Get your PRONOUNS right.

[ScottA]

Nothing is coincidence.

The recent issue of self-identity and the use if not demand for proper pronouns, i.e, we, they, etc. has not been a thing of people and their various identity issues--not only--but more importantly it has been a thing of God and by God.

It begins with us. These issues are the little things God has entrusted us with so that we can learn on a personal level before He appoints us with more important matters. Perhaps you have read in the Bible where a servant of God like an Elder or Priest or Bishop first needs to have his own house and family in order before he is qualified to serve God? Pronouns are like that. They are a prequalification evaluation and training of self before moving forward with who is who among God and humankind.

The purpose is that we understand that God is He. "He" just as the creations story shows that the women (she) came out of the man (he). Which then after centuries of learning He and She, God then referred back to the marriage of He and She in defining--in teaching Us--that we also came out of Him, with the greater plan of being rejoined with Him as a bride (she) is married to a man (he).

That was the lesson we were suppose to learn.

But there's more.

After we have those first identities straight (double entendre intended)--after thousands of years of teaching and training--if we have that all correct, then we can move on. That is, we can move forward with God's greater plans for humanity.

For thousands of years we have been exposed to the identity of God Himself, but in many different ways, even by different names. But that does not mean He is many, as in many persons: he, she, him, her, them, they. But He. In other words--and the final lesson--God is not "They", but "He." Example: "I am." It may appear that "They"--both Father and Son (they) said it of themselves individually, but [they] each said "I", meaning they not different as different people are different, but are One and the same.

In other words, just as a child learns individual words before putting words together in sentences or whole thoughts, this has been the same method used by God to teach us about identity. His, and ours.

 

[dak]

Nothing is coincidence.

The recent issue of self-identity and the use if not demand for proper pronouns, i.e, we, they, etc. has not been a thing of people and their various identity issues--not only--but more importantly it has been a thing of God and by God.

It begins with us. These issues are the little things God has entrusted us with so that we can learn on a personal level before He appoints us with more important matters. Perhaps you have read in the Bible where a servant of God like an Elder or Priest or Bishop first needs to have his own house and family in order before he is qualified to serve God? Pronouns are like that. They are a prequalification evaluation and training of self before moving forward with who is who among God and humankind.

The purpose is that we understand that God is He. "He" just as the creations story shows that the women (she) came out of the man (he). Which then after centuries of learning He and She, God then referred back to the marriage of He and She in defining--in teaching Us--that we also came out of Him, with the greater plan of being rejoined with Him as a bride (she) is married to a man (he).

That was the lesson we were suppose to learn.

But there's more.

After we have those first identities straight (double entendre intended)--after thousands of years of teaching and training--if we have that all correct, then we can move on. That is, we can move forward with God's greater plans for humanity.

For thousands of years we have been exposed to the identity of God Himself, but in many different ways, even by different names. But that does not mean He is many, as in many persons: he, she, him, her, them, they. But He. In other words--and the final lesson--God is not "They", but "He." Example: "I am." It may appear that "They"--both Father and Son (they) said it of themselves individually, but [they] each said "I", meaning they not different as different people are different, but are One and the same.

In other words, just as a child learns individual words before putting words together in sentences or whole thoughts, this has been the same method used by God to teach us about identity. His, and ours.

I think not, rather, if people want to teach that Elohim saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" means that the Creator is a Trinity or Twinity, then it needs to be the same always, or Elohim has changed, which He says He does not do.

Therefore, for anyone else to come along and say "I am", and mean it as some sort of divine statement, that person is boasting against the Creator: the claimant should have said "We are", just as it was in the beginning where the Trinity/Twinity dogmas began. According to Trinitarians and Twinitarians Elohim Almighty is one "We" that cannot be separated.

 

[ScottA]

I think not, rather, if people want to teach that Elohim saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" means that the Creator is a Trinity or Twinity, then it needs to be the same always, or Elohim has changed, which He says He does not do.

Therefore, for anyone else to come along and say "I am", and mean it as some sort of divine statement, that person is boasting against the Creator: the claimant should have said "We are", just as it was in the beginning where the Trinity/Twinity dogmas began. According to Trinitarians and Twinitarians Elohim Almighty is one "We" that cannot be separated.

You don't understand, and you don't have to.

I am not here to argue the point, but to explain it, to finish it. If you want to believe that all the identity purpose, terms, order, and revelations from God since the beginning are all coincidence--or worse--that man is not created in the image of God and it's all been Him playing Mommy Daddy dolls with His creation all this time...go right ahead.

 

[dak]

You don't understand, and you don't have to.

I am not here to argue the point, but to explain it, to finish it. If you want to believe that all the identity purpose, terms, order, and revelations from God since the beginning are all coincidence--or worse--that man is not created in the image of God and it's all been Him playing Mommy Daddy dolls with His creation all this time...go right ahead.

No, none of that is what I think or believe: it's about consistency, for when the scripture sets a precedent that precedent is generally maintained throughout. Moreover there was a perfect opportunity for the Meshiah to make the question about Trinitarianism clear as day when he said "I and my Father are one", but he did not do so, and broke the supposed precedent which Trinitarianism has set from Gen 1:26, that the Most High is a Trinity because of what is written therein.

Why did the Meshiah not say "I and the Holy Spirit and my Father are one"??? Why did he leave out the Holy Spirit when we know the Holy Spirit was upon/within him at that point in his ministry even from the time of his immersion? If the Trinity doctrine were true then he once again broke the dogma by excluding the Holy Spirit even while the Holy Spirit was upon/within him. According to the Trinitarian doctrine he should have said, "I, and the Holy Spirit, and my Father, we are one".

There is every opportunity for the scripture to teach the Trinity doctrine openly and plainly, without confusion, and yet it is nowhere to be found.

 

[Rockerduck]

No, none of that is what I think or believe: it's about consistency, for when the scripture sets a precedent that precedent is generally maintained throughout. Moreover there was a perfect opportunity for the Meshiah to make the question about Trinitarianism clear as day when he said "I and my Father are one", but he did not do so, and broke the supposed precedent which Trinitarianism has set from Gen 1:26, that the Most High is a Trinity because of what is written therein.

Why did the Meshiah not say "I and the Holy Spirit and my Father are one"??? Why did he leave out the Holy Spirit when we know the Holy Spirit was upon/within him at that point in his ministry even from the time of his immersion? If the Trinity doctrine were true then he once again broke the dogma by excluding the Holy Spirit even while the Holy Spirit was upon/within him. According to the Trinitarian doctrine he should have said, "I, and the Holy Spirit, and my Father, we are one".

There is every opportunity for the scripture to teach the Trinity doctrine openly and plainly, without confusion, and yet it is nowhere to be found.

How about at the baptism of Jesus when all three of the Trinity was present. That's plain.

 

[dak]

How about at the baptism of Jesus when all three of the Trinity was present. That's plain.

What were "their" pronouns at that time? I, I, and I? or We?

Do you see how that, logically, I am forced to use "their" in my question?
Should I have rather asked, What were "His" pronouns at the time? I, I, and I? or We?

And the OP claims he is here to explain it and to finish it? (this pronoun can of worms)?

 

[dak]

I am not here to argue the point, but to explain it, to finish it.

Since I have now made my point, I will let off here, so that you may hopefully continue your thread in whatever direction you were planning to go with it.

 

[ScottA]

No, none of that is what I think or believe: it's about consistency, for when the scripture sets a precedent that precedent is generally maintained throughout. Moreover there was a perfect opportunity for the Meshiah to make the question about Trinitarianism clear as day when he said "I and my Father are one", but he did not do so, and broke the supposed precedent which Trinitarianism has set from Gen 1:26, that the Most High is a Trinity because of what is written therein.

Why did the Meshiah not say "I and the Holy Spirit and my Father are one"??? Why did he leave out the Holy Spirit when we know the Holy Spirit was upon/within him at that point in his ministry even from the time of his immersion? If the Trinity doctrine were true then he once again broke the dogma by excluding the Holy Spirit even while the Holy Spirit was upon/within him. According to the Trinitarian doctrine he should have said, "I, and the Holy Spirit, and my Father, we are one".

There is every opportunity for the scripture to teach the Trinity doctrine openly and plainly, without confusion, and yet it is nowhere to be found.

First, I am not advocating for or against the Trinity doctrine.

And how many names do you have? I have three. How would you explain that? Make a doctrine saying I am three different persons? Or perhaps, claim each three are not actually me, but two of them are and the other is not? Those are the two camps and doctrines--what people actually believe is true of God. Both would be wrong--and it is likewise wrong regarding God--only supernaturally different. But then again, I'm just an image of all that. Even so, even I am flesh and blood, and spirit which is Holy--and for that matter, I am a father and also a son.

And men of this world are confused by all that. How ridiculous!

As for why Jesus did not include the Holy Spirit in saying, "I and the Father are One"--there are two reasons.

1. God is spirit, and therefore including the Holy Spirit would simply be redundant. That would be like me referring to myself as Holy Scott, true enough, but unnecessary and even arrogant. Indeed, I am a man of flesh and blood, and also born of the spirit of God. I am.
2. And two, who can understand when the most elementary example given by God by creating man in His own image as well as explaining being born again without entering again into our mother's womb, is apparently too confusing to understand?

But that second reason is this: There is a void between heaven and earth, and these are the terms-- that we should be separated from God--cast out. Is God not omnipresent then? Of course He is! But the terms still stand. Therefore, He has divided--divided--where have we heard that before? He has divided Himself. Tell me I am wrong! A man born again of the spirit of God--is he not divided, yet "one" during his time in this world? Too confusing again? Perhaps. But I have explained it all--but only after God has done so first, by the example of a living Christ--God with us--that I might state what is true accordingly. And yes, that is me saying what is not mine, but given to me. And where have we heard that before?​

 

[Hiddenthings]

For thousands of years we have been exposed to the identity of God Himself, but in many different ways, even by different names. But that does not mean He is many, as in many persons:

When God said of the Angel of His Presence, “My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21), what does this mean, especially if this angel is not Jesus, but a genuine angelic messenger of God?

This statement indicates that the full authority of God, represented by His divine Name, rested upon the angel. Because of this, the angel acted with God’s own authority. True Israelites are a people set apart for God’s Name (Num. 6:27; Acts 15:14), and that Name will be placed upon them in its complete fullness at the Lord’s return (Rev 3:12).

Christ both revealed and made known that Name to His disciples (John 17:6, 26), for the fullness of the divine nature dwells in him bodily (Col. 1:19; 2:9). In him, we too may share in this fullness (Eph. 3:19).

Unfortunately, in classical Trinitarian theology, the sharing of God’s Name in its full, ontological sense is restricted to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Consequently, this framework does not allow angels or saints to bear or participate in the divine Name in the way Scripture sometimes describes, especially in passages where heavenly beings act with God’s authority or represent His presence.

 

[ScottA]

When God said of the Angel of His Presence, “My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21), what does this mean, especially if this angel is not Jesus, but a genuine angelic messenger of God?

This statement indicates that the full authority of God, represented by His divine Name, rested upon the angel. Because of this, the angel acted with God’s own authority. True Israelites are a people set apart for God’s Name (Num. 6:27; Acts 15:14), and that Name will be placed upon them in its complete fullness at the Lord’s return (Rev 3:12).

Christ both revealed and made known that Name to His disciples (John 17:6, 26), for the fullness of the divine nature dwells in him bodily (Col. 1:19; 2:9). In him, we too may share in this fullness (Eph. 3:19).

Unfortunately, in classical Trinitarian theology, the sharing of God’s Name in its full, ontological sense is restricted to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Consequently, this framework does not allow angels or saints to bear or participate in the divine Name in the way Scripture sometimes describes, especially in passages where heavenly beings act with God’s authority or represent His presence.

Yes, unfortunately.

Although it is like a third-grade education and a limitation, I do not hold it against them. It is good for children to be children, but not to stay that way, but mature. Many are like veal calves, existing only on milk until the end. Unfortunately, even the teachings of most who teach are limited to the same degree.