(apologies for the typo in the title.
"teaching" should read "teachings".
i misread vanderhoven7's most recent post as being the above.
I’ve been super happy in my liberal church. Let’s see…to answer your question….I like that they don’t do infant baptism. We do that at my church and I’m not into it.
So, you are happy belonging to a church that does things you do not agree with/are not into.
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
You say, “So he couldn’t use an angel?” No, because no angel is God. An angel could not pay the debt of mankind’s sin. Nor could an angel bridge the ontological gap between God and man. The Incarnation is not about “trust.” It’s about who is capable of bearing infinite justice and offering infinite love. Only God can redeem man, because only God is the source of life, and only He can restore what was eternally lost.
[ 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.]
[5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time.]
[ 28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”]
_
correspond - have a close similarity; match or agree almost exactly:
Adam was created by God. Adam was God's first human son. God was not created; he has always been and cannot die.
Adam and God are not corresponding of one another.
God's first created spirit angel son made human, is corresponding to Adam.
_
[14 “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God]
[14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory, a glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.]
[13He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation]
[5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.]
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
The divine unity...is a shared essence (ousia), something no creature can attain.
I feel sorry for your Jehovah/Jesus God. He must feel like a failure over his spirit angel creation. It takes God himself to do something because he can't trust his own creation.
Your claim is that Jehovah and Jesus are one in the same, share the same essence, not being created.
You claim that your Jehovah/Jesus God created all 'angel creatures/beings' (his spirit sons) and there are many, many 'angel beings', including Satan, but they are not the same essence of God.
And you claim that your Jehovah/Jesus God created humans, Adam and Eve, (his human children/son and daughter) and they are not the same essence of God.
So, with his (God's) creations of both spirit angels and humans, Satan and other angels and Adam and Eve, failed their creator/were disobedient to him.
Then when he (God) goes about trying to remedy it and offers a ransom life, he says:
"There is not ONE angel spirit son of mine, that I created, that I am able to use as a ransom life, they would all fail me, therefore I have to use myself as my own son because the spirit angel sons that I created could never prove faithful until death as a human, not even ONE of them could."
He goes on to say:
"And then when I use myself as the ransom life, and humans believe that it took the creator himself to do it, because the angels that I created, are not good/faithful/trustworthy enough to do it, when those humans believe that, then I will grant some of them to sit down on my throne and rule with me, but I will never let even ONE of my spirit angel creations do so, NONE of them are worthy for that, even though they are my true spirit sons, I will only let my human sons rule with me."
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
You fear what it would mean if Jesus really is who he claimed to be—the eternal Son, one in being with the Father
When he claimed one with the father he also asked for his followers to be one with each other and with him and his father.
[20 I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.]
I follow the Lamb who is on the same throne as the One seated on it (Rev 22:1).
You are using the wrong verse there to show that both God and the Lamb are on the same throne. At that point they are each on their own separate thrones. When Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven is when he sat on his father's throne with him. (At his right hand.) That's where he is still today but he knows he will have his own in the future when he comes, so he was able to say to those who conquer and as a result will rule with him, that they will sit with him on his throne that he will sit on when he comes. Then in New Jerusalem is when God's throne and the Lamb's throne are said to be there.
[2 But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God,]
[31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.]
[21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.]
[22 I did not see a temple in it, for Jehovah God the Almighty is its temple, also the Lamb is.]
[22 And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb]
[3 And there will no longer be any curse. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city,]
And one day, you, like everyone else, will bow before Him
That is true, but as God's appointed king. That is God's will, he appointed Jesus to be king for a period of time.
Philippians 2:8-11;1 Corinthians 15:24-28
the "slave's" understanding of the scriptures must be correct, so here's a clarification: ©.
(matthew 10:18) ....before governors and kings for jehovah's sake, for a witness..... (mark 13:9) ...be put on the stand......for jehovah's sake, for a witness to them.
(luke 24:47, 48) .
the "slave's" understanding of the scriptures must be correct, so here's a clarification: ©.
(matthew 10:18) ....before governors and kings for jehovah's sake, for a witness..... (mark 13:9) ...be put on the stand......for jehovah's sake, for a witness to them.
(luke 24:47, 48) .
It seems you make a post like this every so often. While your attempt is well taken, answer the following:
What does it mean to be a Christian?
Who/what was Jesus a witness of?
[ 26 and, after he found him, he brought him to Antioch. It thus came about that for a whole year they gathered together with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.]
[ 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,]
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
Thank you for raising the question again with greater clarity—although it’s unfortunate that you continue to couch your remarks in unnecessary mockery rather than genuine theological dialogue. Still, I’ll engage your point sincerely and respectfully, because the question of divine identity matters deeply.
Any mockery coming from me towards you is because you are a total moron, because you can't reply back without speaking about your Trinity point of view.
You say this:
Yes, Jesus is speaking in the first person in Revelation 3:21. He says, “I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” That’s straightforward on the surface. But if you suppose this proves ontological separation between Jesus and the Father—if you assume this distinction in person means Jesus is not divine—then you’re importing an a priori assumption that only the Father is Jehovah.
You choose to reply assuming that I am wanting to speak about 'separation between Jesus and the Father', when what I said was:
Trinity talk aside so I could go to the next question pertaining to Jehoshua (I), stating to those that conquer being granted to sit down on his throne with him, just as, he (Jehoshua) conquered and sat down on his father's (Jehovah's) throne.
My question has to do with 'those that conquer being granted to sit down on the throne', "just as" Jehoshua said to do.
[ 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.]
I never asked what I was going to because of the fact that you have to make your every reply about your Trinity point of view regardless of me not talking about it.
My focus was to first establish and agree that there are TWO names given, יהוה and יהושע.
It does not matter if you think those TWO names are the same person or if I think they are two different beings. Those TWO names are given and can be applied based on the context of the Scripture.
[29 The next day he saw Jehoshua coming toward him, and he said: “See, (Jehoshua) the Lamb of (Jehovah) God who takes away the sin of the world!]
[3 And there will no longer be any curse. But the throne of (Jehovah) God and of (Jehoshua) the Lamb will be in the city, and his slaves will offer him sacred service]
[21 To the one who conquers I (Jehoshua) will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father (Jehovah) on his throne.]
[9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jehoshua is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that (Jehovah) God raised him (Jehoshua) up from the dead, you will be saved.]
[32 “Everyone, then, who acknowledges me (Jehoshua) before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father (Jehovah) who is in the heavens.]
[ 34 And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one (Jehoshua) is the Son of (Jehovah) God.]
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
You see how you just can't refrain from being so moronic...
I said:
Putting any debate about the Trinity aside, do you agree that I/me/my is referring to Jehoshua and Father/his is referring to Jehovah?
Yet you just can't reply without going off on your rants. It's you that proves ' your inability to engage civilly with theological dialogue'.
You admit in regard to my question:
You ask whether the pronoun “I” refers to Yehoshua (Jesus) and “his” refers to Jehovah. Grammatically, yes
You could have just kept it that simply and kept the Trinity talk aside so I could go to the next question pertaining to Jehoshua (I), stating to those that conquer being granted to sit down on his throne with him, just as, he (Jehoshua) conquered and sat down on his father's (Jehovah's) throne. (Remember, Trinity talk aside, you agreed grammatically that is how that verse reads.)
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
Now, while you were simply “asking questions,” your implication was clear: that these are two distinct individuals with distinct identities and names—Yahweh and Jesus (the Son), and thus they must be separate gods or beings.
I asked you:
What is this (3091) יהושע Hebrew name in English for this (2424) Ιησούς Greek name
You said:
The name יהושע (Yehoshua) is the original Hebrew form of the name rendered in Greek as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), and in English as Jesus.
Okay, thank you for that. That is a clear answer to my question.
Is it okay to say at this point that we agree that (3091) יהושע Hebrew name in English is Yehoshua/Jehoshua?
________________
Now for this:
What is this (3068) יהוה Hebrew name in English
You said:
The Tetragrammaton יהוה is traditionally rendered in English as Yahweh or, in its older English form, Jehovah.
Is it okay to say at this point that we agree that (3068) יהוה Hebrew name in English is Yehovah/Jehovah?
___________
Putting any debate about the Trinity aside, do you agree that I/me/my is referring to Jehoshua and Father/his is referring to Jehovah?
[ 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.]
