Jesus Christ is Almighty God

[Wrangler]

Oops! I didn't say He was "Mediator" I said Christ was "Husband"! Now, try arguing against my actual argument!

Your actual argument has no credibility for it falsely asserts 2 couples cannot be married and not all be different beings.

 

[Wrangler]

Nope, doesn't work : the Moses and the Priests and the Prophets were all intermediaries and were not called "Husband" to God's People--the office of Husband to God's People is occupied by God.

True but totally irrelevant to the price of tea in China.

 

[Wrangler]

1. No, there's overlap

Your PERVERSION OF EQUALITY is so complete you do not realize that overlap is irrelevant to different, to not being equal. My wife and I both went to 1st grade. That overlap in our education does not make us the same being.

2. How would this solve your dilemma? The same God has His People He is married to and Jesus is the Husband.

There is no dilemma. An old covenant was made obsolete by the new, better covenant.

 

[GracePeace]

Your PERVERSION OF EQUALITY is so complete you do not realize that overlap is irrelevant to different, to not being equal. My wife and I both went to 1st grade. That overlap in our education does not make us the same being.

My point was that God was Husband to His People, which arguably would've included Jews who passed seamlessly from Old to New Covenant (eg, the prophetess in the Temple), and to whom God related and now still relates as Husband... and that Husband is Jesus.

There is no dilemma. An old covenant was made obsolete by the new, better covenant.

There really is.
Old and New Covenant is not the issue. The issue is, as has been explained ad nauseam, that one of God's ways of relating to His People (whether under Old or New) is "Husband", and that under both Covenants this is God's place but we see Christ standing in that place--ergo, He must be God.

 

[GracePeace]

Your actual argument has no credibility for it falsely asserts 2 couples cannot be married and not all be different beings.

Not sure what this means. 2 couples cannot be married and not be different beings? Are you saying God is no longer Husband to His People today? He no longer relates to His People as Husband?
Is that your way out?
What about "same yesterday today and forever"? Which verse of Scripture are you using to argue that God stopped relating to His People as Husband?

True but totally irrelevant to the price of tea in China.

All right, I just wanted to address an argument I thought you were making or might make.

 

[GracePeace]

@Wrangler
It’s gotta be hard to lose like this, but just humble yourself. Don't be obstinate. Accept God’s Word.

 

[Wrangler]

The issue is, as has been explained ad nauseam, that one of God's ways of relating to His People (whether under Old or New) is "Husband", and that under both Covenants this is God's place but we see Christ standing in that place--ergo, He must be God.

It does NOT logically follow for the reasons explained ad nauseum.

 

[GracePeace]

It does NOT logically follow for the reasons explained ad nauseum.

I’ve responded to those already. Which Scripture are you following that leads you to believe God is no longer Husband to His People?

 

[Wrangler]

Not sure what this means. 2 couples cannot be married and not be different beings? Are you saying God is no longer Husband to His People today?

Bingo.

And ‘his people’ have also changed, ie, some overlap.

A fair interpretation of Scripture is that God delegated the responsibility of husbandry to his Son.

 

[Wrangler]

@Wrangler
It’s gotta be hard to lose like this, but just humble yourself. Don't be obstinate. Accept God’s Word.

I totally accept God’s Word, which happens to obliterate trinitarianism at every turn.

 

[GracePeace]

Bingo.

And ‘his people’ have also changed, ie, some overlap.

A fair interpretation of Scripture is that God delegated the responsibility of husbandry to his Son.

Lol That’s against His own Law. A son cannot have his father’s wife.

 

[GracePeace]

I totally accept God’s Word, which happens to obliterate trinitarianism at every turn.

I don’t believe you’ve actually proven that. It’s just an empty claim.

 

[Wrangler]

Lol That’s against His own Law. A son cannot have his father’s wife.

As we pointed out repeatedly who the marriage is made to is different. So, ‘God’s people’ is not the same wife.

 

[GracePeace]

As we pointed out repeatedly who the marriage is made to is different. So, ‘God’s people’ is not the same wife.

It actually is—as stated some of the people passed seamlessly from Old to New (ie, the branches in Ro 11 which were never cut off).

 

[Wrangler]

I don’t believe you’ve actually proven that. It’s just an empty claim.

100’s of times over. Did you ever explain:

1. Why Jesus said he was going to his God in John 20:17?
2. Why Jesus got a revelation from God, in his unitarian nature, in Revelation 1:1?
3. Why God, in his unitarian nature, is the head of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:3?

 

[Wrangler]

It actually is—as stated some of the people passed seamlessly from Old to New (ie, the branches in Ro 11 which were never cut off).

Right. Not equal.

 

[GracePeace]

As we pointed out repeatedly who the marriage is made to is different. So, ‘God’s people’ is not the same wife.

Again, you’re here saying God ceases to relate to His People as “Husband”—God is the same yesterday today and forever though so what verse are you relying on to reject the reality that God is Husband to His People? James accuses his audience of being “adulterers and adulteresses” in connection to being “friends with the world” which he says is “enmity with God”... so they’re being maritally unfaithful to God with Whom they are married.

 

[kcnalp]

According to the VOICE translation, which I like because it makes this explicit, the Eternal, Commander of heavenly armies, the LORD God almighty - not his Son.

Is the VOICE online? Why won't you answer?

 

[kcnalp]

Resorting to lying now?

Irony?

 

[GracePeace]

100’s of times over. Did you ever explain:

1. Why Jesus said he was going to his God in John 20:17?
2. Why Jesus got a revelation from God, in his unitarian nature, in Revelation 1:1?
3. Why God, in his unitarian nature, is the head of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:3?

1. Humans have a God—He also submitted to baptism which seemed out of order. He was a human.
2. We aren’t told when the Revelation was given—could’ve been prior to His ascension.
3. Christ is God’s Son. A son is subservient to his father. Why do you have a problem with that?