shturt678 said:
Thank you for caring again!
Rev.1:6, "I am the "Alpha and the Omega, saith the LORD GOD...." I wonder who this "LORD GOD" is? "The Lord God" and the other names designate (not "manifest") the Second Person as is clear from "Alpha and Omega," here, in 21:6, and 22:13.
This is Christ's signature, the signature of His deity. The book is signed in advance by Christ as the One who is no less than "LORD GOD, " co-equal with the Father.
One cannot help but to agape our "Lord God."
Old agaping Jack
678, take another look - clearly you missed the teaching but when I have time I will expand on what beginning and end means ;)
It appears we need to go through this slowly so everyone is one the same page.
alpha and omega noun
[from the fact that alpha and omega are respectively the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet]
1 : the beginning and ending
2 : the principal element
I assume no one is going to deny this is factual information relating to the words alpha and omega.
That which has a beginning and an end - yes?
Old Jack... are you on board?
Floyd said:
I said already, you cannot compete with such as Dr. Ginsburg; who verified the Trinity to the point of loss of his family, country and fellow Jews in Poland.
His gain was (like Paul said) Christ Jesus!!!!
Floyd.
PS: you have made a real fool of yourself above; give in graciously to superior scholarship, and like him, humble yourself before the Lord God Almighty; and beg forgiveness for your heresy !
Was it the Dr. part of his credentials which caused him to stray so far from the Shema - we may never know.
Purity said:
Check to see if you have an "itch" behind your ear ;)
Your frustration is caused because you cannot accept the Bible text as its has been written in the first instance - when it states Jesus is the Son of God you need to go further and make him something he is not. You know the Apostle Paul never inferred God the Son, or was it written once. This clearly places the Trinity in a precarious position.
You say "However; with your assertions; you cannot escape the duty to produce a cogent; and academically acceptable thesis to support! " and yet, you should ask in the positive "Please provide Scriptural evidence which supports the Prophets and Apostles thesis"
Ok, where else is there a better place to start our discussion than in the beginning; the seedbed of the Bible.
Genesis 3:21 The LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
This Floyd, is a Christian's foundation teaching:
1. Sin deserves death (Romans 6:23)
2. Sacrifice offers a covering for sin (Heb 9:26)
3. Only God can provide a sin-covering sacrifice; a sacrifice which is “other than God” (Heb 10:12)
Figuratively speaking Heb 11:19 is speaking to God and His Son - For Abraham, God sacrificed His only Son, whom he has now received again from the dead through the resurrection (Rom 8:31-32; cp Joh 3:16).
The Old Testament repeats and reinforces (as above) these three principles constantly throughout the Law and the Prophets. In fact, if you were intellectually honest (which I hope you are) these three points underpin the entire Law of Moses, which you need to agree, underpins the entire New Testament atonement theology.
It is essential to understand these principles and recognise how they were fulfilled by Christ, as they inform our understanding of his identity and purpose.
The OT was a school teacher pointing forward to Jesus Christ (See Galatians 3:24); any interpretation contradicting the OT’s view of Christ must be rejected.
I will pre-empt your acceptance of points 1&2, however point 3 is where you will become hard of hearing. It is not for me to prove God offering a sacrifice which was NOT himself, as the Bible is clear in this regard - you need to prove firstly, from the OT, and then the NT, that God would offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin...something which is repulsive in my humble view.
Purity
Though Floyd rejected the above in search of published works I personally feel he should continue to read and prayerfully consider the evidence which is being presented.
I will be showing Floyd (and others participants) why Jesus' sin‐covering sacrifice was made effective by Jesus’ humanity (not deity) and come to see him as the apostles and first‐century Christians did: Jesus Christ: Son of God; Son of Man.
When we read the OT we find it refers to Jesus Christ in two ways: typology (which is symbolic) and prophecy. Most if not all Christians should agree with this statement. Jesus appears in prophecy, it is the implications of these symbolic and prophetical revelations which seriously impact NT Christology:
Atoning sacrifice for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21)
Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18; cp. Hebrews 5:10, 7:1‐10, 9:11)
Ram sacrificed by Abraham (Genesis 22:11‐13)
Passover lamb (Exodus 12; cp. John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 5:6)
Sin offering for high priest & (Leviticus 4)
Brass serpent on pole (Numbers 21:8‐9; cp. John 3:14)
Joseph (Genesis 37‐41)
Boaz (Ruth 2‐4)
King David (1 Samuel 17‐1 Kings 2)
King Solomon (1 Kings 4‐1 Kings 11)
What the Trinitarian has struggled to accept as we have seen in Wormwoods communication with Nothead is the various primary roles Messiah is presented
(1) sacrifice for sin
(2) priest
(3) redeemer
(4) divinely anointed king in King David’s family line.
The Bible both NT and OT speak of a Jewish Messiah who incorporates all four roles simultaneously, none of which requires him to be God, and two (sacrifice for sin and descendent of King David) requiring he is not God.
A note to the Trinitarians - you will have seen so far in all our deliberations a failure to respond to these Scriptural arguments - why so? Why when sound Bible reasoning is put forward is there no rebuttal?
I suggest the only reason I perceive thus far is there are none to be found.
Truth has been revealed and rejected
Purity