i'll start with john 14:8-10. .
scriptural support for the triune nature of god, and the gradual recognition that jesus christ, the word incarnate (john 1:1), was and is god, can be found throughout the bible.
the evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the old testament and revealed in the new testament.
"I AM."
Jonathan,
I AM is not a name either as you were shown. The Apostles did not call Jesus Wonderful Counselor, Eternal Father or things like that anywhere. Now you can keep on insisting on it but your Trinitarian sources are not scripture.
Joseph
i'll start with john 14:8-10. .
scriptural support for the triune nature of god, and the gradual recognition that jesus christ, the word incarnate (john 1:1), was and is god, can be found throughout the bible.
the evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the old testament and revealed in the new testament.
ME: First, God is a name. Read Isaiah 9:6 :For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be on his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Jonathan,
I did read it and there is not a name in that verse anywhere. It does show how Trinitarians think and distort verses however. I find this kind of thinking throughout their explanations. Now you are trying to tell me I am wrong and teaching that Wonderful Counselor is a name, or Mighty God is a name or Eternal Father is a name, or Prince of Peach is a name. This means to me that you do not understand texts since no name appears in this verse anywhere as you are teaching. The English translation of this Hebrew word is translated that way of course since the work was done by Trinitarian translators and they selected it, but this Hebrew word has many meanings and this Jesus referenced here does not have such names. This shows that Trinitarians cannot think and we find such wrong thinking in all their explanations. The word means:
08034 shem
a primitive word [perhaps rather from 07760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; n m; {See TWOT on 2405}
AV-name 832, renown 7, fame 4, famous 3, named 3, named + 07121 2, famous + 07121 1, infamous + 02931 1, report 1, misc 10; 864
1) name
1a) name
1b) reputation, fame, glory
1c) the Name (as designation of God)
1d) memorial, monument
This word in Isaiah describes our Lord’s reputation, fame, glory and are a memorial to Him. That is what Isaiah is talking about but I did not expect you to know that.
I also enjoyed your review of my document. It was what I expected from you and I want others to see your review of it. Happily you did not disappoint me and I thank you for this. Now they can decide for themselves if it is as bad as you say. http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/beytrin.htm
Joseph
i'll start with john 14:8-10. .
scriptural support for the triune nature of god, and the gradual recognition that jesus christ, the word incarnate (john 1:1), was and is god, can be found throughout the bible.
the evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the old testament and revealed in the new testament.
Third, calling out “My God” in astonishment would have amounted to taking God’s name in vain and blasphemy in violation of Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 24:16, crimes punishable by death.
Jonathan,
God is not a name and you should know that. Along with this your other assumptions are unfounded as well. But it is typical of trinitarian argumentation and your doctrine is full of such assumptions. They remind me of the methods the WT used in their literature. So I do what I can to help others that are searching for such answers with my narrow minded view as you put it which is why I put together: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/beytrin.htm It helped me resolve such arguments, helped to free me from the distorted thinking of such people and set me free. I suggest that others do much the same for themselves and not follow the teachings of others. I say this because our Lord said: Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. The words of others will not be considered at this time of judgment nor can the blame be passed to them when this time comes. Adam did not get away with it and neither will we.
Joseph
i'll start with john 14:8-10. .
scriptural support for the triune nature of god, and the gradual recognition that jesus christ, the word incarnate (john 1:1), was and is god, can be found throughout the bible.
the evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the old testament and revealed in the new testament.
Slappy does manke a vlaid point, there was no rebuke by Jesus to Thomas. Of course one can argue that Jesus knew what Thomas meant and no offense was taken
PSacramento,
That is correct and there is no need to even argue this point. Why? Because John explained how our Lord took the remark and why it was recorded just three verses later when he said: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. My God is shown to be an appropriate way to address the Messiah or Christ as John stated as this is well within the proper use of this word. Nowhere does John say that the Supreme Being was being identified by Thomas when he said it.
Joseph
i'll start with john 14:8-10. .
scriptural support for the triune nature of god, and the gradual recognition that jesus christ, the word incarnate (john 1:1), was and is god, can be found throughout the bible.
the evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the old testament and revealed in the new testament.
Jonathan,
My double and somehow incomplete past missed the link intended for it. This link responds to your comments on the I am at: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/beytrin.htm#_Toc244665984 With this link others can see what was intended by it.
Joseph
i'll start with john 14:8-10. .
scriptural support for the triune nature of god, and the gradual recognition that jesus christ, the word incarnate (john 1:1), was and is god, can be found throughout the bible.
the evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the old testament and revealed in the new testament.
Christ claimed the opposite, going so far as to take the title of the divine name, the I AM. In that sense he did preach it as essential truth, saying, if you do not believe that he is the I Am you will die in your sins.
Jonathan,
Your statement above is simply another example of why I suggest to others that they stand on their own two feet and do their own investigations. Why? Because the I AM is not a name or an identity in scripture but a simple Greek expression common of that time. It is not even capitalized in the KJV in most verses like John 8:58 for good reason. Such capitalization is an opinion not a fact anyway. Why? Because in Ex 3:14 the Jews themselves recognized this and did not translate the Hebrew hayah in this way. Their translators rendered it into Greek as Ego eimi ho Ohn in the Greek or I am the God as now found in the Septuagint when rendered back into English. Verse 14 was given to Moses as assurance to him that God exists and will make this existence known to him and the Jews with him. But God did tell Moses the Name of God which Moses continued to use many times over even in the historical texts of Genesis that preceded this event since Moses wrote after the fact and could not do that as he now knew it. What was the name of God then? Was it I am? No! It was: given in the very next verse like this: Ex 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Can you see it? Perhaps not because it was so sacred to Jews that they concealed it and we only have it in capitals now as LORD in this case in the KJV. But it is the Hebrew name: Y@hovah yeh-ho-vaw’ and it does appear as a name for God many times over despite the fact that Jews rendered it LORD or GOD in most of their writings.
Now the blanket statement that you made that the divine name is I AM is not supported by any text anywhere in scripture. Your readers should be aware of this so that they can decide for themselves what to teach others. A bit more on this can be found at:
Christ claimed the opposite, going so far as to take the title of the divine name, the I AM. In that sense he did preach it as essential truth, saying, if you do not believe that he is the I Am you will die in your sins.
Jonathan,
Your statement above is simply another example of why I suggest to others that they stand on their own two feet and do their own investigations. Why? Because the I AM is not a name or an identity in scripture but a simple Greek expression common to that time. It is not even capitalized in the KJV in most verses like John 8:58 for good reason. Such capitalization is an opinion of the translator not a fact anyway. Why? Because in Ex 3:14 the Jews themselves recognized this and did not translate the Hebrew hayah in this way. Their translators rendered it into Greek as Ego eimi ho Ohn in the Greek or I am the God as now found in the Septuagint when rendered back into English. Verse 14 was given to Moses as assurance to him that God exists and will make this existence known to him and the Jews with him. But God did tell Moses the Name of God which Moses continued to use many times over even in the historical texts of Genesis that preceded this event since Moses wrote after the fact and could now do that as he now knew it. What was the name of God then? Was it I am? No! It was: given in the very next verse like this: Ex 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever,
i'll start with john 14:8-10. .
scriptural support for the triune nature of god, and the gradual recognition that jesus christ, the word incarnate (john 1:1), was and is god, can be found throughout the bible.
the evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the old testament and revealed in the new testament.
Examining Scripture to see if Jesus was, and is, God
Jonatathan,
It does not matter if Jesus is God or that some called him God at times. Why? Because the word God is not identity. It has other and simpler meanings like this one found in Strong's: 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God's representative or viceregent 4a1) of magistrates and judges. And since the scriptures use this word in this way then there is no basis for ignoring it or applying this word in ways that Trinitarians do. There is no need to run all over the Bible in order to establish a doctrine that Jesus did not teach and a doctrine that is not one of the commandments our Lord gave us to keep. To say nothing about the fact that such teachings were not a part Jewish history or Christian history that came later until all the Apostles that were the foundations for the Christian church were dead.
Joseph
this is not a bible teaching.
the bible says the opposite.. adam was created physically imperfect or he wouldnt have needed to be put out the garden so as not to be able to eat from the tree of life-.
adam was created morally imperfect or he wouldnt have failed his first test.
The operative word here is perfect, whatever that means? The devil is in this interpretation and there is no reason to think that Adam was perfect. Perfection in our faith or the things we do has an entirely different meaning from the one the WT implies to Adam. I know of no scriptures that teach Adam was perfect anyway. Does anyone here have one? Adam was without sin and called the Son of God the way our Lord was yes, we have that much: Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. And immortality would have been provided by the tree of life. So there is no need for Adam to have been created differently in a physical way than the animals were that die. That ability would come later. But at least we can gather from the Genesis account that it was intended for man.
As to what really happened at this beginning we only have the account given in Genesis which some believe to be allegorical. I have no problem with such thinking as the complex details and incredible problems that were a part of this beginning were summed up and could well be presented in this way. But they were intended to be taken by us as root texts upon which all doctrine and thinking was to be anchored. Doctrine not in harmony with such texts would could then be understood as false. WT thinking on Adams perfection then fails in the face of such details. If we can read and think for ourselves then we should be able to see this and more. As to why we die as a result and why it is that our Lord can turn this around for us? I gave some of my thoughts on this here: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/beytrin.htm#_Toc244666001
Joseph
i won't be going if i can help it, but id like a heads up about it, just to be forewarned.
No, I be attending a Passover Seder that night.
Moshe,
Where so you find a Passover Sedar on the night of Nisan 14? Or maybe the Jewish date is Nisan 15 in 2010? The WT never gets it right and is usually two days off from the Jewish calendar. They think that they are smarter than the Jews you know. I did not check out the Jewish date yet but I understand that there is no such thing as a Jewish Sedar on the night of Nisan 14. The entire date of Nisan 14 is reserved for the preparation of the Sedar meal that follows when Nisan 14 ends and the night of Nisan 15 begins. The Sedar always begins on the night of Nisan 15 when their date starts as well. Is there something wrong with this research? http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/ch9notes.txt
Joseph
http://144000.110mb.com/index.html.
ok i read this for 2 hours now, rereading it at least 6 times... still don't get it.. i still don't believe in the trinity as god jesus and holy spirit being one.
i am starting to see how the number 144,000 can be symbolic sence the rest of revelation is symbolic.
Butterflyleia85,
Lets see how your views agree with mine for a change.
Butterfly: I still don't believe in the Trinity as God Jesus and Holy Spirit being one. I just don't get it!
I agree. I took a lot of time to study both sides and found problems in both. But I came up with this: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/beytrin.htm It may not be complete or perfect but at least I am not supporting the errors I see saw in both views.
Butterfly: I am starting to see how the number 144,000 can be symbolic since the rest of Revelation is symbolic. But would this imply maybe that there is a small number that goes to heaven.
I agree in part. With the 144,000 symbolic, Yes. With this small number that goes to heaven, No! There being only one Kingdom, and our Lord returning in the flesh to administer it on the throne of David, then everyone resurrected to be in it for any reason would be right here on earth. Immortal humans yes but humans nevertheless. It’s that word heaven that gets in the way of such thinking. Jews did not use this word the way many do today. To them it meant God for the most part or what God sanctions.
Butterfly: I still believe in the Earthly Paradise. It just seems to unreal to put me in a heaven but on new God managed earth that I can see.
I agree. Paradise, Kingdom, not much difference except for who is in charge of running it and what their position is in it.
Butterfly: I still don't understand why 1914 is off. Never really understood how they got that number in the first place. It's almost as complicated as believing in the Trinity.
I agree. There is nothing to it, just a manipulation of the texts that our Lord never taught or intended for anyone else to teach either. That is why he said that no man knows the day or hour. A false teaching in other words, not approved by Christ.
Butterfly: I don't believe in hell but nobody really argued that one on this board that I saw, so I'm good. Hell is symbolic meaning grave.
I agree. Nothing to hell but a hell of a lot made out of symbolic representations of it. To say nothing that it keeps getting confused with condemnation.
Butterfly: All I know is that the "truth" should be firm and no change in doctrine. That's what I got so far...So what's your belief system? (No judging here just curious)
I agree. Not much different from yours on these points.
Joseph
