher - Masoretic reading)

    Death has prevailed and swallowed men up; but again the Lord God has taken away every tear from every face. He has taken away the reproach of hispeople from all the earth: for the mouth off the Lord has spoken it.

    The NT Greek has the same influence of LXX translation of Hebrew OT.

    Lord is either substituted for Adonai or Yahuah.

    God is either substituted for Elohym or Yahuah.

    We can't be sure which is which and therefore, Eth Cepher English translation has taken a middle path by using Adonay always with Yahuah (Adonay Yahuah) and sometimes Elohym instead of Lord and God.

    Even Masoretic text is not perfect as it varies with LXX and at few places with Dead Sea Scrolls which are much older.

    The Name YHWH should not be replaced as per the command of YHWH given to Israel. Neither we should as both NT and OT are an harmonius whole.



    Comment


    • Originally posted by johnny guitar View Post
      Your argument is with Romans 9:5, NOT with me.
      The VAST majority of Bibles in use say either; Christ who is OVER ALL, God blessed forever OR Christ who is God OVER ALL, blessed forever. AMEN!
      NO doxology to The Father in this passage.
      You are right in this. He is the root as well as offspring of David (Kingdom).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by johnny guitar View Post
        Your argument is with Romans 9:5, NOT with me.
        No, my argument is against YOUR eisegetical interpretation of the text. To date you've offered nothing from the internal text itself to support your claim. We both know you're in over your head here.

        No matter how you try to spin it, Paul in context is not offering a doxology to the Christ for sending the Christ as the chief blessing/privilege given to Israel. To argue, as such, is to completely misread Paul.

        Indeed, it was God the Father, Who alone was responsible for giving Israel, "the adoption as sons; the divine glory and the covenants; the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises" (Rom 9:4), and CHIEF of which was the giving of His Christ!

        "Remember that Christ came as a servant to the Jews to show that God [the Father] is true to the promises he [the Father] made to their ancestors" (Rom 15:8, NLT, added emphasis).

        IOW, Christ came in the NT to fulfill the PROMISES that His God and Father made to the Jewish Fathers. Again, it wasn't Christ (God's Anointed One) who made the PROMISES to the Jewish forefathers in the OT, it was the Father, the same One who sent the Manna to them in the OT!

        The VAST majority of Bibles in use say either; Christ who is OVER ALL, God blessed forever OR Christ who is God OVER ALL, blessed forever. AMEN!
        And they got it wrong, just as you have.

        NO doxology to The Father in this passage.
        First off, Paul's habitual or uniform usage of "God" has reference to the Father, not to His Christ (Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, 17; Col 1:3).

        Secondly, it's my understanding that the use of "blessed" (eulogetos) elsewhere in the Pauline Corpus (Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 11:31; Eph 1;3) always has reference to God the Father, not to God the Father's Christ.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

          No, my argument is against YOUR eisegetical interpretation of the text. To date you've offered nothing from the internal text itself to support your claim. We both know you're in over your head here.

          No matter how you try to spin it, Paul in context is not offering a doxology to the Christ for sending the Christ as the chief blessing/privilege given to Israel. To argue, as such, is to completely misread Paul.

          Indeed, it was God the Father, Who alone was responsible for giving Israel, "the adoption as sons; the divine glory and the covenants; the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises" (Rom 9:4), and CHIEF of which was the giving of His Christ!

          "Remember that Christ came as a servant to the Jews to show that God [the Father] is true to the promises he [the Father] made to their ancestors" (Rom 15:8, NLT, added emphasis).

          IOW, Christ came in the NT to fulfill the PROMISES that His God and Father made to the Jewish Fathers. Again, it wasn't Christ (God's Anointed One) who made the PROMISES to the Jewish forefathers in the OT, it was the Father, the same One who sent the Manna to them in the OT!



          And they got it wrong, just as you have.



          First off, Paul's habitual or uniform usage of "God" has reference to the Father, not to His Christ (Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, 17; Col 1:3).

          Secondly, it's my understanding that the use of "blessed" (eulogetos) elsewhere in the Pauline Corpus (Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 11:31; Eph 1;3) always has reference to God the Father, not to God the Father's Christ.
          I have always looked at Romans 9:5 like this.

          Who is over all, God blessed forever or to explain it better like "who is over all blessed of God forever amen.

          King James Bible
          Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

          In other words Paul is calling Jesus, he who is over all and blessed of God forever amen.


          Joseph

          Comment


          • Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

            Hebrew Yahuah Elohym has been replaced by Lord God in LXX (Septuagint). Even Adonai Yahuah has been replaced by Lord God.

            Gen 2:4 These are the births of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that יהוה Elohim made earth and heavens. (Masoretic text reading)

            Gen 2:4 This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, (LXX reading)

            Now come to Isaiah 25:8

            He will swallow up death in victory; and ADONAI YAHUAH will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for YAHUAH has spoken **\i ****. (Eth Cepher - Masoretic reading)

            Death has prevailed and swallowed men up; but again the Lord God has taken away every tear from every face. He has taken away the reproach of hispeople from all the earth: for the mouth off the Lord has spoken it.

            The NT Greek has the same influence of LXX translation of Hebrew OT.

            Lord is either substituted for Adonai or Yahuah.

            God is either substituted for Elohym or Yahuah.

            We can't be sure which is which and therefore, Eth Cepher English translation has taken a middle path by using Adonay always with Yahuah (Adonay Yahuah) and sometimes Elohym instead of Lord and God.

            Even Masoretic text is not perfect as it varies with LXX and at few places with Dead Sea Scrolls which are much older.

            The Name YHWH should not be replaced as per the command of YHWH given to Israel. Neither we should as both NT and OT are an harmonius whole.


            Thank you!

            Continue please.

            God bless you,

            SeventhDay

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

              You are right in this. He is the root as well as offspring of David (Kingdom).
              Please give us some scriptures to support your understanding for us so we can see what God has shown you.

              God bless you,

              SeventhDay

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

                You are right in this. He is the root as well as offspring of David (Kingdom).
                Actually, both "root" and "offspring" have reference to Jesus as being the biological descendent of David.

                From Thayer's Greek Lexicon: (Rhiza)

                2. after the use of the Hebrew שֹׁרֶשׁ, that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot; metaphorically, offspring, progeny: Romans 15:12; Revelation 5:5; Revelation 22:16.

                https://biblehub.com/greek/4491.htm


                Barnes' Notes on the Bible for Rev 22:16:

                I am the root - Not the root in the sense that David sprang from him, as a tree does from a root, but in the sense that he was the "root-shoot" of David, or that he himself sprang from him, as a sprout starts up from a decayed and fallen tree - as of the oak, the willow, the chestnut, etc. See this explained in the notes on Isaiah 11:1. The meaning then is, not that he was the ancestor of David, or that David sprang from him, but that he was the offspring of David, according to the promise in the Scripture, that the Messiah should be descended from him. No argument, then, can be derived from this passage in proof of the pre-existence, or the divinity of Christ.

                And the offspring - The descendant; the progeny of David; "the seed of David according to the flesh." See the notes on Romans 1:3. It is not unusual to employ two words in close connection to express the same idea with some slight shade of difference."

                https://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/22-16.htm

                Comment


                • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                  Actually, both "root" and "offspring" have reference to Jesus as being the biological descendent of David.

                  From Thayer's Greek Lexicon: (Rhiza)

                  2. after the use of the Hebrew שֹׁרֶשׁ, that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot; metaphorically, offspring, progeny: Romans 15:12; Revelation 5:5; Revelation 22:16.

                  https://biblehub.com/greek/4491.htm


                  Barnes' Notes on the Bible for Rev 22:16:

                  I am the root - Not the root in the sense that David sprang from him, as a tree does from a root, but in the sense that he was the "root-shoot" of David, or that he himself sprang from him, as a sprout starts up from a decayed and fallen tree - as of the oak, the willow, the chestnut, etc. See this explained in the notes on Isaiah 11:1. The meaning then is, not that he was the ancestor of David, or that David sprang from him, but that he was the offspring of David, according to the promise in the Scripture, that the Messiah should be descended from him. No argument, then, can be derived from this passage in proof of the pre-existence, or the divinity of Christ.

                  And the offspring - The descendant; the progeny of David; "the seed of David according to the flesh." See the notes on Romans 1:3. It is not unusual to employ two words in close connection to express the same idea with some slight shade of difference."

                  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/22-16.htm
                  I stopped reading Bible commentaries by men having theological bias since a long time. These commentators we're never part of Covenant Israel and I don't take them seriously. Scriptures make it clear that YHWH by His own decree and inscription in the rolls of the scrolls came as The Firstborn Son, Israel. Now if you can't believe that it means you are not part of covenant Israel.

                  These commentators thinking only of a physical plant having roots and shoots because their human mind will not take them beyond.

                  I don't read Greco-roman infected theologies.

                  Israel was the firstborn son (kingdom of priests) under the Law as the schoolmaster to bring them to Messiah and once Messiah came He made them a kingdom of Priests under Renewed Covenant. YHWH Himself spoke in The Spirit of Messiah throughout OT. He is The Root and also offspring:


                  Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death **\f2 \u1488?\u1514?} eth he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

                  15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

                  16 For indeed he took not on **\i him the nature **** angels; but he took on **\i him} the seed of Avraham

                  Who are THE CHILDREN in above v14? Children of Abraham. It's because of them He took on the seed of Abraham.

                  Biased theologians will never teach you this truth. That's why I don't read their commentaries because they don't have truth.
                  Last edited by dannyfortruth; 02-18-19, 08:05 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

                    I stopped reading Bible commentaries by men having theological bias since a long time. These commentators we're never part of Covenant Israel and I don't take them seriously. Scriptures make it clear that YHWH by His own decree and inscription in the rolls of the scrolls came as The Firstborn Son, Israel. Now if you can't believe that it means you are not part of covenant Israel.

                    These commentators thinking only of a physical plant having roots and shoots because their human mind will not take them beyond.

                    I don't read Greco-roman infected theologies.

                    Israel was the firstborn son (kingdom of priests) under the Law as the schoolmaster to bring them to Messiah and once Messiah came He made them a kingdom of Priests under Renewed Covenant. YHWH Himself spoke in The Spirit of Messiah throughout OT. He is The Root and also offspring:


                    Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death **\f2 \u1488?\u1514?} eth he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

                    15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

                    16 For indeed he took not on **\i him the nature **** angels; but he took on **\i him} the seed of Avraham

                    Who are THE CHILDREN in above v14? Children of Abraham. It's because of them He took on the seed of Abraham.

                    Biased theologians will never teach you this truth. That's why I don't read their commentaries because they don't have truth.
                    Nothing you stated above supports your fanciful theory that the word "root" (rhiza) when used in reference to God's Anointed, means something other than Jesus being a literal, biological descendent of David.

                    Secondly, your outright rejection of learned Biblical Expositors, explains why you are so prone to fanciful interpretations of Scripture.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                      Nothing you stated above supports your fanciful theory that the word "root" (rhiza) when used in reference to God's Anointed, means something other than Jesus being a literal, biological descendent of David.

                      Secondly, your outright rejection of learned Biblical Expositors, explains why you are so prone to fanciful interpretations of Scripture.
                      How can it be literal when the Son of God was begotten of the Father in time and space through Spirit conception?

                      It would be wise to listen to dannyfortruth. Also, commentators and translators with man's traditions bias will pervert the scriptures!

                      God bless you,

                      SeventhDay

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post

                        How can it be literal when the Son of God was begotten of the Father in time and space through Spirit conception?

                        It would be wise to listen to dannyfortruth. Also, commentators and translators with man's traditions bias will pervert the scriptures!

                        God bless you,

                        SeventhDay
                        I see, so you don't believe in a literal divine begettal, is that correct? Did God, by His powerful and creative spirit, directly and literally cause Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                          I see, so you don't believe in a literal divine begettal, is that correct? Did God, by His powerful and creative spirit, directly and literally cause Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary?
                          God's "powerful and creative spirit" is Jesus.

                          Jesus is the POWER OF GOD.
                          Jn 1:14_The Word became a human being and lived here with us.
                          Jn 14:17_He is the Holy Spirit, he lives with you now and later will be in you.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Photine View Post

                            God's "powerful and creative spirit" is Jesus.

                            Jesus is the POWER OF GOD.
                            I see, so you nonsensically believe that Jesus caused his OWN conception, instead of God's powerful and creative spirit (holy spirit)? IOW, you believe Jesus is his OWN Father?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                              I see,
                              You believe in a Jesus with a beginning, I don't.

                              Was through my Jesus (the Word/Spirit) that God created the world.

                              Your Jesus was not involved in the creation of the world.

                              He was just a "plan" in God's mind.


                              BLASPHEMY.


                              Jn 1:14_The Word became a human being and lived here with us.
                              Jn 14:17_He is the Holy Spirit, he lives with you now and later will be in you.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                                No, my argument is against YOUR eisegetical interpretation of the text. To date you've offered nothing from the internal text itself to support your claim. We both know you're in over your head here.

                                No matter how you try to spin it, Paul in context is not offering a doxology to the Christ for sending the Christ as the chief blessing/privilege given to Israel. To argue, as such, is to completely misread Paul.

                                Indeed, it was God the Father, Who alone was responsible for giving Israel, "the adoption as sons; the divine glory and the covenants; the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises" (Rom 9:4), and CHIEF of which was the giving of His Christ!

                                "Remember that Christ came as a servant to the Jews to show that God [the Father] is true to the promises he [the Father] made to their ancestors" (Rom 15:8, NLT, added emphasis).

                                IOW, Christ came in the NT to fulfill the PROMISES that His God and Father made to the Jewish Fathers. Again, it wasn't Christ (God's Anointed One) who made the PROMISES to the Jewish forefathers in the OT, it was the Father, the same One who sent the Manna to them in the OT!



                                And they got it wrong, just as you have.



                                First off, Paul's habitual or uniform usage of "God" has reference to the Father, not to His Christ (Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, 17; Col 1:3).

                                Secondly, it's my understanding that the use of "blessed" (eulogetos) elsewhere in the Pauline Corpus (Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 11:31; Eph 1;3) always has reference to God the Father, not to God the Father's Christ.
                                Total evasion of Romans 9:5, a passage which unitarians hate and refuse to accept.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X