Who is the Whore of babylon

[BreadOfLife]

All misused and misunderstood verses.

Uh-huh, and that's why you failed to address ANY of them . . .

 

[brakelite]

So you're implying that God is subject to sin and temptation with the possibility of failure?! For it to mean all that it does, Christ had to at least had the possibility of failure as did Adam.

The Son of God was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, and He condemned sin in the flesh, and yes, there was indeed the possibility of failure, because He was made completely in the likeness of HIs brethren.

 

[gadar perets]

Uh-huh, and that's why you failed to address ANY of them . . .

Not "failed", but chose not to. Since you seem to want me to address them I will tonight when I have more time.

 

[Trekson]

Do YOU??
The Bible doesn't teach what you're proposing.

It teaches that he IS God and that He always WAS God - in Heaven and on earth:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GOD. Nothing contrary to what I said.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. Again, Nothing contrary to what I said. The glory was His being filled with the Holy Spirit, a new phenomenon to them. The word "flesh" G4561 means the body (not soul or spirit), human nature with its frailties, a human being, carnal minded, fleshly. Nothing God-like at all. Although because he was born w/o a basic sin nature his only difference from us was he was not carnal minded.

Isaiah 7:14
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'GOD is with us'). No one is denying he was God's son but that does not make his time on earth part "God-man".

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty GOD, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Nothing contrary to what I said.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Nothing contrary to what I said. The word "manifest" means to make apparent, appear, make, show. John 4:24 - "God is a Spirit"...


YOU don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on . . .

 

[Trekson]

yes it does, see your post above.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nothing contrary to what I said.

WRONG.
This verse (John 1:1) states that the Word (the Son) is GOD.

STRIKE ONE . . .

Again, Nothing contrary to what I said. The glory was His being filled with the Holy Spirit, a new phenomenon to them. The word "flesh" G4561 means the body (not soul or spirit), human nature with its frailties, a human being, carnal minded, fleshly. Nothing God-like at all. Although because he was born w/o a basic sin nature his only difference from us was he was not carnal minded.

This verse (John 1:14) states plainly that the Word, which verse 1 says is GOD – became FLESH.
GOD became flesh.

STRIKE TWO . . .

No one is denying he was God's son but that does not make his time on earth part "God-man".

This verse (Isaiah 7:14) states that His title of Immanuel means “GOD with us”. It DOESN’T mean. “Son of God who is not God is with us”.
It means “GOD is with us” . . .
STRIKE THREE . . .

Nothing contrary to what I said.

WRONG.

This verse (Isaiah 9:6) calls the child (Jesus) “MIGHTY GOD”.
It doesn’t get ANY clearer than this.

Nothing contrary to what I said. The word "manifest" means to make apparent, appear, make, show. John 4:24 - "God is a Spirit"...

WRONG again.

This verse (1 Tim. 3:16) explicitly states that GOD was manifest in the Flesh.
Using your OWN definition - God APPEARED in the Flesh.

You have LOST this argument

 

[Trekson]

Okay BoL, Let's try it this way. What you're not understanding is that God and flesh can not dwell together. It does not say that God wore a mantle of flesh while he was here. I have eternal life, my residency is in heaven, with the help of the Holy Spirit it would appear that I can do miracles, why am I not God? Because I am flesh, not spirit, I have a spirit, I am filled with the spirit yet I'm not God. Jesus had to die, God can not die. Jesus could die because he was flesh and blood and flesh and blood can not be a part of the kingdom of God. In Matt. 28:18 After his resurrection Jesus said all power had been given to him, something he apparently didn't have before, where if he was fully God, he would have. As I showed before the bible says God is a spirit. Jesus says in Luke 24:39 that he is not a spirit because a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Most of your points show that Jesus was God which I agree with, why do you think the bible keeps repeating itself when it emphasizes that He was flesh? Because He couldn't be both at once!

 

[gadar perets]

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GOD.

First, the Son is being read into John 1:1-4. The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, YHWH spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, "And Elohim said." YHWH spoke and it was done. Psalm 33:6,9 says, "By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast."

Second, the key to understanding John 1:1c lies in the word order. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force. (Parenthesis and bold, mine).
​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

This is definitely referring to the Son, but it is not saying the Son became flesh. It is saying the Father’s spoken words and thoughts became flesh.

Isaiah 7:14

All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'GOD is with us').

The name Immanuel is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; "How God anointed Yeshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God (El) was with him." Not that Yeshua was El, but that El was with and in Yeshua. Since God was with Yeshua and Yeshua was with “us”, then God was with us as well. If you choose to use your view, then consider the name Jehu. In Hebrew, this name means "He is Yah" or "Yah is He." Does that mean the man Jehu is, in reality, YHWH? No. Neither does Immanuel mean Yeshua is God.

Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty GOD, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

“Mighty God” in Hebrew is “el gibbor”. A perfectly acceptable way of translating those words without contradicting pure monotheism or John 17:3 is “mighty warrior” or “powerful warrior” or even “mighty el”. Most translations change the word order from “el gibbor” to “gibbor el” and then they capitalize “God”. “God” should never be capitalized when the words “el” or “elohim” are used in reference to a being other than Almighty YHWH, the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM.

1 Timothy 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott reads, "Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have "He who," instead of "God," in this passage."

E.W. Bullinger writes, “The Revised Version prints "He Who", and adds in margin, "Theos (God) rests on no sufficient evidence". The probability is that the original rending was ho (which), with the Syriac and all the Latin Versions, to agree with musterion (neut.) The Greek uncial being O, some scribe added the letter s, making OC (He Who), which ho thought made better sense. Later another put a ark in this O, making the word OC, the contraction for OEOC, God. This mark in Codex A, in the British Museum, is said by some to be in different ink.”

Many other references say the same thing.

 

[Enoch111]

This is definitely referring to the Son, but it is not saying the Son became flesh. It is saying the Father’s spoken words and thoughts became flesh.

Do you see how silly and nonsensical that sounds? Have you noticed how extremely specious your arguments are? What you are saying is that each time Jesus spoke globules of tissue (pieces of meat) literally went out of his mouth! That is not only gross, but blasphemous.

 

[gadar perets]

Do you see how silly and nonsensical that sounds? Have you noticed how extremely specious your arguments are? What you are saying is that each time Jesus spoke globules of tissue (pieces of meat) literally went out of his mouth! That is not only gross, but blasphemous.

The only thing that sounds silly is your reply. Did Elohim speak and create?

Genesis 1:24 And Elohim said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
​

Did globules of tissue come out of His mouth then as well? He spoke everything into existence, including His Son.

 

[CoreIssue]

First, the Son is being read into John 1:1-4. The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, YHWH spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, "And Elohim said." YHWH spoke and it was done. Psalm 33:6,9 says, "By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast."

Second, the key to understanding John 1:1c lies in the word order. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force. (Parenthesis and bold, mine).
​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.


This is definitely referring to the Son, but it is not saying the Son became flesh. It is saying the Father’s spoken words and thoughts became flesh.


The name Immanuel is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; "How God anointed Yeshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God (El) was with him." Not that Yeshua was El, but that El was with and in Yeshua. Since God was with Yeshua and Yeshua was with “us”, then God was with us as well. If you choose to use your view, then consider the name Jehu. In Hebrew, this name means "He is Yah" or "Yah is He." Does that mean the man Jehu is, in reality, YHWH? No. Neither does Immanuel mean Yeshua is God.


“Mighty God” in Hebrew is “el gibbor”. A perfectly acceptable way of translating those words without contradicting pure monotheism or John 17:3 is “mighty warrior” or “powerful warrior” or even “mighty el”. Most translations change the word order from “el gibbor” to “gibbor el” and then they capitalize “God”. “God” should never be capitalized when the words “el” or “elohim” are used in reference to a being other than Almighty YHWH, the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM.


A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott reads, "Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have "He who," instead of "God," in this passage."

E.W. Bullinger writes, “The Revised Version prints "He Who", and adds in margin, "Theos (God) rests on no sufficient evidence". The probability is that the original rending was ho (which), with the Syriac and all the Latin Versions, to agree with musterion (neut.) The Greek uncial being O, some scribe added the letter s, making OC (He Who), which ho thought made better sense. Later another put a ark in this O, making the word OC, the contraction for OEOC, God. This mark in Codex A, in the British Museum, is said by some to be in different ink.”

Many other references say the same thing.

The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)

Absolutely wrong. It means the reason for or behind all things. You gave the definition for word, not Word.

Logos is the Greek term translated as “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” In Greek philosophy, it also referred to a universal, divine reason or the mind of God.

John was written in Greek. This is the only place in the Bible where Logos.

Saying it means just written words makes absolutely no sense.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

[gadar perets]

The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)

Absolutely wrong. It means the reason for or behind all things. You gave the definition for word, not Word.

Logos is the Greek term translated as “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” In Greek philosophy, it also referred to a universal, divine reason or the mind of God.

John was written in Greek. This is the only place in the Bible where Logos.

Saying it means just written words makes absolutely no sense.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I gave the definition for logos. I do not define Biblical words by Greek philosophy. The Septuagint uses logos for word, not Word. Capitalizing "Word" so it appears to be a name for Messiah is a trinitarian invention.

As for John 1:3, that is how modern deceived translators translate it. Prior to the KJV, the common translation for hundreds of years was, "Through it all things were made; without it nothing was made that was made."

 

[CoreIssue]

I gave the definition for logos. I do not define Biblical words by Greek philosophy. The Septuagint uses logos for word, not Word. Capitalizing "Word" so it appears to be a name for Messiah is a trinitarian invention.

As for John 1:3, that is how modern deceived translators translate it. Prior to the KJV, the common translation for hundreds of years was, "Through it all things were made; without it nothing was made that was made."

The Septuagint Is Old Testament written in Greek. The word was never used by the Hebrews in the Old Testament.

And you obviously did not read my post or pay attention to it. You repeated exactly what I said for verse three, exactly.

 

[gadar perets]

The Septuagint Is Old Testament written in Greek. The word was never used by the Hebrews in the Old Testament.

Of course it is never used by the Hebrews! Logos is a Greek word, but it was used to translate the Hebrew word for "word".

And you obviously did not read my post or pay attention to it. You repeated exactly what I said for verse three, exactly.

Actually, it is YOU who did not read my post in which I did NOT repeat your verse three, but changed "him" to "it" twice.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay BoL, Let's try it this way. What you're not understanding is that God and flesh can not dwell together. It does not say that God wore a mantle of flesh while he was here. I have eternal life, my residency is in heaven, with the help of the Holy Spirit it would appear that I can do miracles, why am I not God? Because I am flesh, not spirit, I have a spirit, I am filled with the spirit yet I'm not God. Jesus had to die, God can not die. Jesus could die because he was flesh and blood and flesh and blood can not be a part of the kingdom of God. In Matt. 28:18 After his resurrection Jesus said all power had been given to him, something he apparently didn't have before, where if he was fully God, he would have. As I showed before the bible says God is a spirit. Jesus says in Luke 24:39 that he is not a spirit because a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Most of your points show that Jesus was God which I agree with, why do you think the bible keeps repeating itself when it emphasizes that He was flesh? Because He couldn't be both at once!

Let's take your ignorant point in RED one-by-one . . .

Ignorant Point #1 - NOWHERE does Scripture say that God and flesh cannot dwell together.
As a matter of fact - Col. 2:9 states explicitly:
For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead BODILY.

STRIKE ONE.


Ignorant Point #2 - YOU are not God because YOU did NOT exist from ALL eternity - you didn't create the universe, you are NOT omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent.

STRIKE TWO.


Ignorant Point #3 - Even BEFORE His Resurrection - Jesus had EVERYTHING that the Father had - and He explicitly states this in John 16:15 . . .

EVERYTHING THAT THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

STRIKE THREE - you're OUT.

 

[BreadOfLife]

First, the Son is being read into John 1:1-4. The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, YHWH spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, "And Elohim said." YHWH spoke and it was done. Psalm 33:6,9 says, "By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast."

Second, the key to understanding John 1:1c lies in the word order. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force. (Parenthesis and bold, mine).
​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

WRONG.

John 1:1 says that the WORD was GOD.
If you continue to read on past verse 14 - you will see that this "WORD" became FLESH.
Ergo - GOD became FLESH.

NO amount of your Scriptural acrobatics can change this fact . . .

This is definitely referring to the Son, but it is not saying the Son became flesh. It is saying the Father’s spoken words and thoughts became flesh.

This is even more idiotic than your previous claim above.
God's "words" became flesh but NOT His Son??

We have already established that the "Word" is GOD (v. 1). We also established that the "Word" became FLESH and dwelt among us.

WHO dwelt among them?? Remember - the apostle John is writing this.
It was JESUS who dwelt among them. Jesus is the "Word" that was GOD who became FLESH.

The name Immanuel is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; "How God anointed Yeshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God (El) was with him." Not that Yeshua was El, but that El was with and in Yeshua. Since God was with Yeshua and Yeshua was with “us”, then God was with us as well. If you choose to use your view, then consider the name Jehu. In Hebrew, this name means "He is Yah" or "Yah is He." Does that mean the man Jehu is, in reality, YHWH? No. Neither does Immanuel mean Yeshua is God.

Uhhhhhh, no - "Immanuel" means "God is with US" - not "Him".
You are twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction as the ignorant and unstable do (2 Pet. 3:16).

“Mighty God” in Hebrew is “el gibbor”. A perfectly acceptable way of translating those words without contradicting pure monotheism or John 17:3 is “mighty warrior” or “powerful warrior” or even “mighty el”. Most translations change the word order from “el gibbor” to “gibbor el” and then they capitalize “God”. “God” should never be capitalized when the words “el” or “elohim” are used in reference to a being other than Almighty YHWH, the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM.

First, the Son is being read into John 1:1-4. The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, YHWH spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, "And Elohim said." YHWH spoke and it was done. Psalm 33:6,9 says, "By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast."

Second, the key to understanding John 1:1c lies in the word order. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)
In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

The name Immanuel is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; "How God anointed Yeshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God (El) was with him." Not that Yeshua was El, but that El was with and in Yeshua. Neither does Immanuel mean Yeshua is God.

“Mighty God” in Hebrew is “el gibbor”. A perfectly acceptable way of translating those words without contradicting pure monotheism or John 17:3 is “mighty warrior” or “powerful warrior” or even “mighty el”. or “elohim” are used in reference to a being other than Almighty YHWH, the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM.

A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott reads, "Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have "He who," instead of "God," in this passage."

E.W. Bullinger writes, “The Revised Version prints "He Who", and adds in margin, "Theos (God) rests on no sufficient evidence". God. This mark in Codex A, in the British Museum, is said by some to be in different ink.”

Many other references say the same thing.

Now you're playing semantic games because you can't refute this passage.
There is only ONE God - not multiple "gods" with lowercase "g's".

It calls Him "Mighty God" - period.

A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott reads, "Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have "He who," instead of "God," in this passage."

E.W. Bullinger writes, “The Revised Version prints "He Who", and adds in margin, "Theos (God) rests on no sufficient evidence". The probability is that the original rending was ho (which), with the Syriac and all the Latin Versions, to agree with musterion (neut.) The Greek uncial being O, some scribe added the letter s, making OC (He Who), which ho thought made better sense. Later another put a ark in this O, making the word OC, the contraction for OEOC, God. This mark in Codex A, in the British Museum, is said by some to be in different ink.”

Many other references say the same thing.

Nice TRY - but this ONLY works if you are cherry-picking that phrase - which is exactly what you are doing.
If you read it in CONTEXT - you fall FLAT on your face.

The line that precedes this reads:
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
By common confession, the secret of our godly worship is great:

This is followed by:
He appeared in the flesh, etc.
God was manifest in the flesh, etc.
Christ was revealed in a human body, etc.

Cherry-picking only leads to more confusion . . .

 

[Trekson]

Let's take your ignorant point in RED one-by-one . . .

Ignorant Point #1 - NOWHERE does Scripture say that God and flesh cannot dwell together.
As a matter of fact - Col. 2:9 states explicitly:
For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead BODILY. After the resurrection, I agree

STRIKE ONE.


Ignorant Point #2 - YOU are not God because YOU did NOT exist from ALL eternity - you didn't create the universe, you are NOT omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. Neither was Jesus when he was in the flesh

STRIKE TWO.


Ignorant Point #3 - Even BEFORE His Resurrection - Jesus had EVERYTHING that the Father had - and He explicitly states this in John 16:15 . . .

EVERYTHING THAT THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. By faith as a joint-heir with Christ, I can claim that as well.

STRIKE THREE - you're OUT.

 

[gadar perets]

WRONG.

John 1:1 says that the WORD was GOD.
If you continue to read on past verse 14 - you will see that this "WORD" became FLESH.
Ergo - GOD became FLESH.

NO amount of your Scriptural acrobatics can change this fact . . .

You mean no amount of truth will change your mind. I quoted a highly respected trinitarian Greek grammar and a scholar who knows a whole lot more Greek than you, but you ignored it because you have been indoctrinated into trinitarianism.

This is even more idiotic than your previous claim above.
God's "words" became flesh but NOT His Son??

We have already established that the "Word" is GOD (v. 1). We also established that the "Word" became FLESH and dwelt among us.

WHO dwelt among them?? Remember - the apostle John is writing this.
It was JESUS who dwelt among them. Jesus is the "Word" that was GOD who became FLESH.

No, the translators established that the ""Word" is GOD". They also established the practice of capitalizing "Word". The "logos" was NOT a person before becoming flesh. It was a thing just as Elohim's spoken words became things and living beings at creation.

Uhhhhhh, no - "Immanuel" means "God is with US" - not "Him".
You are twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction as the ignorant and unstable do (2 Pet. 3:16).

I never said it didn't mean "God is with us". Who is "us"? Mankind. Was God with mankind while He was with and in Yeshua? Of course He was. You didn't address "Jehu". Was Jehu "Yah"? If you say no, then neither does Yeshua have to be "God" in the phrase "God with us".

Now you're playing semantic games because you can't refute this passage.

There is only ONE God - not multiple "gods" with lowercase "g's".

It calls Him "Mighty God" - period.

No. It is trinitarian translators that call him "Mighty God" when the Hebrew says "el gibbor". How come the translators changed the word order here, but not in the next phrase "sar shalom" (Prince of Peace)? Why didn't they translate it as "Peace Prince"? The answer is simple. They translated their own trinitarian bias into the text.

Nice TRY - but this ONLY works if you are cherry-picking that phrase - which is exactly what you are doing.
If you read it in CONTEXT - you fall FLAT on your face.

The line that precedes this reads:
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
By common confession, the secret of our godly worship is great:

This is followed by:
He appeared in the flesh, etc.
God was manifest in the flesh, etc.
Christ was revealed in a human body, etc.

Cherry-picking only leads to more confusion . . .

The beginning of verse 16 reveals more trinitarian bias as the Greek word ευσεβειας does not mean "godliness", but piety, reverence, respect, devoutness, etc. "Godliness" is simply a word chosen by trinitarian translators. Continuing on in the verse, since when does "God" need to be "justified"? What is so special about "God" being "seen by angels"? They have been seeing Him for millennia. Who was "preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory"? Not God, but the SON of God.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

So you're implying that God is subject to sin and temptation with the possibility of failure?! For it to mean all that it does, Christ had to at least had the possibility of failure as did Adam.

Now I have seen what ultimate means... the ultimate of twisting words and their meaning, but worse, the ultimate in failed comprehension.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You mean no amount of truth will change your mind. I quoted a highly respected trinitarian Greek grammar and a scholar who knows a whole lot more Greek than you, but you ignored it because you have been indoctrinated into trinitarianism.


No, the translators established that the ""Word" is GOD". They also established the practice of capitalizing "Word". The "logos" was NOT a person before becoming flesh. It was a thing just as Elohim's spoken words became things and living beings at creation.


I never said it didn't mean "God is with us". Who is "us"? Mankind. Was God with mankind while He was with and in Yeshua? Of course He was. You didn't address "Jehu". Was Jehu "Yah"? If you say no, then neither does Yeshua have to be "God" in the phrase "God with us".



No. It is trinitarian translators that call him "Mighty God" when the Hebrew says "el gibbor". How come the translators changed the word order here, but not in the next phrase "sar shalom" (Prince of Peace)? Why didn't they translate it as "Peace Prince"? The answer is simple. They translated their own trinitarian bias into the text.


The beginning of verse 16 reveals more trinitarian bias as the Greek word ευσεβειας does not mean "godliness", but piety, reverence, respect, devoutness, etc. "Godliness" is simply a word chosen by trinitarian translators. Continuing on in the verse, since when does "God" need to be "justified"? What is so special about "God" being "seen by angels"? They have been seeing Him for millennia. Who was "preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory"? Not God, but the SON of God.

Thanks, Gadar Perets. After this, I find it very easy to make this my last say to you. Good heavens what a relief. . .