Is Jesus God?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
U said, "now lets look at the Is passage. so now Jesus is the Father even though we both know the trinity doctrine clearly says the Father is not the Son".
is this what the bible say?. now who's talking man made doctrine that is not based on the scriptures.

#2 J you have no clue to what doctrine I believe. I'll give you a heads up. I'm "Diversified Oneness". Oh no, not "oneness" as the UPC teaches but as God teaches. that's why you get caught in the scriptures. "diversified oneness" reveals the Godhead plainly. see, what you don't know you reject. the scriptures are clear, Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children". before you kik aganist the prick, you might want to examine what you're kicking against. Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him". Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter".
well then that is my mistake, i thought we were talking about Jesus being the Most High in accordance with the trinity doctrine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
well then that is my mistake, i thought we were talking about Jesus being the Most High in accordance with the trinity doctrine.
no mistake, the Lord Jesus is the Most High, diversified. but not in any trinity. he alone is God almighty shared in flesh. see, many don't understand "Diversified Oneness", but it's in the bible from Genesis to Revelation. there is only one God, meaning only one person. and this one God shared, or diversified himself in flesh, that's all to it, simple but powerful. this doctrine is what the Lord himself taught, as well as the early church, that the Godhead is ONLY ONE GOD, ONE "PERSON".

be blessed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FHII and jaybird

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
no mistake, the Lord Jesus is the Most High, diversified. but not in any trinity. he alone is God almighty shared in flesh. see, many don't understand "Diversified Oneness", but it's in the bible from Genesis to Revelation. there is only one God, meaning only one person. and this one God shared, or diversified himself in flesh, that's all to it, simple but powerful. this doctrine is what the Lord himself taught, as well as the early church, that the Godhead is ONLY ONE GOD, ONE "PERSON".

be blessed.
thanks J, sorry about pressing you a bit. it's just many that have no understand of "diversified Oneness".

be blessed and have peace in Christ Jesus
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus is sitting next to the Father. one is the Father, one is the Son. i dont get what this has to do with the trinity?
No, rather than to having to do with the trinity it may be closer to these two cherubims:

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be." Exodus 25:18-20
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaybird

brionne

Active Member
May 31, 2010
830
130
43
Australia
A hint >A puzzle>> The Jews wanted to stone Jesus For What and Why??>>very Intro.


“Jesus said to them, ‘I have done many good works for you to see, works from my Father; for which of these are you stoning me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy: you are only a man and you claim to be God’. Jesus answered: ‘Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected. Yet you say to someone the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming”, because he says, “I am the Son of God”. If I am not doing my Father’s work, there is no need to believe me; but if I am doing it, then even if you refuse to believe in me, at least believe in the work I do; then you will know for sure that the Father is in me and I am in the Father’”—John 10:32-38.

Jesus identified himself as the 'son of God' and they misinterpreted that somehow to mean that Jesus was saying he was God. They did not have a very good comprehension of spiritual matters. We are all 'sons of God' in the sense that God created us and calls us his children. There is no trinity unless you are talking about Hinduism or some other pagan religion.
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
first I thank my God for this opportunity, second GINOLJC to all. to Richard, before I reply to this post let me get something clear. the one sitting on the throne you said YHVH, is that's the one who you calls the Father? yes or no, I just want to be clear. please response.

I thought you wanted me to answer before you replied. Yet, you already replied. Since you already replied, apparently there is no need for me to respond. However, I shall direct to the words of Yeshua`. Who did he call "Father"?
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
Part 1

THE Corinthians 15:24 question, "The Son Subject to the Father?" well let's see.

You didn't wait. Are you not a man of your word? Perhaps you need to enlighten me with regard to the meaning of "before" since according to you I can't read a dictionary. <chuckle>


revelation time "diversified oneness" answers the question.

Ulay, ulay lo'. Perhaps there is yet "another" answer that you have not considered.


SUBJECT: G5293 ὑποτάσσω hupotasso (hoop-ot-as'-so) v. According to Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English. the Greek word here, G5293 ὑποτάσσω hupotasso, this word is used as a verb, and not a noun. (that will alert one quickly). as a verb one can quickly see, or understand what subject means here in context. a. put within, b. will. lets look at both and understand this revelation. according to the second definition of subject in the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary as a verb, it means definition #2. To put under or within the power of. (there is our revelation, “within” within the power of). lets back this up, and see how we got this revelation with our second, and complete understanding.

Let's see if I am getting this correctly: Basically what you are telling me is:

A) You found "hupotasso" in a Webster's 1828 dictionary? However, we both know the truth, you looked up "subject" which is listed as an adj., noun and a transitive verb and of 7 entries under verb you selected that which best suited your desired intent / need.

B) That we now use an English dictionary from 18 centuries later, to determine / translate / render / understand the meaning of the NT Greek language.

C) That we pick and choose from any dictionary any definition that best suits our own purposes to place our desired intent and meaning upon the text and to determine the text.

D) So "our revelation" of "within" is the definition that best suits your intended imposition upon the text.

Is that about the gist of it? I'll follow up with this below:


G5293 ὑποτάσσω hupotasso (hoop-ot-as'-so) as a verb which means 1. to subordinate
2. (reflexively) to obey
[from G5259 and G5021]
KJV: be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

please notice, the KJV can translate subject, G5293 ὑποτάσσω hupotasso, as be under obedience, which bring us to our second understanding.

So here again, as you have repeatedly attempted to do with Hebrew, you are picking a manner in which the authors of the KJV rendered a conjugation of hupotasso and are attempting to place it as you desire, in the manner in which you desire the text to mean / read.

So once again you have chosen a manner in which something was rendered in a single occurrence elsewhere, and have chosen in a manner devised of your own heart, that is how it should be rendered elsewhere. And, by using an English dictionary in attempt to backwards translate English into Greek to determine the meaning of the Greek text.

You have chosen "be under obedience" which the authors of the KJV translated it in that manner only once, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, a manner devised of your own heart.

In 1 Corinthians 14:34: In the WH and NA it is hupotasseothosan, the 3rd pers. pl. pres. pass. and only occurs in this one verse.

In the MT and TR it is hupotassesthai, the pres. mid. infin. which occurs only in Rom 13:5, 1 Cor 14:34, Tit 2:3 and 3:1.

Yet, you would have me to believe, that this is also the manner in which the 6 occurrences in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 should be rendered. Or, at the very least, that is also the manner that at least one of those six occurrences should be understood / rendered.

In 1 Corinthians 15:27 (begins v26 in the NA) we have:
hupetaxen ; hupotetaktai ; hupotaxantos

In 1 Corinthians 15:28:
hupotage ; hupotagesetai ; hupotaxanti

Notice, not one of the 6 occurrences in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 are the same as 1 Corinthians 14:34, which is the instance you have chosen and devised of your own heart best fits.

So let's list out the conjugations:

1. 3rd pers. sing. aor. act. indic.
sg. act. aor. not pl. pres. pass.
Strike 1

2. 3rd pers. sg. perf. pass. indic.
sg. perf. indic. not pl. mid. infin.
Strike 2

3. gen. masc. sg. aor. act. part.
Alex, I'll take "What is a participle?" for 100.
Strike 3

4. 3rd pers. sg. 2 aor. pass. subj.
No, that doesn't seem to fit either.
Strike 4

5. 3rd pers. sg. 2 fut. pass. indic.
fut. indic. not pres. infin.
Strike 5

6. dat. sg. m. aor. act. part.
Alex, I'll take "What is a participle?" for 1000.
Strike 6

And since it's all Greek to me, perhaps you can explain the subtleties of each of the above.
Oh, and don't worry if you don't know all the abbreviations that I used, just look in the front of your dictionary. <grin>

1 Corinthians 14:34 : be subject

1 Corinthians 15:27-28
1. he subjected
2. have been subjected
3. having subjected
4. is / are subjected
5. will be subjected
6. having subjected


1Co 15:27 For, He put all things in subjection (active) under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection (sg. perf. indic.), it is evident that he is excepted who did subject (part.) all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected (sg. 2 aor. subj.) unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected (sg. 2 fut. indic.) to him that did subject (part.) all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

So, what part of speech does your 1828 Webster's define "subjection" as?
What part of speech does your 1828 Webster's define "subjected" as?

So you looked up "subject" in your 1828 Webster's and took the verb definition that best suited the devises of your own heart, and attempted to apply that to a participle. Pure genius! Oh. and of course, I am quoting the 1901 ASV, you are using the KJV. So let's be fair and not try to do that which you attempt to do:

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under, him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under, him, that God may be all in all.

So, it's not quite what you attempted to make it out to be.

The son shall subject himself by:

1Co 15:24b when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.

And in delivering up the kingdom, will be subjected to the one who subjected all things under the son, with the exception, of the one who did the subjecting. Unless of course, you prefer Yeshua` be subject as in submission, in silence, as a woman in a church.

You can pick and choose your "definitions" all you want, you can attempt to choose whatever manner the authors of the KJV translated it in one place, and try to smear some goo on it and make it stick somewhere else in attempt to render the text according to the device of your own heart. I care not what you do. However, you have been shown for what you are attempting to do. You have been shown the error of such. What you choose to do now ... It's all upon you. I care not.

<snipped until I am convinced you are ready to move on to the next point>

To be continued.
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
Part 2
get an old English dictionary like the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary to understand old English, and this mystery will be no more, and to some their ERROR no more.

Except that you attempted to use an "old English dictionary" to define a Greek word. You are working the wrong way. Rather than attempting to find the best English to represent the Greek. You are attempting to represent the Greek through your choice in English.

Oh, and BTW: Wouldn't the 1828 Webster's come closer to the 1901 ASV than the 1611 KJV?


the Holy Spirit will enable us, or give us the ability to root out words and their meaning to give true understanding even in the old English language used at that time when the bible was written.

<shakes his head and chuckles> Try Bishops and Geneva (AKA the "breaches" Bible)

Bishops:
1Co 15:24 Then [commeth] the ende, when he hath deliuered vp the kingdome to God the father, when he hath put downe all rule, and all auctoritie, and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must raigne tyll he haue put all his enemies vnder his feete.
1Co 15:26 The last enemie that shalbe destroyed, [is] death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put downe all thynges vnder his feete: But when he saith, all thynges are vnder hym, it is manifest that he is excepted which dyd put all thynges vnder hym.
1Co 15:28 When all thynges are subdued vnto hym, then shall the sonne also hym selfe be subiect vnto him that put all thinges vnder hym, that God may be all in all.

The "breaches":
1Co 15:24 Then shalbe the end, when he hath deliuered vp the kingdome to God, euen the Father, when he hath put downe all rule, and all authoritie and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reigne till hee hath put all his enemies vnder his feete.
1Co 15:26 The last enemie that shalbe destroyed, is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put downe all things vnder his feete. (And when he saith that all things are subdued to him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put downe all things vnder him.)
1Co 15:28 And when all things shalbe subdued vnto him, then shall the Sonne also himselfe be subiect vnto him, that did subdue all things vnder him, that God may be all in all.

Now that's a little bit of OE.

Oh, and BTW: The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, later translated to Latin. and then translated to "old English", it wasn't written in old English. It was translated. There is a difference. I guess I could always start using the NIV if that would be preferable to you. I personally don't have any real issues with the copyright 1973 - 1984 version(s).

<snip>

since I said that the Lord Jesus is the diversity, or the ANOTHER of God himself in flesh.

No wonder you refuse to see with regard to 'adam v. "another". It would destroy your theology. Your world of "God" would collapse upon your head. Then maybe, just maybe, you would have to rebuild.

Better to tear down and rebuild, than to keep attempting to prop up something destined to fall.

<snip>

the Lord Jesus is another of god himself.

I am truly saddened for you. "Another" god of himself ...

As you are attempting to use that with regard to 'Adam and Khavah, there are two entities of the same essence. Thus, there must also two in YHVH and Yeshua`.

<snip>

I have seen others like unto you 101G, I have seen and watched what they have attempted to do. I have spoken with them. You are not the first, but I can assure you, the foundation of that which you are attempting to build is rotten, it has already failed. You are welcome to keep attempting to prop it up as long as you wish.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Part 1



You didn't wait. Are you not a man of your word? Perhaps you need to enlighten me with regard to the meaning of "before" since according to you I can't read a dictionary. <chuckle>




Ulay, ulay lo'. Perhaps there is yet "another" answer that you have not considered.




Let's see if I am getting this correctly: Basically what you are telling me is:

A) You found "hupotasso" in a Webster's 1828 dictionary? However, we both know the truth, you looked up "subject" which is listed as an adj., noun and a transitive verb and of 7 entries under verb you selected that which best suited your desired intent / need.

B) That we now use an English dictionary from 18 centuries later, to determine / translate / render / understand the meaning of the NT Greek language.

C) That we pick and choose from any dictionary any definition that best suits our own purposes to place our desired intent and meaning upon the text and to determine the text.

D) So "our revelation" of "within" is the definition that best suits your intended imposition upon the text.

Is that about the gist of it? I'll follow up with this below:




So here again, as you have repeatedly attempted to do with Hebrew, you are picking a manner in which the authors of the KJV rendered a conjugation of hupotasso and are attempting to place it as you desire, in the manner in which you desire the text to mean / read.

So once again you have chosen a manner in which something was rendered in a single occurrence elsewhere, and have chosen in a manner devised of your own heart, that is how it should be rendered elsewhere. And, by using an English dictionary in attempt to backwards translate English into Greek to determine the meaning of the Greek text.

You have chosen "be under obedience" which the authors of the KJV translated it in that manner only once, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, a manner devised of your own heart.

In 1 Corinthians 14:34: In the WH and NA it is hupotasseothosan, the 3rd pers. pl. pres. pass. and only occurs in this one verse.

In the MT and TR it is hupotassesthai, the pres. mid. infin. which occurs only in Rom 13:5, 1 Cor 14:34, Tit 2:3 and 3:1.

Yet, you would have me to believe, that this is also the manner in which the 6 occurrences in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 should be rendered. Or, at the very least, that is also the manner that at least one of those six occurrences should be understood / rendered.

In 1 Corinthians 15:27 (begins v26 in the NA) we have:
hupetaxen ; hupotetaktai ; hupotaxantos

In 1 Corinthians 15:28:
hupotage ; hupotagesetai ; hupotaxanti

Notice, not one of the 6 occurrences in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 are the same as 1 Corinthians 14:34, which is the instance you have chosen and devised of your own heart best fits.

So let's list out the conjugations:

1. 3rd pers. sing. aor. act. indic.
sg. act. aor. not pl. pres. pass.
Strike 1

2. 3rd pers. sg. perf. pass. indic.
sg. perf. indic. not pl. mid. infin.
Strike 2

3. gen. masc. sg. aor. act. part.
Alex, I'll take "What is a participle?" for 100.
Strike 3

4. 3rd pers. sg. 2 aor. pass. subj.
No, that doesn't seem to fit either.
Strike 4

5. 3rd pers. sg. 2 fut. pass. indic.
fut. indic. not pres. infin.
Strike 5

6. dat. sg. m. aor. act. part.
Alex, I'll take "What is a participle?" for 1000.
Strike 6

And since it's all Greek to me, perhaps you can explain the subtleties of each of the above.
Oh, and don't worry if you don't know all the abbreviations that I used, just look in the front of your dictionary. <grin>

1 Corinthians 14:34 : be subject

1 Corinthians 15:27-28
1. he subjected
2. have been subjected
3. having subjected
4. is / are subjected
5. will be subjected
6. having subjected


1Co 15:27 For, He put all things in subjection (active) under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection (sg. perf. indic.), it is evident that he is excepted who did subject (part.) all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected (sg. 2 aor. subj.) unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected (sg. 2 fut. indic.) to him that did subject (part.) all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

So, what part of speech does your 1828 Webster's define "subjection" as?
What part of speech does your 1828 Webster's define "subjected" as?

So you looked up "subject" in your 1828 Webster's and took the verb definition that best suited the devises of your own heart, and attempted to apply that to a participle. Pure genius! Oh. and of course, I am quoting the 1901 ASV, you are using the KJV. So let's be fair and not try to do that which you attempt to do:

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under, him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under, him, that God may be all in all.

So, it's not quite what you attempted to make it out to be.

The son shall subject himself by:

1Co 15:24b when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.

And in delivering up the kingdom, will be subjected to the one who subjected all things under the son, with the exception, of the one who did the subjecting. Unless of course, you prefer Yeshua` be subject as in submission, in silence, as a woman in a church.

You can pick and choose your "definitions" all you want, you can attempt to choose whatever manner the authors of the KJV translated it in one place, and try to smear some goo on it and make it stick somewhere else in attempt to render the text according to the device of your own heart. I care not what you do. However, you have been shown for what you are attempting to do. You have been shown the error of such. What you choose to do now ... It's all upon you. I care not.

<snipped until I am convinced you are ready to move on to the next point>

To be continued.
so it's true you can't read a dictionary. Oh well.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yeah, you caught me with my pants down on that one! <grin>
GINOLJC, Look we're not here to catch anyone, or each other, ok. it's not about who know this or that., but of edification, helping one another. I'm of the Lord Jesus and I believe you're also, so let's have no division among us. let's put the past behind and press forward toward the mark of the high calling in Christ Jesus. meaning we can discuss the scriptures, and our beliefs without arguing or trying to out perform each other. agreed?. then we can walk together. now I'm reaching out to you as a brother, because we will know more together in Faith than without Faith separated.
and by discussing, we each can put our beliefs on the table and support them by scripture, and research if nesseary. agreed?.

Peace in Christ.
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
GINOLJC, Look we're not here to catch anyone, or each other, ok. it's not about who know this or that., but of edification, helping one another. I'm of the Lord Jesus and I believe you're also, so let's have no division among us.

Which between us made the distinction of division?


let's put the past behind and press forward toward the mark of the high calling in Christ Jesus. meaning we can discuss the scriptures, and our beliefs without arguing or trying to out perform each other. agreed?.

Since you posted this, I watched and observed your interactions with others. When words and actions don't agree, believe actions. We have already attempted this twice.


then we can walk together. now I'm reaching out to you as a brother, because we will know more together in Faith than without Faith separated. and by discussing, we each can put our beliefs on the table and support them by scripture, and research if nesseary. agreed?.

I shall accept your offer at face value. However, that does it mean that I am inclined to enter discussion with you, or that I feel you have anything of any real value to offer. I have observed your "method(s)" and "style", and a red flag has been raised to things deeper than the mere surface. Can the leopard change it's spots?

Know that actions speak much louder than words.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I shall accept your offer at face value. However, that does it mean that I am inclined to enter discussion with you, or that I feel you have anything of any real value to offer. I have observed your "method(s)" and "style", and a red flag has been raised to things deeper than the mere surface. Can the leopard change it's spots?

Know that actions speak much louder than words.
GINOLJC, first thanks for the response. second, please don't accept any offer if you can discuss, nor get anything of value out of. and if your observation, "method(s)" and "style", is a red flag has been raised to things deeper than the mere surface. Can the leopard change it's spots? well then leave any offer alone. and if this is the way you take my actions, leave it alone and treat it as it was never offered.

peace in Christ Jesus.
 

blessedhope

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2015
1,170
30
48
I Just luv this Garbage !!>> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ! Its the Tri!>> all this screaming and crying on this thread is put to rest >> read the bible and what it says>> let US!>> that's it how can you slice and dice it?? But apostates cry no.no .no..suck it up.. the bible say Us> then there is a little gem that the No>no>no don't want to read in Gen 11! The tri comes again let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.>> there that Dam Us again for the apostates!>>< luv it>> the more the apostates mouth off>> the more they look like FOOLS!!! Enjoy>>
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I Just luv this Garbage !!>> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ! Its the Tri!>> all this screaming and crying on this thread is put to rest >> read the bible and what it says>> let US!>> that's it how can you slice and dice it?? But apostates cry no.no .no..suck it up.. the bible say Us> then there is a little gem that the No>no>no don't want to read in Gen 11! The tri comes again let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.>> there that Dam Us again for the apostates!>>< luv it>> the more the apostates mouth off>> the more they look like FOOLS!!! Enjoy>>
since you think that this is garbage mind if I ask you a question? U said "let us", as what the Lord said in, "Let us make man in our image". my question to U is this. I know this is a simple question for you to answer. in Revelation 1:4 & 5 "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood".

so blessedhope, is these the three person you were referring to in the trinity?

Person #1. from him which is, and which was, and which is to come. the Father?

Person #2. from the seven Spirits, the Holy Spirit

Person #3. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the Son.

is this a correct assessment? yes or no.
 

blessedhope

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2015
1,170
30
48
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the Son >> I just luv your apostasy!! as The jews wanted to stone Jesus because he said I Am >> and I see in your evil lust do not understand the bible at all and what it talks about. Its really intro that any one can take parts of the bible and run with it and make it any way they want {satan} but I will leave you with the sword of GodJesus>>
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The Jews Knew when Jesus I'm >> but you have no understanding>>MMMM 2000 years and still no understanding>> sad.