Little hard

[MHz]

to post when the one thread I've been restricted to has been locked.

[MHz]

Now had I been able to post a reply this is it.


Many of those who don't want to see and understand, will be in the Trib. Not because they are not Pre-Trib, but because they are Apostate Christianity who doesn't want the truth, just their fictional version of it.
Do you think the ones in this verse enter the trib 'unaware' of what is happening, even at the very start?
Da:11:32:
And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries:
but the people that do know their God shall be strong,
and do exploits.
Da:11:33:
And they that understand among the people shall instruct many:
yet they shall fall by the sword,
and by flame, by captivity,
and by spoil,
many days.
Da:11:34:
Now when they shall fall,
they shall be holpen with a little help:
but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
Da:11:35:
And some of them of understanding shall fall,
to try them,
and to purge,
and to make them white,
even to the time of the end:
because it is yet for a time appointed.

Are the ones who fall the ones who have understanding or the ones who gain understanding?

Would the ones mentioned above(that die, some does not mean all) not be in the class of 'the dead in Christ'? Lighthouse has not yet replied to Jessie's question so this maybe premature, but do the instructors and the ones instructed belong to Christ?

Now that that is off my chest, there seems to be an issue of whether I avoid answering questions.

This is open to anybody, from this sub-section most of my involvement has been here. Starting at the earliest posts, which questions have I refused to answer. There is also a kinda of issue on whether the answer (if given) has met "approval by Core".

For my part I would have to review all the post to see if my 'points' have been answered. I know a few things I asked again if they were not addressed, but from my human memory there were also points I made that weren't addressed that I didn't push for an answer, now I will.
The rains have stopped so I don't have a whole bunch of free time right now, but neither am I in a hurry to address this.
I truly stand by all that I have posted, I'm not out to 'toy' with anybody, nor am I shallow on what Scripture has to say on the subject of 'what is yet to be'. If that is at odds with 'current understanding' then so be it. That is my cross to bear, not yours.
Your cross is also somewhere in the words that God left us, not only for you own salvation but that of your children and your relatives and your neighbors, near and far.

Core, true you said that those left in the trib would be "Apostate Christianity", how does that not include anybody who believes Christ is Lord (or whatever makes a pre-tribber qualify). Does "Apostate Christianity" apply to 'mid' and 'post' tribbers?

For a Christian, would the 'trib' (Satan at his most pissed-off state) be a 'walk in the park' kind of event?

[CoreIssue]

MHz, to be truthful, you are at the point where the answering has to be done by you first. You have evaded so many questions by throwing challenges back, instead of answering. Or throwing out positional statements and verses, as if they will lead to the conclusions you have drawn.

So, before proceeding, I need certain dodges answers from you.
1. Is Christ God incarnate? Yes or no?
2. If no, then what kind of being is he? Angel, fully man, some other kind of flesh being, or some other kind of spirit being that was given flesh, at the incarnation? Or is he not a being, but some aspect of God, as in mind, spirit, or a portion thereof embedded in flesh?
3. Is God Triune, as in three distinct persons who together are God? Yes or no?

I don't want answers like, 'he is what the Bible says he is,' because I believe that and believe it says he is the Second Person of the Godhead incarnate in human flesh.

[MHz]

MHz, to be truthful, you are at the point where the answering has to be done by you first. You have evaded so many questions by throwing challenges back, instead of answering. Or throwing out positional statements and verses, as if they will lead to the conclusions you have drawn.
[QUOTE=CoreIssue;22095]
So, before proceeding, I need certain dodges answers from you.
It seems like every thread ends with this issue. I don't have a problem talking about GOD, about Christ, or about the Holy Spirit, so it has always kindof confused me as to why you keep bringing this up and no matter the number of words I reply with it is always, I am avoiding the question.



1. Is Christ God incarnate? Yes or no?
No, Christ is not GOD. GOD alone is GOD. GOD had his own thoughts, GOD speaks his own words. Christ was begotten of GOD, don't ask me how but before anything was created there were three who had knowledge of each other before even the Heavens were created (and all its hosts), those same three were together before evil was created (whatever Law the hosts of Heaven were under). For Satan to be able to sin he had to be under some sort of Law, that would include do not murder and do not lie.
For GOD to have a 'begotten' it also means God taught Christ. The best parable to describe this is compare GOD and Christ to a human father and son. The son starts out with existence but no knowledge. Knowledge comes with 'time and experiences', whatever a human father shows his son, the son remembers and will do the same (in a perfect world), eventually becoming a 'mirror image of his father'. Unlike our present 'condition' our sons do not become 'mirror images' of ourselves, be that good or bad. Christ has never faltered, nor will he ever.
Christ was a witness to all of creation, GOD spoke and the Holy Spirit made those words manifest into something 'physical'.


2. If no, then what kind of being is he? Angel, fully man, some other kind of flesh being, or some other kind of spirit being that was given flesh, at the incarnation? Or is he not a being, but some aspect of God, as in mind, spirit, or a portion thereof embedded in flesh?
Flesh as we know it is dust of this earth and the breath of life which comes from GOD, so none of those three are 'flesh' but they do have a form and a likeness that has to be similar to our own, a 'body' that can be perceived. In that 'percieveable' form death cannot touch them. When Christ was on earth in the 'flesh of Jesus' His spirit (or whatever) could not be found anywhere but here on earth. It grieved GOD to do this


3. Is God Triune, as in three distinct persons who together are God? Yes or no?
No, GOD alone is still GOD. The other two that are in Heaven (3rd Heaven) are Christ, GOD's begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. Only one of these three has the name GOD, the other two have their own names.


I don't want answers like, 'he is what the Bible says he is,' because I believe that and believe it says he is the Second Person of the Godhead incarnate in human flesh.
In your 'take' does the second person have knowledge of all that has transpired? In my 'take' Jesus regains knowledge 'forgotten' by becoming human flesh. GOD also created 'death' as a place, without Christ becoming flesh and suffering death I'm not sure of any other way GOD's son could know that place, GOD himself certainly knows all about it because He spoke it into existence.

I already assume the above is not going to be 'good enough' for you.

[CoreIssue]

MHz, to be truthful, you are at the point where the answering has to be done by you first. You have evaded so many questions by throwing challenges back, instead of answering. Or throwing out positional statements and verses, as if they will lead to the conclusions you have drawn.

So, before proceeding, I need certain dodges answers from you.
It seems like every thread ends with this issue. I don't have a problem talking about GOD, about Christ, or about the Holy Spirit, so it has always kindof confused me as to why you keep bringing this up and no matter the number of words I reply with it is always, I am avoiding the question.
Because it is important.

And you never answered my questions.


1. Is Christ God incarnate? Yes or no?
No, Christ is not GOD. GOD alone is GOD. GOD had his own thoughts, GOD speaks his own words.

Thank you for finally answering that, directly.

We disagree. As you do with historical Christianity.
Christ was begotten of GOD, don't ask me how but before anything was created there were three who had knowledge of each other before even the Heavens were created (and all its hosts), those same three were together before evil was created (whatever Law the hosts of Heaven were under).
But not together God.

A huge disagreement we have here.

For Satan to be able to sin he had to be under some sort of Law, that would include do not murder and do not lie.

Of course.
For GOD to have a 'begotten' it also means God taught Christ.
There we disagree, big time.

Christ didn't exist before his birth via Mary.

The best parable to describe this is compare GOD and Christ to a human father and son. The son starts out with existence but no knowledge. Knowledge comes with 'time and experiences', whatever a human father shows his son, the son remembers and will do the same (in a perfect world), eventually becoming a 'mirror image of his father'. Unlike our present 'condition' our sons do not become 'mirror images' of ourselves, be that good or bad. Christ has never faltered, nor will he ever.
Christ was a witness to all of creation, GOD spoke and the Holy Spirit made those words manifest into something 'physical'.

Ah! Preincarnate flesh Christ.

Nope.


2. If no, then what kind of being is he? Angel, fully man, some other kind of flesh being, or some other kind of spirit being that was given flesh, at the incarnation? Or is he not a being, but some aspect of God, as in mind, spirit, or a portion thereof embedded in flesh?
Flesh as we know it is dust of this earth and the breath of life which comes from GOD, so none of those three are 'flesh' but they do have a form and a likeness that has to be similar to our own, a 'body' that can be perceived. In that 'percieveable' form death cannot touch them. When Christ was on earth in the 'flesh of Jesus' His spirit (or whatever) could not be found anywhere but here on earth. It grieved GOD to do this

Well. Angels have a form. But it is definitely not physical, but spirit.


3. Is God Triune, as in three distinct persons who together are God? Yes or no?
No, GOD alone is still GOD. The other two that are in Heaven (3rd Heaven) are Christ, GOD's begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. Only one of these three has the name GOD, the other two have their own names.

God is not a personal name. It is a title. A noun. But not a personal name.

Council is not a name. But it is a title we recognize, in example.

We strongly disagree.

I don't want answers like, 'he is what the Bible says he is,' because I believe that and believe it says he is the Second Person of the Godhead incarnate in human flesh.
In your 'take' does the second person have knowledge of all that has transpired? In my 'take' Jesus regains knowledge 'forgotten' by becoming human flesh. GOD also created 'death' as a place, without Christ becoming flesh and suffering death I'm not sure of any other way GOD's son could know that place, GOD himself certainly knows all about it because He spoke it into existence.

I already assume the above is not going to be 'good enough' for you.
No. You actually said something tangible this time.

Christ is God incarnate. He never lost anything, just set aside its use while living one the earth. Now he does not set it aside.

Death is not a place. It is a state of being. As in apart from God. So God didn't create death, it resulted from rebellion.

Anymore than he created evil.

He created freewill, which includes the ability to disobey God, and thus the ability to do evil.

Evil is not a thing. It is not living according to God's will.

Only the flesh died, not his spirit. He never ever was spiritually dead.

It isn't Biblical or Christian, but they were answers.

And this brings up one more, as in those who don't agree with you, do you see them as cult, false doctrine, unable to be saved, or what, due to the radically different views we have?

[MHz]

MHz, to be truthful, you are at the point where the answering has to be done by you first. You have evaded so many questions by throwing challenges back, instead of answering. Or throwing out positional statements and verses, as if they will lead to the conclusions you have drawn.

So, before proceeding, I need certain dodges answers from you.

It seems like every thread ends with this issue. I don't have a problem talking about GOD, about Christ, or about the Holy Spirit, so it has always kindof confused me as to why you keep bringing this up and no matter the number of words I reply with it is always, I am avoiding the question.
Because it is important.

And you never answered my questions.

I'll review the threads that ended in this topic sometime soon to see if that is a fact or not.


1. Is Christ God incarnate? Yes or no?

No, Christ is not GOD. GOD alone is GOD. GOD had his own thoughts, GOD speaks his own words.

Thank you for finally answering that, directly.

We disagree. As you do with historical Christianity.
There are probably more than a hundred points I disagree with about 'historical Christianity'. When knowledge increases what happens to the 'old knowledge'? Is any of it ever classified as being 'in error'?


Christ was begotten of GOD, don't ask me how but before anything was created there were three who had knowledge of each other before even the Heavens were created (and all its hosts), those same three were together before evil was created (whatever Law the hosts of Heaven were under).
But not together God.

A huge disagreement we have here.
That is because GOD is singular, the Holy Spirit obeys GOD, Christ has witnessed everything GOD has ever done, in regards to creation. There are three that are above all created things and beings, but they each have separate names that identify them as being three singular identities. The name GOD only applies to one of these three.



For Satan to be able to sin he had to be under some sort of Law, that would include do not murder and do not lie.

Of course.
For GOD to have a 'begotten' it also means God taught Christ.
There we disagree, big time.

Christ didn't exist before his birth via Mary.
Doesn't your 'take' say 'the second person' became Christ, that would seem to include a 'pre-existance'.
Christ gave up his 'place' in Heaven' to become a 'mere man'.



The best parable to describe this is compare GOD and Christ to a human father and son. The son starts out with existence but no knowledge. Knowledge comes with 'time and experiences', whatever a human father shows his son, the son remembers and will do the same (in a perfect world), eventually becoming a 'mirror image of his father'. Unlike our present 'condition' our sons do not become 'mirror images' of ourselves, be that good or bad. Christ has never faltered, nor will he ever.
Christ was a witness to all of creation, GOD spoke and the Holy Spirit made those words manifest into something 'physical'.

Ah! Preincarnate flesh Christ.


Nope.
See point 2, flesh is dust of the earth and breath of life. When Satan was called to appear in Heaven the two times in Job could he see GOD? GOD was most likely on the same throne we read about in Revelation 4 & 5.
Flesh cannot live outside of this earth without being glorified




2. If no, then what kind of being is he? Angel, fully man, some other kind of flesh being, or some other kind of spirit being that was given flesh, at the incarnation? Or is he not a being, but some aspect of God, as in mind, spirit, or a portion thereof embedded in flesh?
Flesh as we know it is dust of this earth and the breath of life which comes from GOD, so none of those three are 'flesh' but they do have a form and a likeness that has to be similar to our own, a 'body' that can be perceived. In that 'percieveable' form death cannot touch them. When Christ was on earth in the 'flesh of Jesus' His spirit (or whatever) could not be found anywhere but here on earth. It grieved GOD to do this


Well. Angels have a form. But it is definitely not physical, but spirit.
They are also called 'brute beasts', GOD made man in his image and likeness, does that not include form?




3. Is God Triune, as in three distinct persons who together are God? Yes or no?
No, GOD alone is still GOD. The other two that are in Heaven (3rd Heaven) are Christ, GOD's begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. Only one of these three has the name GOD, the other two have their own names.

God is not a personal name. It is a title. A noun. But not a personal name.

Council is not a name. But it is a title we recognize, in example.

We strongly disagree.
When you view GOD as being singular it is a name. When Jesus says "to my God and your God, to my Father and your Father' He is indicating a singular being.
When I say the Lord's prayer I am praying to one, that all three might be involved is beside the point, I say it to one, our Farther who art in Heaven.........


I don't want answers like, 'he is what the Bible says he is,' because I believe that and believe it says he is the Second Person of the Godhead incarnate in human flesh.
In your 'take' does the second person have knowledge of all that has transpired? In my 'take' Jesus regains knowledge 'forgotten' by becoming human flesh. GOD also created 'death' as a place, without Christ becoming flesh and suffering death I'm not sure of any other way GOD's son could know that place, GOD himself certainly knows all about it because He spoke it into existence.

I already assume the above is not going to be 'good enough' for you.
No. You actually said something tangible this time.
Okay


Christ is God incarnate. He never lost anything, just set aside its use while living one the earth. Now he does not set it aside.

Death is not a place. It is a state of being. As in apart from God. So God didn't create death, it resulted from rebellion.

Anymore than he created evil.

He created freewill, which includes the ability to disobey God, and thus the ability to do evil.

Evil is not a thing. It is not living according to God's will.

Only the flesh died, not his spirit. He never ever was spiritually dead.

It isn't Biblical or Christian, but they were answers.

GOD decided that the spirit of life would depart from each person. Death is more like a state of not being to something that was a living being.

GOD did create evil,
Isa:45:5:
I am the LORD,
and there is none else,
there is no God beside me:
I girded thee,
though thou hast not known me:
Isa:45:6:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west,
that there is none beside me.
I am the LORD,
and there is none else.
Isa:45:7:
I form the light,
and create darkness:
I make peace,
and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.

"It isn't Biblical or Christian", spare me the you are holy and I am not thoughts.

And this brings up one more, as in those who don't agree with you, do you see them as cult, false doctrine, unable to be saved, or what, due to the radically different views we have?
I see them as having a different view, period. Do I fear cults or those who have a different doctrine, no, why would I. Some that you have called cults are looking for truth and understanding about GOD as much as you and I. They are on a different track, same as we are. No doubt there will be many who are alive for the thousand years who will say something like, "Oh, that is what that passage meant"

[kay-gee]

Brilliant! Can't argue with the plain teaching of scripture. MHz, glad you're back.

All the best...

[CoreIssue]

There are probably more than a hundred points I disagree with about 'historical Christianity'. When knowledge increases what happens to the 'old knowledge'? Is any of it ever classified as being 'in error'?
Not on the foundational basics, such as God, Christ, salvation and such. Those are too literally spelled out in the Bible.

As said before, you don't read literally, you read to find what your heart wants to find. Knowingly or not.
That is because GOD is singular,
No. Elohim is plural, not singular.
the Holy Spirit obeys GOD,
Yes. But God being the unity of the three, he is obeying their joint decisions and efforts. As is the Father and Son.
Christ has witnessed everything GOD has ever done, in regards to creation.
Not Christ, but the Second Person of the Trinity who became Christ.

There are three that are above all created things and beings, but they each have separate names that identify them as being three singular identities. The name GOD only applies to one of these three.

False, it says God created all things and then refers to the role each played. ONE god did the creating, but each, being a personage of the Godhead, had a role.

Elohim is plural, not singular.
Doesn't your 'take' say 'the second person' became Christ, that would seem to include a 'pre-existance'.
No! Not when it means Christ pre-existed, which he didn't.

Christ is the flesh body that God took on to become human.
Christ gave up his 'place' in Heaven' to become a 'mere man'.
There was no Christ before God took on the flesh.

The Second Person is eternal. The Son, Christ, is not.

Christ is the eternal in the with beginning flesh.

[QUOTE]Flesh cannot live outside of this earth without being glorified
False.

Enoch and Elijah are not glorified but human flesh, in Heaven, now.
They are also called 'brute beasts', GOD made man in his image and likeness, does that not include form?
Angels? Never.
When you view GOD as being singular it is a name.
No. It isn't.

Is Mr. President a name? No.

Boss? No.

Wife? No.

Son? No.

When Jesus says "to my God and your God, to my Father and your Father' He is indicating a singular being.

No. He isn't. Bad grammar on your part.
When I say the Lord's prayer I am praying to one,
Yes. The Father. One member of the Godhead indicated, for a reason. The role he plays.

that all three might be involved is beside the point, I say it to one, our Farther who art in Heaven.........

And note it does not say one God who is in Heaven.

Christ NEVER said anything that denied his divine nature within his humanity.

He identifed himself as 'I Am' and the Jews distinctly understood he declared himself God. They tried to kill him for it.
GOD decided that the spirit of life would depart from each person. Death is more like a state of not being to something that was a living being.
There is physical death and spiritual death. Not the same things.
GOD did create evil,
and create evil:
Bad translation.
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
"It isn't Biblical or Christian", spare me the you are holy and I am not thoughts.
Nope. It isn't Biblical and we are told that to reject Christ's divinity is to be anti-Christ.
I see them as having a different view, period.
Thanks for the answer.
Do I fear cults or those who have a different doctrine, no, why would I. Some that you have called cults are looking for truth and understanding about GOD as much as you and I.
Not really.

They claim to be, but when it gets down to it they cannot abide what the Bible says and have to spiritualize to suite them.
They are on a different track, same as we are.
There is but one road, and it is narrow.

The wide path/many paths, lead to Hell, as the NT states.
No doubt there will be many who are alive for the thousand years who will say something like, "Oh, that is what that passage meant"
Yep. There will be those who turn a blind eye to truth available to them.

[CoreIssue]

Brilliant! Can't argue with the plain teaching of scripture. MHz, glad you're back.

All the best...
Then are you lying when you say you believe in the Trinity?

Or just provoking things?

Or trying to be PC and not offend MHz by telling him he doesn't have a clue what the Bible actually says?

You need to make up your mind which counts more, being PC or backing truth?

Truth seems to be loosing out.

[kay-gee]

Whoa! Just a minute here! How am I lying about the trinity? I believe the Bible only. Jesus commanded all to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
(Matt 28:19) Good enough for me! Please be satisfied with my answer. It stands for all time. Hold me to it.
You caught me! I guess I was provoking. Things have been a little too quiet on the Eastern front
You use the term PC a lot. Don't see how it applies to my relationship with MHz. I doubt I could offend MHz if I tried. He just keeps on rolling the Bible verses out there like a carpet. I'm in no position to doubt the bible. And that's the TRUTH!
All the best...

[CoreIssue]

Whoa! Just a minute here! How am I lying about the trinity? I believe the Bible only. Jesus commanded all to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
(Matt 28:19) Good enough for me! Please be satisfied with my answer. It stands for all time. Hold me to it.
You caught me! I guess I was provoking. Things have been a little too quiet on the Eastern front
You use the term PC a lot. Don't see how it applies to my relationship with MHz. I doubt I could offend MHz if I tried. He just keeps on rolling the Bible verses out there like a carpet. I'm in no position to doubt the bible. And that's the TRUTH!
All the best...
OK.

I just ask you to think before you call such as MHz brilliant and Bible scholars!

There are seekers and young christians lurking this site! Hundreds, sometimes thousands, per month.

They need clarity is such threads.

We can joke and carry on. But we need to take care of the impact our words carry to them.

All of us! ;)

[MHz]

Excuse the bad editing but it is late and I and going to sleep, I trust you can still find my replies

There are probably more than a hundred points I disagree with about 'historical Christianity'. When knowledge increases what happens to the 'old knowledge'? Is any of it ever classified as being 'in error'?
Not on the foundational basics, such as God, Christ, salvation and such. Those are too literally spelled out in the Bible.

As said before, you don't read literally, you read to find what your heart wants to find. Knowingly or not.
Really, all, or most, current doctrine could survive new knowledge and remain untouched. Literally does Ezekiel:37:1-12 (or so) say that the physical dead will be made alive again? A 'Yes' answer would say that is what those verses say, that is what I believe will happen for all of Israel, not for their 'performance' as His people but because GOD has declared them to be His people. Manifestation of forgiveness in action, all their sins are forgiven. The trouble with accepting that is, if that applies to them how does that affect the Gentiles. (don't kid yourself it does have an effect so salvation is part of this issue, as in who is and who is not).
The Holy Bible is above anything else a promise that there is such a thing as salvation, that GOD, Christ, and the Holy Spirit do exist as a reality, unlike all the fictional characters throughout history that are nowhere to be found.


That is because GOD is singular,
No. Elohim is plural, not singular.
*** END OF SEARCH ***
Total occurrences for (Elohim) is [ 0 ]


the Holy Spirit obeys GOD,
Yes. But God being the unity of the three, he is obeying their joint decisions and efforts. As is the Father and Son.
Genesis:1 has several verses that say 'God said' something and the that something was made manifest. God, being the name of the creator, says something to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit makes those words become something that exists physically. There is no 'discussion between three before something is said. If the three are 'God' then who is there to make those words become reality. The Spirit of God, meaning it belongs to God, in verse 2 is what makes 'things spoken about by God' become real. How much leeway do you give a contractor when you tell him to build you a fish-pond? It could be a little or a lot.


Christ has witnessed everything GOD has ever done, in regards to creation.
Not Christ, but the Second Person of the Trinity who became Christ.
Why are you so against the second person being Christ who became Jesus? Being born 'of God' is higher than anything will ever be. True at some point we will become 'sons of God' ourselves but we didn't have that position at the start, we have all spent some period of time not being a 'son of God', Christ never went through that, He was that from the moment He existed.


There are three that are above all created things and beings, but they each have separate names that identify them as being three singular identities. The name GOD only applies to one of these three.

False, it says God created all things and then refers to the role each played. ONE god did the creating, but each, being a personage of the Godhead, had a role.

Elohim is plural, not singular.
Just what version of which translation did you dig that word out of?


Doesn't your 'take' say 'the second person' became Christ, that would seem to include a 'pre-existance'.
No! Not when it means Christ pre-existed, which he didn't.

Christ is the flesh body that God took on to become human.
Proverbs:30:4 asks for His son's name, that would seem to pre-date Jesus's birth. Christ is a title reserver for the only begotten son of God, Jesus is a name of the man that Christ came as to become, not only the Son of God, but also the Son of man, it was at that time He gained another 'title' before God.


Christ gave up his 'place' in Heaven' to become a 'mere man'.
There was no Christ before God took on the flesh.

The Second Person is eternal. The Son, Christ, is not.

Christ is the eternal in the with beginning flesh.
Mary and Joseph had instruction to name Him Jesus, which they did. The words 'the Christ' occur many times in the NT.



Flesh cannot live outside of this earth without being glorified
False.

Enoch and Elijah are not glorified but human flesh, in Heaven, now.
God took Enoch where? All the days means what?
Ge:5:21:
And Enoch lived sixty and five years,
and begat Methuselah:
Ge:5:22:
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years,
and begat sons and daughters:
Ge:5:23:
And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Ge:5:24:
And Enoch walked with God:
and he was not;
for God took him.

Any other instance of 'all the days' means life ended at that time,
Ge:5:5: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Ge:5:8: And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Ge:5:11: And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Ge:5:14: And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Ge:5:17: And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Ge:5:20: And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Ge:5:23: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Ge:5:27: And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Ge:5:31: And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
Ge:9:29: And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Elijah was promised to come before this,
Mal:4:5:
Behold,
I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Are Elijah and Elias the same, if so, he came at the time Jesus was alive on earth,
M't:17:11:
And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Elias truly shall first come,
and restore all things.
M't:17:12:
But I say unto you,
That Elias is come already,
and they knew him not,
but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.


They are also called 'brute beasts', GOD made man in his image and likeness, does that not include form?
Angels? Never.
Yes, twice,
2Pe:2:11:
Whereas angels,
which are greater in power and might,
bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2Pe:2:12:
But these,
as natural brute beasts,
made to be taken and destroyed,
speak evil of the things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Jude:1:9:
Yet Michael the archangel,
when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses,
durst not bring against him a railing accusation,
but said,
The Lord rebuke thee.
Jude:1:10:
But these speak evil of those things which they know not:
but what they know naturally,
as brute beasts,
in those things they corrupt themselves.


When you view GOD as being singular it is a name.
No. It isn't.

Is Mr. President a name? No.

Boss? No.

Wife? No.

Son? No.

Scripture says 'I AM' not 'WE AM'.



When Jesus says "to my God and your God, to my Father and your Father' He is indicating a singular being.

No. He isn't. Bad grammar on your part.

No, good grammar on Jesus Christ's part,
Joh:20:17:
Jesus saith unto her,
Touch me not;
for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
but go to my brethren,
and say unto them,
I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father;
and to my God,
and your God.


When I say the Lord's prayer I am praying to one,
Yes. The Father. One member of the Godhead indicated, for a reason. The role he plays.

that all three might be involved is beside the point, I say it to one, our Farther who art in Heaven.........

And note it does not say one God who is in Heaven.

Christ NEVER said anything that denied his divine nature within his humanity.

He identifed himself as 'I Am' and the Jews distinctly understood he declared himself God. They tried to kill him for it.
True they did want to kill Him, but it was because of His age, like this verse specifically says,
Joh:8:57:
Then said the Jews unto him,
Thou art not yet fifty years old,
and hast thou seen Abraham?

There is nothing there about them wanting to kill Him because He is claiming to be GOD.

It should be 'I AM', not 'I Am', nor did Jesus say at that time " I AM THAT I AM"

True it does not say 'one god in Heaven' nor does it say three God's in Heaven, the prayer is to one, the same one that Jesus prayed too (and He got an answer every single time BTW). The end of the prayer is just as specific as to who really has the say as the beginning of the very same prayer.

M't:6:13:
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power,
and the glory,
for ever.
Amen.



GOD decided that the spirit of life would depart from each person. Death is more like a state of not being to something that was a living being.
There is physical death and spiritual death. Not the same things.
GOD did create evil,
and create evil:
Bad translation.
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
The KJV isn't the only translation that used that 'phrase'. GOD creates His own Law, going against that Law is doing evil, or is sin no longer an evil thing to do?


"It isn't Biblical or Christian", spare me the you are holy and I am not thoughts.
Nope. It isn't Biblical and we are told that to reject Christ's divinity is to be anti-Christ.
What is the difference between 'trinity' and 'prophecy fulfilled'? I certainly have no problem accepting that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy written about Him in the OT, and there are many, and something that even the RCC today has backed away from (trinity) and now prefers to just say it is a 'difficult issue to understand'.


I see them as having a different view, period.
Thanks for the answer.
Don't I wish all questions were that easy to answer.

Do I fear cults or those who have a different doctrine, no, why would I. Some that you have called cults are looking for truth and understanding about GOD as much as you and I.
Not really.

They claim to be, but when it gets down to it they cannot abide what the Bible says and have to spiritualize to suite them.
Do you consider FrankDH a member of a cult, or just misguided on some issues?


They are on a different track, same as we are.
There is but one road, and it is narrow.

The wide path/many paths, lead to Hell, as the NT states.
Christ being a Good Shepherd has authority to help people find the right path, to let them wander about on their own is not what He does, that doesn't mean all who enter through that narrow gate weren't on a different course at some point in their existence.


No doubt there will be many who are alive for the thousand years who will say something like, "Oh, that is what that passage meant"
Yep. There will be those who turn a blind eye to truth available to them.
Maybe it just isn't their time to be called,
Re:22:11:
He that is unjust,
let him be unjust still:
and he which is filthy,
let him be filthy still:
and he that is righteous,
let him be righteous still:
and he that is holy,
let him be holy still.

Kay-gee, this isn't a game of amusement or something to relieve boredom.

[CoreIssue]

Really, all, or most, current doctrine could survive new knowledge and remain untouched.
But your doctrine changes historical truth about the basics.

And cannot survive literally scutiny.
Literally does Ezekiel:37:1-12 (or so) say that the physical dead will be made alive again?
No. We have discussed this.

Immediately out because it violates only living once to make ones choices, then dying and judgment.

The Holy Bible is above anything else a promise that there is such a thing as salvation, that GOD, Christ, and the Holy Spirit do exist as a reality, unlike all the fictional characters throughout history that are nowhere to be found.

And now MHz and other cult beliefs have unveiled the truth.

Oddly at the same time it says Great Apostacy will occur.

Coincidence or this great new knowledge is the Apostacy?
Total occurrences for (Elohim) is [ 0 ]
Deliberate false argument.

Elohim (plural) in the Hebrew uniplural usage occurs over 2600 times in the OT. Translated God.

You loose that issue massively.

Why are you so against the second person being Christ who became Jesus? Being born 'of God' is higher than anything will ever be. True at some point we will become 'sons of God' ourselves but we didn't have that position at the start, we have all spent some period of time not being a 'son of God', Christ never went through that, He was that from the moment He existed.

Because it is false.
Just what version of which translation did you dig that word out of?
It is all the good ones, inlcuding the KJV.

Proverbs:30:4 asks for His son's name, that would seem to pre-date Jesus's birth. Christ is a title reserver for the only begotten son of God, Jesus is a name of the man that Christ came as to become, not only the Son of God, but also the Son of man, it was at that time He gained another 'title' before God.

Promise and name, yes. Actual person, no.
Mary and Joseph had instruction to name Him Jesus, which they did. The words 'the Christ' occur many times in the NT.
Jesus/Yeshua means God among us.

Christ is a title meaning annointed one.

Invalid argument to claim this proves a pre-existent Jesus.
God took Enoch where?
Heaven.

That comes from the taking of Elijah plus the Two Witnesses being called the Two Olive Trees standing in Heaven before the Throne.

There are no two other candidates.
All the days means what?
Now long one lives.

But in your zeal you failed to notice it does not give such to Enoch. It simply says he was no longer there because God took him.

He didn't die.

So you wasted your time sourcing all the days for one it was never applied to.
Elijah was promised to come before this,

Mal:4:5:
Behold,
I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

That is the Trib, not First Coming.

Are Elijah and Elias the same, if so, he came at the time Jesus was alive on earth,
M't:17:11:
And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Elias truly shall first come,
and restore all things.
M't:17:12:
But I say unto you,
That Elias is come already,
and they knew him not,
but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Another says if you will allow, he is Elijah.

The Jews understood it didn't apply to John because it was DOTL, which was not then.

As Elijah prepares the path, as one of the Two Witnesses, John prepared the path.

Role, not personage.

Unless, of course, you are embracing reincarnaton, since John was born of a woman.

Yes, twice,
2Pe:2:11:
Whereas angels,
which are greater in power and might,
bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2Pe:2:12:
But these,
as natural brute beasts,
made to be taken and destroyed,
speak evil of the things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Jude:1:9:
Yet Michael the archangel,
when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses,
durst not bring against him a railing accusation,
but said,
The Lord rebuke thee.
Jude:1:10:
But these speak evil of those things which they know not:
but what they know naturally,
as brute beasts,
in those things they corrupt themselves.

False and we already discussed this.

Men, not angels.

[QUOTE]
Scripture says 'I AM' not 'WE AM'.

False argument for a uniplural.
No, good grammar on Jesus Christ's part,

Joh:20:17:
Jesus saith unto her,
Touch me not;
for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
but go to my brethren,
and say unto them,
I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father;
and to my God,
and your God.

Father and God of his humanity, not his divinity.

True they did want to kill Him, but it was because of His age, like this verse specifically says,
Joh:8:57:
Then said the Jews unto him,
Thou art not yet fifty years old,
and hast thou seen Abraham?

There is nothing there about them wanting to kill Him because He is claiming to be GOD.

Again with the bad grammar.

You moved the age issue to after the I Am issue, which is bogus.

The age issue came first. But no stones.

The stones came out when he said I Am, which they knew meant he was saying he was God in the Bush.

It should be 'I AM', not 'I Am', nor did Jesus say at that time " I AM THAT I AM"

Stupid invented argument. Really.

True it does not say 'one god in Heaven' nor does it say three God's in Heaven, the prayer is to one, the same one that Jesus prayed too (and He got an answer every single time BTW). The end of the prayer is just as specific as to who really has the say as the beginning of the very same prayer.

M't:6:13:
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power,
and the glory,
for ever.
Amen.

How nice you deleted the opening of the prayer.

Our Father, not Our God.

The Father is but one person of the Godhead. And his role is different from the Holy Spirit and Son.

The KJV isn't the only translation that used that 'phrase'. GOD creates His own Law, going against that Law is doing evil, or is sin no longer an evil thing to do?

But is still in error to say created evil.

God didn't create violation of the Law. He created freewill which allows one to do evil.

To create evil is to say he created violation of the Law. He didn't.

What is the difference between 'trinity' and 'prophecy fulfilled'? I certainly have no problem accepting that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy written about Him in the OT, and there are many, and something that even the RCC today has backed away from (trinity) and now prefers to just say it is a 'difficult issue to understand'.

Because fuliflling prophecy is one thing.

Denying the Trinity is to redefine God himself. And Jesus.

Do you consider FrankDH a member of a cult, or just misguided on some issues?

Frank is a solid born-again believer.

He absolulely believes in Trinity, salvation by works, Jesus is God incarnate and all the core fundamentals.

Other things are debatable. Have nothing to do with salvation, just sound doctrine.

Christ being a Good Shepherd has authority to help people find the right path, to let them wander about on their own is not what He does, that doesn't mean all who enter through that narrow gate weren't on a different course at some point in their existence.

But they were not on HIS path until they got on the narrow road. They were on Hell's.

Maybe it just isn't their time to be called,

There is no other time than one's one and only life time.

[MHz]

Quote:
Really, all, or most, current doctrine could survive new knowledge and remain untouched.
But your doctrine changes historical truth about the basics.

And cannot survive literally scutiny.

Yes it does, doesn't it, for instance all of Israel, the whole House of Jacob, the Whole House of Israel will live again, forever. That doesn't mean they don't suffer some hardships (via GOD) before the day of their resurrection. Just like Ezekiel:37 says.


Immediately out because it violates only living once to make ones choices, then dying and judgment.

Apparently the judgment is that they will have their sins forgiven and they will be given a new heart with God's Law written on it.


And now MHz and other cult beliefs have unveiled the truth.

Oddly at the same time it says Great Apostacy will occur.

Coincidence or this great new knowledge is the Apostacy?

LOL You really should take some lessons on how to insult people, as it stands you aren't very good at it, quite pitifull actually.


Elohim (plural) in the Hebrew uniplural usage occurs over 2600 times in the OT. Translated God.

You loose that issue massively.

This is for the word GOD (whichis a different spelling than God) http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=5&version=KJV#5
Lexicon Results for Yehovah (Strong's H3068)
Hebrew for H3068
????
Transliteration
Yehovah
Pronunciation
yeh·ho·vä' (Key)
Part of Speech
proper noun with reference to deity
Root Word (Etymology)
from H1961
TWOT Reference
484a
Outline of Biblical Usage
Jehovah = "the existing One"
1) the proper name of the one true God
a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 6519
AV — LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variant 1


Because it is false.
So the second person never existed until Jesus was born?


It is all the good ones, inlcuding the KJV.

You just love to change a lot of words, don't you? That searh was from the KJV 1611 text, now show me the verses that use that very word (Elohim).


Promise and name, yes. Actual person, no.

Very actual, and a very ancient one at that.
Da:7:9:
I beheld till the thrones were cast down,
and the Ancient of days did sit,
whose garment was white as snow,
and the hair of his head like the pure wool:
his throne was like the fiery flame,
and his wheels as burning fire.
Da:7:10:
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him:
thousand thousands ministered unto him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him:
the judgment was set,
and the books were opened.


Jesus/Yeshua means God among us.

Christ is a title meaning annointed one.

Invalid argument to claim this proves a pre-existent Jesus.

It wasn't posted to show pre-existance, it was posted to show what they named Him.


Heaven.

Really, why would you not believe what Jesus has said on that subject,
Joh:3:13:
And no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven.


That comes from the taking of Elijah plus the Two Witnesses being called the Two Olive Trees standing in Heaven before the Throne.

There are no two other candidates.
I would agree that almost everybody has these two being the two witnesses.
The olive trees were seen by Zechariah in a vision, seeing trees in a vision is not proof that there are two flesh and blood men (Enoch and Elijah)in Heaven right at this moment.

Actually the two are called branches of the tree (in the expanded text about what Re:11 says in one verse),
Zec:4:12:
And I answered again,
and said unto him,
What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
Zec:4:13:
And he answered me and said,
Knowest thou not what these be?
And I said,
No,
my lord.
Zec:4:14:
Then said he,
These are the two anointed ones,
that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.


But in your zeal you failed to notice it does not give such to Enoch. It simply says he was no longer there because God took him.

He didn't die.

There you go again adding words not in the original, it does not say 'no longer there' it says 'he was not; for God took him'.

So you wasted your time sourcing all the days for one it was never applied to.
Elijah was promised to come before this,
Quote:
Mal:4:5:
Behold,
I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
That is the Trib, not First Coming.
Actually that day is at the end of tribulation.
Mal:4:1:
For,
behold,
the day cometh,
that shall burn as an oven;
and all the proud,
yea,
and all that do wickedly,
shall be stubble:
and the day that cometh shall burn them up,
saith the LORD of hosts,
that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
Mal:4:2:
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings;
and ye shall go forth,
and grow up as calves of the stall.
Mal:4:3:
And ye shall tread down the wicked;
for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this,
saith the LORD of hosts.


It doesn't say how long before does it?



The Jews understood it didn't apply to John because it was DOTL, which was not then.

As Elijah prepares the path, as one of the Two Witnesses, John prepared the path.

Role, not personage.

Unless, of course, you are embracing reincarnaton, since John was born of a woman.

No, I don't believe in reincarnaton. Too bad you haven't heard about Jonah, died because he was disobeying GOD and came back to life (a better believer) in just what GOD can do to a man should he disobey.



False and we already discussed this.

Men, not angels.

Your opinion, nothing more. They are the same as in Jude:1:7


You moved the age issue to after the I Am issue, which is bogus.

The age issue came first. But no stones.

The stones came out when he said I Am, which they knew meant he was saying he was God in the Bush.

The way you change the meaning it should read smething like "Before Abraham was, GOD." That is poor grammar, good grammar would have it as "Before Abraham was, I was alive."
You really should read a passage before commeting on it, Jesus mentions God being His father before the age issue with Abraham. The Jews don't comment on that, they respond to Jesus saying he was with Abraham at some point.
Joh:8:52:
Then said the Jews unto him,
Now we know that thou hast a devil.
Abraham is dead,
and the prophets;
and thou sayest,
If a man keep my saying,
he shall never taste of death.
Joh:8:53:
Art thou greater than our father Abraham,
which is dead?
and the prophets are dead:
whom makest thou thyself?
Joh:8:54:
Jesus answered,
If I honour myself,
my honour is nothing:
it is my Father that honoureth me;
of whom ye say,
that he is your God:
Joh:8:55:
Yet ye have not known him;
but I know him:
and if I should say,
I know him not,
I shall be a liar like unto you:
but I know him,
and keep his saying.
Joh:8:56:
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it,
and was glad.
Joh:8:57:
Then said the Jews unto him,
Thou art not yet fifty years old,
and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh:8:58:
Jesus said unto them,
Verily,
verily,
I say unto you,
Before Abraham was,
I am.
Joh:8:59:
Then took they up stones to cast at him:
but Jesus hid himself,
and went out of the temple,
going through the midst of them,
and so passed by.

Verse 58 is the answer Jesus gives then as a response to what they said in verse 57. Anything but read it plainly, eh?


Stupid invented argument. Really.


How nice you deleted the opening of the prayer.

Our Father, not Our God.

The Father is but one person of the Godhead. And his role is different from the Holy Spirit and Son.

The beginning of that prayer was in my previous post, surely you remember.
The kingdom belongs to the Father.
The power belongs to the Father.
The glory belongs to the Father.


But is still in error to say created evil.

God didn't create violation of the Law. He created freewill which allows one to do evil.

To create evil is to say he created violation of the Law. He didn't.

Now Scripture is in error?


Denying the Trinity is to redefine God himself. And Jesus.

The Jews weren't expecting God in person, they were expecting the Messiah.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H04899&Version=kjv

Trinity is a more modern way of thinking that than is ages long past, that is when the name of GOD was redefined.


Frank is a solid born-again believer.

He absolulely believes in Trinity, salvation by works, Jesus is God incarnate and all the core fundamentals.

Other things are debatable. Have nothing to do with salvation, just sound doctrine.

That certainly sounds like Frank. No more comment since he isn't here.


Quote:
Christ being a Good Shepherd has authority to help people find the right path, to let them wander about on their own is not what He does, that doesn't mean all who enter through that narrow gate weren't on a different course at some point in their existence.
But they were not on HIS path until they got on the narrow road. They were on Hell's.
Quote:
Maybe it just isn't their time to be called,


There is no other time than one's one and only life time.

Who said anything about being shown the right path after death, my comment was for the living. (we could certainly rexplore that isssue ) Nice to know how you feel about the billions who have died before hearing about Christ though, if that group is too large for you to comprehend let you comment pertain to the slaughter of the innocents.

[CoreIssue]

Yes it does, doesn't it, for instance all of Israel, the whole House of Jacob, the Whole House of Israel will live again, forever. That doesn't mean they don't suffer some hardships (via GOD) before the day of their resurrection. Just like Ezekiel:37 says.
Bad theology. Conflicts with other Biblical teachings.

Apparently the judgment is that they will have their sins forgiven and they will be given a new heart with God's Law written on it.
Nope. Not in the way you mean it.

[QUOTE]LOL You really should take some lessons on how to insult people, as it stands you aren't very good at it, quite pitifull actually.
I wasn't intending to insult, just state a fact.

You DO hold to cultic beliefs.

This is for the word GOD (whichis a different spelling than God) http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=5&version=KJV#5
Lexicon Results for Yehovah (Strong's H3068)

Nope. Elohim means God. Jehovah means Lord.

You are trying to dodge.
So the second person never existed until Jesus was born?
Spin away. Didn't say that and you know it.

You just love to change a lot of words, don't you? That searh was from the KJV 1611 text, now show me the verses that use that very word (Elohim).

Another diversion. Translated. As the whole Bible is tranlated.


[quote=CoreIssue;22203]
Jesus/Yeshua means God among us.

Christ is a title meaning annointed one.

Invalid argument to claim this proves a pre-existent Jesus.

It wasn't posted to show pre-existance, it was posted to show what they named Him.

Which you attempted to use as an argument to give him his supposed preincarnate name.

I would agree that almost everybody has these two being the two witnesses.
The olive trees were seen by Zechariah in a vision, seeing trees in a vision is not proof that there are two flesh and blood men (Enoch and Elijah)in Heaven right at this moment.

Actually, it is, since they return to the earth non-glorified bodies and die.

Actually the two are called branches of the tree (in the expanded text about what Re:11 says in one verse),
Zec:4:12:
And I answered again,
and said unto him,
What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
Zec:4:13:
And he answered me and said,
Knowest thou not what these be?
And I said,
No,
my lord.
Zec:4:14:
Then said he,
These are the two anointed ones,
that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.

There are two trees before the throne. There were two branches on the lampstand.

Same two shown in two different ways.
As for your arguments on Elijah being John, they simply didn't make any sense.

No, I don't believe in reincarnaton. Too bad you haven't heard about Jonah, died because he was disobeying GOD and came back to life (a better believer) in just what GOD can do to a man should he disobey.

Jonah didn't die.

We have discussed that one before, as well.

Your opinion, nothing more. They are the same as in Jude:1:7

Actually, it isn't opinion. It is called reading by grammar.

And is the norm of viewing those issues. Yours isn't.

The way you change the meaning it should read smething like "Before Abraham was, GOD." That is poor grammar, good grammar would have it as "Before Abraham was, I was alive."
You really should read a passage before commeting on it, Jesus mentions God being His father before the age issue with Abraham. The Jews don't comment on that, they respond to Jesus saying he was with Abraham at some point.

The grammar is fine, the way it is.

And it remains they accused him when he said about being there, then tried to stone him when he said he was God.

The beginning of that prayer was in my previous post, surely you remember.
The kingdom belongs to the Father.
The power belongs to the Father.
The glory belongs to the Father.

And you still don't see the distinctions of when the word God is used and when Father is used.


But is still in error to say created evil.

God didn't create violation of the Law. He created freewill which allows one to do evil.

To create evil is to say he created violation of the Law. He didn't.

Now Scripture is in error?
Nope. Just some bad translations, among others, in the KJV.

The Jews weren't expecting God in person, they were expecting the Messiah.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H04899&Version=kjv

So?

Trinity is a more modern way of thinking that than is ages long past, that is when the name of GOD was redefined.

It is a label that saves a lot of descriptive statements.

OT shows Trinity. Abram shows he understood the uniplural nature of God.

As with all the OT authors using elohim.
Who said anything about being shown the right path after death, my comment was for the living. (we could certainly rexplore that isssue ) Nice to know how you feel about the billions who have died before hearing about Christ though, if that group is too large for you to comprehend let you comment pertain to the slaughter of the innocents.
We already covered this. No need to do it again.

You wouldn't get it now anymore than you didn't get it then.

I do remember you are not here to listen and discuss, but to correct my, and others errors.

So, this is pointless to pretend it is actually a discussion, isn't it?

I have no intention of repeating every discussion we have every had just to give you on going exposure to others.

[MHz]

Yes it does, doesn't it, for instance all of Israel, the whole House of Jacob, the Whole House of Israel will live again, forever. That doesn't mean they don't suffer some hardships (via GOD) before the day of their resurrection. Just like Ezekiel:37 says.
Bad theology. Conflicts with other Biblical teachings.

Then those other teachings need to be examined. Just by it's placement God gave us the info in Ezekiel before that given in Zechariah. It should be the 1/3 and 2/3 of Zac:13 that needed more study, not a rewrite of Ezekiel:37. To have Zac be writing about Gentiles (and that is what the thirds are for) would put a pretrib rapture into question. To have over a billion Gentiles left alive would certainly be a large enough number to include the Church as coming through the trib, especially if that number does not include the dead, just the living at the time of Christ's return. So taking Eze:37 at face value can mesh with other Scripture. If you have 'other conflicts' then those also have to be examined. The course you have taken means there is a conflict in the numbers, one says all, he other says only 1/3, so far you have only examined one side.


Apparently the judgment is that they will have their sins forgiven and they will be given a new heart with God's Law written on it.
Nope. Not in the way you mean it.
Ezekiel:39 also states all Jews will die by the sword and they will then be gathered into their land, given a new clean heart. Take into account all the books from after Daniel to the end of the OT (that cover that one point) and they all agree with that.



[QUOTE]LOL You really should take some lessons on how to insult people, as it stands you aren't very good at it, quite pitifull actually.
I wasn't intending to insult, just state a fact.
You DO hold to cultic beliefs.
Doh, when it is you who decides what is cultist you can slap that label on anybody who doesn't agree with your view. Maybe your teachers were cultish and forgot to mention that to you.



This is for the word GOD (whichis a different spelling than God) http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=5&version=KJV#5
Lexicon Results for Yehovah (Strong's H3068)

Nope. Elohim means God. Jehovah means Lord.
You are trying to dodge.

Do you know there (can be a) difference between GOD and God, Lord and LORD, the verse below is GOD talking to Christ. GOD and LORD always mean the same.
Psalms:110:1:
The LORD said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


So the second person never existed until Jesus was born?
Spin away. Didn't say that and you know it.



Another diversion. Translated. As the whole Bible is tranlated.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Psa&chapter=110&verse=1&version=KJV#1
The Psalms verse has a different meaning for LORD and Lord


Which you attempted to use as an argument to give him his supposed preincarnate name.
I've never used that as a part of a foundation for Christ being ageless, this verse has been used though to support that,
Joh:1:15:
John bare witness of him,
and cried,
saying,
This was he of whom I spake,
He that cometh after me is preferred before me:
for he was before me.


There are two trees before the throne. There were two branches on the lampstand.
I can find "God of the earth" but not throne, which version mentions throne.


Same two shown in two different ways.
As for your arguments on Elijah being John, they simply didn't make any sense.
I was going by the verse that has Jesus saying Elias had already come. If they are not the same then who was Jesus talking about?



Jonah didn't die.
God sent him to hell, only the dead can go there. You don't die when you are underwater for 3 days, LOL. I can't recall how many people have survived being swallowed by a whale and came out alive. Probably zero.


We have discussed that one before, as well.
Yep


Actually, it isn't opinion. It is called reading by grammar.
And by changing some lower case letters to Caps, tisk, tisk. Don't add to what is there, you know the penality for that.


And is the norm of viewing those issues. Yours isn't.
You change thing and I don't and your reading is the more accurate, give me a break.


The grammar is fine, the way it is.
Yes it is, "Before Abraham was, I am.


And it remains they accused him when he said about being there, then tried to stone him when he said he was God.
They were mad because He still claimed to have been with Abraham. If somebody doesn't take heed of your words the next action is physical.


And you still don't see the distinctions of when the word God is used and when Father is used.
Sure I do, Jesus has said they are both one and the same, his Father is his God.


Nope. Just some bad translations, among others, in the KJV.
So shoppingcart theology is bad (using verses from differents books of the Holy Bible) in that the verses cme from different ises, yet going to a different 'store' is acceptable? Me thinks you are stacking the deck in your own favor.



The Jews weren't expecting God in person, they were expecting the Messiah.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H04899&Version=kjv

So?
So they also believe there is one GOD and one Spirit and one Son.


It is a label that saves a lot of descriptive statements.

OT shows Trinity. Abram shows he understood the uniplural nature of God.

As with all the OT authors using elohim.
Abraham didn't even speak of any trinity, let alone try and explain how it worked, that is your doing.


We already covered this. No need to do it again.

You wouldn't get it now anymore than you didn't get it then.

I do remember you are not here to listen and discuss, but to correct my, and others errors.

So, this is pointless to pretend it is actually a discussion, isn't it?

I have no intention of repeating every discussion we have every had just to give you on going exposure to others.

Well it took this long to explain the 'big picture' to you. The last part was about the fate of 'the rest' and even that has finally been covered.

There are no more 'and thens', aren't you happy about that? I look back on our time as more of a personal conversation, if others were reading it was in silence, so they might a well been absent.

[CoreIssue]

This ends, MHz. You have no interest in doing anything but promoting your doctrines.

You just keep preaching.

When key refutations are made you leap away from the point and go elsewhere, or try a different line of attack.

No more. The preaching ends. Now.

As in the simple reality Elohim means God and is plural. You have to try deception and leap to Jehovah, and try to pawn that off as meaning God, when it means Lord.

You never admit error. Never admit things such as Elohim is god, plural, either in number, or in content, depending on the Hebrew structure.

No more. It ends. This is not a preaching platform for you.

I will give you one, and one only, shot, to get on track.

In the beginning (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07225&version=kjv) God (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv) created (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01254&version=kjv) * (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0853&version=kjv) the heaven (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08064&version=kjv) and (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0853&version=kjv) the earth. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0776&version=kjv) #,r'a'h (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0776&version=kjv) tea.w (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0853&version=kjv) ~Iy;m'V;h (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08064&version=kjv) tea (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0853&version=kjv) ~yih{l/a (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv) a'r'B (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01254&version=kjv) tyivaer.B (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07225&version=kjv)
Strong's Number: 0430 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=430&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin~yhlaplural of (0433 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=433&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv#Legend) Entry'elohiymTWOT - 93cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechel-o-heem' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0430h) Noun Masculine Definition
(plural)
rulers, judges
divine ones
angels
gods
(plural intensive - singular meaning)
god, goddess
godlike one
works or special possessions of God
the (true) God
God
Do you dispute this is the meaning of elohim?

The verse is from the KJV. elohim translated as God, as done over 2600 more times, in the OT.

[Ze'ev]

To risk jumping into the middle of an ugly disputation, I must address one point - T'hillim (Psalm) 110 is not G-d talking to Jesus, it is G-d talking to David. This Psalm was not written by David, but was written to be sung by the preisthood concerning David.


Kol Tuv,
Ze'ev

[CoreIssue]

To risk jumping into the middle of an ugly disputation, I must address one point - T'hillim (Psalm) 110 is not G-d talking to Jesus, it is G-d talking to David. This Psalm was not written by David, but was written to be sung by the preisthood concerning David.


Kol Tuv,
Ze'ev
David was not a Priest in the order of Mechizedek. He was never a priest of any kind, at all.

David was never invited to sit at the right hand of God.

The nations of the whole earth were not judge at the time of David.

This is prophetic, as well has historical. A dual meaning, as with many parts of the Bible.

Lineage of David, yes. David hiimself, no.

Yes. It is prophetic about Jesus.

And no, MHz, this does not allow you to avoid what I said.

Ze'ev, you have to understand, MHz told me he never came on here to discuss, debate or do anything other than to educate us to the Truth.

He has been given tons of lead way, for a very long time, but has done nothing but abuse it.

It cannot be allowed to go on, because he keeps disrupting threads that he doesn't like and driving away posters.

It is one thing to discuss and debate. That is good.

It is very much something else to avoid answering question after question and just keep preaching.

Hope you understand the distinctions.

[Ze'ev]

The "yud-mem" suffix ("-im"), by form, is a standard method for indicating plurality.

However...

"Elohim" can be singular or plural, as the Strong's concordance points out. Let me use a more concrete example:

Sh'mot (Exodus) 4:16 - Moshe would be AN "elohim" for Aharon. Plural suffix, but singular usage.

Sh'mot 7:1 - Moshe would be AN "elohim" for Pharaoh

B'reisheet (Genesis) 27:46 - The word "life" is "chayim", but "life" is singular

Yob (Job) 10:12 - again, singular "life" is "chayim"

Perhaps most important of all is that Christian scholarship apparently recognizes this as well - just to prove that I'm not making this up as a Jew (lest I be accused of arrogance in explaining Hebrew as I have been before - sue me for being Jewish and knowing the tongue of my people!). In the NIV's commentary on Genesis 1:1 where "elohim" is used, it says:

"God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality." (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6.)

The NIV can hardly be called "sympathetic" to the Jewish position... ;-)


Kol Tuv,
Ze'ev

[Ze'ev]

Nope. Elohim means God. Jehovah means Lord.


WHAT?!?

"elohim" can mean "G-d" (proper name) or "gods" (a plural noun).

"Je-ho-vah" is a proper name, and is an amalgamation of the ineffable name of G-d (yud - heh - vav - heh - spacing inserted out of reverence to G-d) and the vowels of "adonai" - thus yielding "Ja-ho-va-h". It doesn't mean "lord" - "adonai" means "lord"!

"LORD" is used to represent the ineffable name out of respect for G-d, but notice it is all caps in this particular case. It is used the same way we Jews use "HaShem" ("The Name") as G-d's name - it is a substitute, not an equivalency!


Kol Tuv,
Ze'ev

[CoreIssue]

Of course it isn't.

Pleading plurality of majesty is a false argument, since that concept didn't exist until around 1200 AD in Europe.

But it is a widely used one in Jewry.

[Ze'ev]

Ze'ev, you have to understand, MHz told me he never came on here to discuss, debate or do anything other than to educate us to the Truth.

He has been given tons of lead way, for a very long time, but has done nothing but abuse it.

It cannot be allowed to go on, because he keeps disrupting threads that he doesn't like and driving away posters.

It is one thing to discuss and debate. That is good.

It is very much something else to avoid answering question after question and just keep preaching.

Hope you understand the distinctions.


Gotcha - understood.

Ze'ev

[Ze'ev]

Of course it isn't.

Pleading plurality of majesty is a false argument, since that concept didn't exist until around 1200 AD in Europe.

But it is a widely used one in Jewry.

Plural of majesty was just shown in a Trinitarian translation of scripture. I cited the NIV.


Ze'ev

[CoreIssue]

Nope. Elohim means God. Jehovah means Lord.


WHAT?!?

"elohim" can mean "G-d" (proper name) or "gods" (a plural noun).
In your opinion.

The meaing of the word does not become a proper name because you simply say so.

You have defined uniplural usage versus plural usage. But the root word remains the same.

As with the Shama (please forgive the spelling) of Israel:
The Lord our God (el) is one Gods (elohim). One God of uniplural nature.

No. I am not a linquist. But yes, I have known a few in my life time who were world renoun.

"Je-ho-vah" is a proper name, and is an amalgamation of the ineffable name of G-d (yud - heh - vav - heh - spacing inserted out of reverence to G-d) and the vowels of "adonai" - thus yielding "Ja-ho-va-h". It doesn't mean "lord" - "adonai" means "lord"!

Hmmm. And yet the manuscrpt text for Lord God is Jehovah Elohim. Lord (singular) God (uniplural).

"LORD" is used to represent the ineffable name out of respect for G-d, but notice it is all caps in this particular case. It is used the same way we Jews use "HaShem" ("The Name") as G-d's name - it is a substitute, not an equivalency!

And yet Abram recognized the three who appeared to him as one singular Lord, who answered as one.

A uniplural relationship, for sure.

It did say God appeared to him. And there were 3 who did so. Talked about in the plural but revered as one.

I have listened to a ton of debates between Jewish and Christian Theologians.

The Jewish ones always head into plural of majesty and struggle with the Messiah prophecies.

[CoreIssue]

Of course it isn't.

Pleading plurality of majesty is a false argument, since that concept didn't exist until around 1200 AD in Europe.

But it is a widely used one in Jewry.

Plural of majesty was just shown in a Trinitarian translation of scripture. I cited the NIV.


Ze'ev
No it wasn't.

Uniplural is not plural of majesty.

Two completely different concepts.

[Ze'ev]

Of course it isn't.

Pleading plurality of majesty is a false argument, since that concept didn't exist until around 1200 AD in Europe.

But it is a widely used one in Jewry.

Plural of majesty was just shown in a Trinitarian translation of scripture. I cited the NIV.


Ze'ev
No it wasn't.

Uniplural is not plural of majesty.

Two completely different concepts.

You're trying to be slippery. Here is the direct NIV quote again - their words - Christian words, not mine:

"God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality." (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6.)

[CoreIssue]

[quote=Ze'ev;22252]The "yud-mem" suffix ("-im"), by form, is a standard method for indicating plurality.

However...

"Elohim" can be singular or plural, as the Strong's concordance points out. Let me use a more concrete example:

Sh'mot (Exodus) 4:16 - Moshe would be AN "elohim" for Aharon. Plural suffix, but singular usage.

He would speak for God to the People. Not be a God.


Again with the attempt at plural of majesty.
Sh'mot 7:1 - Moshe would be AN "elohim" for Pharaoh

Same, again.
B'reisheet (Genesis) 27:46 - The word "life" is "chayim", but "life" is singular
The verse is about multiple daughters. Plural.

The reference to the singluar life is singular, not -im.

Yob (Job) 10:12 - again, singular "life" is "chayim"
I don't see any -im ending when I go to the lexicon. It says chay, not chayim.

Perhaps most important of all is that Christian scholarship apparently recognizes this as well - just to prove that I'm not making this up as a Jew (lest I be accused of arrogance in explaining Hebrew as I have been before - sue me for being Jewish and knowing the tongue of my people!). In the NIV's commentary on Genesis 1:1 where "elohim" is used, it says:

"God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality." (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6.)

And yet historians state plural of majesty was not invented until around 1200 AD.

So, I guess the writer took a liberty when speaking of Abram and God meeting, as in showing three who were one Lord?

Trouble, here, with your argument on elohim is that Genesis 1 goes on to say God said let us, not me.

The royal we didn't exist then.
The NIV can hardly be called "sympathetic" to the Jewish position... ;-)
True.

And at the same time I know of no linquist to accept the plural of majestly argument.

Really, you don't have to be a Jew to be a skilled historian or linquist.

One can hardly claim Jews of today actually understand ancient Israel, any more than I understand the history of the half of my family that is American Indian.

[Ze'ev]

Nope. Elohim means God. Jehovah means Lord.


WHAT?!?

"elohim" can mean "G-d" (proper name) or "gods" (a plural noun).
In your opinion.

The meaing of the word does not become a proper name because you simply say so.

You have defined uniplural usage versus plural usage. But the root word remains the same.

As with the Shama (please forgive the spelling) of Israel:
The Lord our God (el) is one Gods (elohim). One God of uniplural nature.

No. I am not a linquist. But yes, I have known a few in my life time who were world renoun.

"Je-ho-vah" is a proper name, and is an amalgamation of the ineffable name of G-d (yud - heh - vav - heh - spacing inserted out of reverence to G-d) and the vowels of "adonai" - thus yielding "Ja-ho-va-h". It doesn't mean "lord" - "adonai" means "lord"!

Hmmm. And yet the manuscrpt text for Lord God is Jehovah Elohim. Lord (singular) God (uniplural).

"LORD" is used to represent the ineffable name out of respect for G-d, but notice it is all caps in this particular case. It is used the same way we Jews use "HaShem" ("The Name") as G-d's name - it is a substitute, not an equivalency!

And yet Abram recognized the three who appeared to him as one singular Lord, who answered as one.

A uniplural relationship, for sure.

It did say God appeared to him. And there were 3 who did so. Talked about in the plural but revered as one.

I have listened to a ton of debates between Jewish and Christian Theologians.

The Jewish ones always head into plural of majesty and struggle with the Messiah prophecies.


You're contradicting yourself when you say that the definition I supplied of "elohim" is "my opinion". Your citation of Strongs also agrees that "elohim" can mean "G-d" or "gods" plural. How is that simply "my opinion"?

As for the Sh'ma, you have it wrong - the word "El" never appears. The Sh'ma, transliterated, is:

"Sh'ma Yisrael, ADONAI elohaynu ADONAI echad"

(here, ADONAI means G-d's proper name, i.e. yud - heh - vav - heh)

No indication of plurality here whatsoever, unless you try to read it in.

BTW, how do you get that Abram saw the Trinity in the three visitors?


Kol Tuv,
Ze'ev

[CoreIssue]

You're contradicting yourself when you say that the definition I supplied of "elohim" is "my opinion". Your citation of Strongs also agrees that "elohim" can mean "G-d" or "gods" plural. How is that simply "my opinion"?
God, uniplural. Plural in content. More than one personage composing one God.

It does not say a singular personage.
As for the Sh'ma, you have it wrong - the word "El" never appears. The Sh'ma, transliterated, is:

"Sh'ma Yisrael, ADONAI elohaynu ADONAI echad"

(here, ADONAI means G-d's proper name, i.e. yud - heh - vav - heh)

No indication of plurality here whatsoever, unless you try to read it in.

Ehohim is right there. I see it. Plural.

The Lord our Gods is one God.

Never heard any linquist say it any other way. Including Jewish, who lapse to the plural of majesty argument.
BTW, how do you get that Abram saw the Trinity in the three visitors?
Excuse me, but are you actually reading what I said?

God appeared - 3 persons appeared, not one - spoke of in the plural - called one lord - all replied to the singular lord title.

That is one God composed of 3 persons. Uniplural. Not plural of majesty.

[Ze'ev]

Really, you don't have to be a Jew to be a skilled historian or linquist.

One can hardly claim Jews of today actually understand ancient Israel, any more than I understand the history of the half of my family that is American Indian.


I'm trying so hard not to see a dislike of Jews in your words, but you seem to make an awful lot of assumptions regarding how "arrogant" we Jews are.

We have a tradition that has been handed down throughout the generations - one that goes back well before Jesus, before gentiles even had an inkling of the One True G-d. We have fought assimilation throughout the ages, and have been accused of the most heinous crimes just because we've been an insular community. We have been slaughtered because of it.

If it wasn't for that, the gentile nations wouldn't even have an "Old Testament" upon which to base their faith.

So please, a little consideration of this fact before you assume my arrogance.


Your assertion has been that "elohim" is always plural, and you're using it as your proof that therefore G-d is plural. "Elohim" is not always plural, even by your own cited source (Strong's). Your "uniplural" word makes as much sense as "kosher pork".

You claim that "Plural of Majesty" can't be true because it was "invented" later. Do me a favor - find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. It too was invented later, by a guy who proposed the idea to be sacrilege (Tertullian). Does that mean "Trinity" is therefore false too?


Ze'ev

[Ze'ev]

You're contradicting yourself when you say that the definition I supplied of "elohim" is "my opinion". Your citation of Strongs also agrees that "elohim" can mean "G-d" or "gods" plural. How is that simply "my opinion"?
God, uniplural. Plural in content. More than one personage composing one God.

It does not say a singular personage.
As for the Sh'ma, you have it wrong - the word "El" never appears. The Sh'ma, transliterated, is:

"Sh'ma Yisrael, ADONAI elohaynu ADONAI echad"

(here, ADONAI means G-d's proper name, i.e. yud - heh - vav - heh)

No indication of plurality here whatsoever, unless you try to read it in.

Ehohim is right there. I see it. Plural.

The Lord our Gods is one God.

Never heard any linquist say it any other way. Including Jewish, who lapse to the plural of majesty argument.
BTW, how do you get that Abram saw the Trinity in the three visitors?
Excuse me, but are you actually reading what I said?

God appeared - 3 persons appeared, not one - spoke of in the plural - called one lord - all replied to the singular lord title.

That is one God composed of 3 persons. Uniplural. Not plural of majesty.

I refer you back, once again, to the definition you quoted from Strong's. Look at section two of the definition - it explicitly says "singular meaning". This means that the meaning is singular!

Never heard a liguist say it any other way? I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that almost every Christian translation has the word "G-d" in the singular.

And I did not fall back on "Plural of Majesty" - the NIV did.

The instance of Abram - are you sure it was G-d who appeared, and not three representatives of G-d? Is it possible that in the "Old Testament" representatives of G-d are called "G-d"?

Ze'ev

[CoreIssue]

I'm trying so hard not to see a dislike of Jews in your words, but you seem to make an awful lot of assumptions regarding how "arrogant" we Jews are.
There is no dislike.

I am a firm supporter of Israel and recognize God's purposes for Israel.

Many Jews do see themselves as the chosen ones, meaning a lot more than being emissaries of God.

As do far too many Christians.

It is not isolated to Jews. Don't ever think that.

We lived in the DC area for several years. There was a nearby Jewish community.

Non-Jews were not welcome. Period.

Yep. There are areas where Jews are not welcome.

Both situations stink. Mightily.

So, when I say the theological arrogance, I do not limit it to Jews. No way.
We have a tradition that has been handed down throughout the generations - one that goes back well before Jesus, before gentiles even had an inkling of the One True G-d.
You see. That is an arrogant statement.

Abram was not a Jew when he was chosen by God, in example. As was Enoch, Noah and others.

You guys didn't bring God to the world. You need to get over that.

We have fought assimilation throughout the ages, and have been accused of the most heinous crimes just because we've been an insular community. We have been slaughtered because of it.

Not arguing.

But ever heard of the Inquistion?

Over 50 million Biblical Christians died for their faith, at the hands of Rome.

And many more at the hands of Rome.
If it wasn't for that, the gentile nations wouldn't even have an "Old Testament" upon which to base their faith.
That is arrogant.

If not by the descendents of Abraham, God would have gone via another family.

As said, God can turn stones into Jews.
So please, a little consideration of this fact before you assume my arrogance.
Now you read what you just said. Tell me it isn't superior and arrogant.

Your assertion has been that "elohim" is always plural, and you're using it as your proof that therefore G-d is plural. "Elohim" is not always plural, even by your own cited source (Strong's). Your "uniplural" word makes as much sense as "kosher pork".

Read Strong again.

It is always plural. Being plural in number or in compostion.

But it is ALWAYS plural.

You claim that "Plural of Majesty" can't be true because it was "invented" later. Do me a favor - find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. It too was invented later, by a guy who proposed the idea to be sacrilege (Tertullian). Does that mean "Trinity" is therefore false too?

Straw man argument.

Trinity is a theological term that quickly defines a Biblical teaching. I don't have to find the exact word for it to be valid.

And that does nothing to change the fact plural of majesty was invented much later. It was.

[Ze'ev]

Core-

Glad you found some of my statements to seem "arrogant". They were worded that way on purpose. Hopefully it offended you the way I feel offended when I'm continually told how corrupt "you Jews" are.

We were not "chosen" to be superior, we were "chosen" to do a job. As Jews, we have made many mistakes. But one thing we have done, and that is preserved G-d's word in written and oral form. Sadly we have often disobeyed these very words, but we did preserve them. That isn't arrogance, that is history.

You make much hay out of Avram not being Jewish though. So I suppose Avram's son Yishma'el must also have the truth? Nope, G-d's covenant was through Yitschaq (Isaac).

And I suppose G-d's truth also went with Esau, Yitschaq's son? No, it went with Ya'akov (Jacob).

And Ya'akov was later named "Yisra'el", meaning "wrestles with G-d". G-d's covenant was through Avram, Yitschaq and Ya'akov. Whether you like it or not, that is the Jewish people. G-d repeatedly says that His Covenant with the Jewish people (the people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, just to be clear) is everlasting - that means it will never be broken. Even if we don't keep our end of the deal, what G-d says is everlasting is everlasting. Again, not my arrogant words, but the words of the scriptures that Christians call the "Old Covenant".

G-d is always described as the "G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". This is not arrogance - G-d calls Himself that!

"Ever heard of the Inquisition?"? Silly question to ask a Jew!

We didn't bring G-d to the world. I never said that. It is the height of arrogance to think that any human being could say (or think) that. A wise man said (and I agree), if you want to know what people think of you, find out what they're willing to believe about you.

And my Trinity argument is not a Straw-Man argument. A Straw-Man argument is when you erect a false claim and then knock it down to try to win the argument. It is a fact that the word "Trinity" was invented long after the "Old Testament", just as "Plural of Majesty" was. Both are used to describe a Biblical concept. It is an applicable parallel to your line of reasoning.

You are, however, guilty of Circular Reasoning. You assume your conclusion then use it to validate your conclusion. Because you disagree with the existence "Plural of Majesty", therefore it must not exist. This is an invalid argument. Again, I did not resort to "Plural of Majesty" - I cited an outside Christian source. Perhaps your argument is not with me, but with the division within the Christian ranks that seek to disprove your position.

BTW, I'm reading Strong's again - can't get past the words "Singular Meaning"...


Ze'ev

[CoreIssue]

Some reading on Plural of Majesty (http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/uniplurality.html).

[Ze'ev]

Some reading on Plural of Majesty (http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/uniplurality.html).

Heading to bed, but will look at this entirely. May I take it that you agree with the contents of this article in its entirety since you cite it to support your case?


Thank you for the stimulating discussion by the way - you may not think so, but I'm learning much from your responses!


Layla Tov,
Ze'ev

[CoreIssue]

Core-

Glad you found some of my statements to seem "arrogant". They were worded that way on purpose. Hopefully it offended you the way I feel offended when I'm continually told how corrupt "you Jews" are.
But, of course you do not view us Biblical Christians as lost and wrong. Right?

I stated there is more than enough arrogance to go around.

My point was the choosing, glory and such belongs to God. Not you, me Church or Israel.

We were not "chosen" to be superior, we were "chosen" to do a job. As Jews, we have made many mistakes. But one thing we have done, and that is preserved G-d's word in written and oral form. Sadly we have often disobeyed these very words, but we did preserve them. That isn't arrogance, that is history.


Preserved, yes. Followed, no.

Which holds true for many Christians, as well.

Yep. Israel was chosen, failed and the Church is now the chosen.

But Israel will be back.

But now, Church is God's active covenant body. Not Israel.

You make much hay out of Avram not being Jewish though. So I suppose Avram's son Yishma'el must also have the truth? Nope, G-d's covenant was through Yitschaq (Isaac).

One was. But not the Abrahamic Covenant.

That was the key one. None of the others would have followed without it.

It is a big deal. It says the person, not the genetics, is what counts.
And I suppose G-d's truth also went with Esau, Yitschaq's son? No, it went with Ya'akov (Jacob).
God goes with every human born. In different ways for different reasons.

Don't confuse covenant with person.

And Ya'akov was later named "Yisra'el", meaning "wrestles with G-d". G-d's covenant was through Avram, Yitschaq and Ya'akov. Whether you like it or not, that is the Jewish people. G-d repeatedly says that His Covenant with the Jewish people (the people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, just to be clear) is everlasting - that means it will never be broken. Even if we don't keep our end of the deal, what G-d says is everlasting is everlasting. Again, not my arrogant words, but the words of the scriptures that Christians call the "Old Covenant".

Not actually stated correctly.

The one with Abraham is eternal. To be fulfilled through his descendents.

The Mosaic Covenant was not eternal, and was annulled because Israel failed.

There are multiple covenant in the OT. Not one. And not all was with Abraham or his descendents.

Some were with all of Man.

G-d is always described as the "G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". This is not arrogance - G-d calls Himself that!

That is arrogance.

God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Enoch, Mechelzidek and every other saint that has lived.

There is no exclusivity in being called the God of Israel. That simply means God is SUPPOSE to be Israel's God, not that he is exclusively Israel's God.

"Ever heard of the Inquisition?"? Silly question to ask a Jew!

Actually not. The Inquistion targeted non-Catholic Christians, not Jews.
We didn't bring G-d to the world. I never said that. It is the height of arrogance to think that any human being could say (or think) that. A wise man said (and I agree), if you want to know what people think of you, find out what they're willing to believe about you.
But you did claim the world did not know God until Israel came around.

That is totally false.

And my Trinity argument is not a Straw-Man argument. A Straw-Man argument is when you erect a false claim and then knock it down to try to win the argument. It is a fact that the word "Trinity" was invented long after the "Old Testament", just as "Plural of Majesty" was. Both are used to describe a Biblical concept. It is an applicable parallel to your line of reasoning.

False argument.

Trinity describes what is in the Bible.

Plural of Majesty refers to something not found in the Bible. It didn't exist when any book of the Bible was being written.

You are, however, guilty of Circular Reasoning. You assume your conclusion then use it to validate your conclusion. Because you disagree with the existence "Plural of Majesty", therefore it must not exist. This is an invalid argument. Again, I did not resort to "Plural of Majesty" - I cited an outside Christian source. Perhaps your argument is not with me, but with the division within the Christian ranks that seek to disprove your position.

It isn't circular.

Circular uses the claim to prove the claim.

I used history.

Plural of Majesty didn't exist before Europe, millennia after the OT was complete.

Didn't exist so cannot be the linquistic form used.
BTW, I'm reading Strong's again - can't get past the words "Singular Meaning"...
Let me help you out.
Strong's Number: 0430 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=430&version=kjv)Original WordWord Origin~yhlaplural of (0433 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=433&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv#Legend) Entry'elohiymTWOT - 93cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechel-o-heem' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0430h) Noun Masculine Definition

(plural)
rulers, judges
divine ones
angels
gods
(plural intensive - singular meaning)

god, goddess
godlike one
works or special possessions of God
the (true) God
God

Plurality composing one.

As with the scouts bringing back the stem of grapes from the promised land.

Literally they brought back one grape. That being a uniplural where the many on one stem constituted a singular whole.

That is a uniplural, as nation, marriage, family, counsel, year and more are uniplurals. Many together constitute a singular whole.

[CoreIssue]

Plural of Majesty, where such as a king speaks with both the voice of God and king at the same time.

Or, where referring to plural of majestic attributes in one person.

Even there it means the plural of something in a singular whole.

But this did not exist when any of the OT was written.

[Ze'ev]

Ah, at last it comes clear. You are a believer in Replacement theology.

All this talk of arrogance, but at last it comes out.

You don't even understand what "Circular Argument" means - it is not "using the claim to prove the claim". Here is a definition from the University of Victoria's Writer's Guide:

"A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument."

You assume that Plural of Majesty is wrong, therefore it is wrong. That is not a valid argument.


Good night,
Ze'ev

[Jessie]

Ah, at last it comes clear. You are a believer in Replacement theology.

All this talk of arrogance, but at last it comes out.

You don't even understand what "Circular Argument" means - it is not "using the claim to prove the claim". Here is a definition from the University of Victoria's Writer's Guide:

"A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument."

You assume that Plural of Majesty is wrong, therefore it is wrong. That is not a valid argument.


Good night,
Ze'ev


:swoon::swoon::eek:

oh my absolutly NO! none of us believe that.

please slow down and re-read! the church NEVER replaces Isreal in Gods word the way
God's plans are. for the moment the church is here (gentiles) and doing what the jews were supposed to do but did'nt but will in the future. although it is very corrupt now also.
the jews have certain things that pertain to them, not us.

[Ze'ev]

B'reisheet (Genesis) 27:46 - The word "life" is "chayim", but "life" is singular
The verse is about multiple daughters. Plural.

The reference to the singluar life is singular, not -im.

Yob (Job) 10:12 - again, singular "life" is "chayim"
I don't see any -im ending when I go to the lexicon. It says chay, not chayim.


Core,
I seriously wonder about the translation you're basing your faith upon...

Here's B'reisheet 27:46. This is Rivkah (a singular person) talking about her life, about "what good would it do her". Look at the last word.

מו וַתֹּאמֶר רִבְקָה, אֶל-יִצְחָק, קַצְתִּי בְחַיַּי, מִפְּנֵי בְּנוֹת חֵת; אִם-לֹקֵחַ יַעֲקֹב אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת-חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה, מִבְּנוֹת הָאָרֶץ--לָמָּה לִּי, חַיִּים.


Here's Yob 10:12. Look at the first word.

יב חַיִּים וָחֶסֶד, עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי; וּפְקֻדָּתְךָ, שָׁמְרָה רוּחִי.


Its right there for the world to see. Why do you refuse to see it?


Ze'ev

[a.baker]

I am not super familiar with stories of the bible or names of the bible (slowly working on it though). I never grew up in a house where we went to church more than twice a year or had parents that talked about God or Jesus (sometimes we would but not often) all the time. Or mentioned much of lessons or morals of the bible. They raised me with all good things but not much of it was directly related to the "what would Jesus do" type of thing. So my point is, is that when I was a teenager I really truly found God and it was through Jesus. So besides any facts that could be twisted when it comes to a literal way of thinking or a metaphor thinking; old testament or new testament; I was most definitely brought to God through Jesus and it's something thats hard to put into words of why going through Jesus seems so right. It's all about what a soul feels is right and faith. And to me it seems like there is no other way. If there was and I am wrong about Jesus than wouldn't that inferior ate Him and make Him want to set things straight? I think He would. After all He is a jealous God. If we where just looking at some person of history and say they are the way to God and they weren't than wouldn't God be extremely jealous? So besides what any book says you really have to listen to God. To me he says Jesus is the way. Sorry for what I said is not anything from the bible. I was just saying what I feel. Am I allowed to do that? Its seems to me that this website can be very sticky and you have to be very careful of what you say and how you say it. Which is good but makes me nervous I might slip up and get kicked out. Sorry if that was uncalled for. Please keep open mind, eyes, and ears for that is how God wants us to live so we may gain wisdom.

[Jessie]

nope you wont get kicked out. :hug:

[Jessie]

B'reisheet (Genesis) 27:46 - The word "life" is "chayim", but "life" is singular
The verse is about multiple daughters. Plural.

The reference to the singluar life is singular, not -im.

Yob (Job) 10:12 - again, singular "life" is "chayim"
I don't see any -im ending when I go to the lexicon. It says chay, not chayim.


Core,
I seriously wonder about the translation you're basing your faith upon...

Here's B'reisheet 27:46. This is Rivkah (a singular person) talking about her life, about "what good would it do her". Look at the last word.

מו וַתֹּאמֶר רִבְקָה, אֶל-יִצְחָק, קַצְתִּי בְחַיַּי, מִפְּנֵי בְּנוֹת חֵת; אִם-לֹקֵחַ יַעֲקֹב אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת-חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה, מִבְּנוֹת הָאָרֶץ--לָמָּה לִּי, חַיִּים.


Here's Yob 10:12. Look at the first word.

יב חַיִּים וָחֶסֶד, עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי; וּפְקֻדָּתְךָ, שָׁמְרָה רוּחִי.


Its right there for the world to see. Why do you refuse to see it?


Ze'ev


um could you please use terms I can understand I'm assuming you are using hebrew
:scratch:

[CoreIssue]

Jessie has it write, Ze'ev.

As I have noted, several times, you are not reading my posts to you. Or you would not be asking already answered questions, again.

That is a sign of one who will not see what they do not want to see, in an answer, or feel they are so right they can skim and nail the highlights.

For sure, if you had actually read, you were never have even thought about bringing up Replacement Theology.

Israel, failed, Church came onto the scene. The Church did not become Israel, did not take over the Abrahamic Covenant rights or any such thing. The Church is the Church. Period.

Israel will return, as promised in the OT, and the Book of Hebrews, under the New Covenant to the Houses of Israel and Judah, as I stated before.

As with dwelling on Plural of Majesty. You do not seem to note the simple fact it does not exist historically, period, before around 1200 in Europe.

And latching onto one person who notes it as a possible answser is not proof of anything, when the whole body of History is against it.

Never is it found in any ancient history. Never is it shown used by any pagan or other king.

Trying to change elohim into plural of majesty is foundationless. An invented argument to try to deny the Trinity.

Who invented it? I don't know nor care. It is a false argument.

[MHz]

Do you dispute this is the meaning of elohim?

The verse is from the KJV. elohim translated as God, as done over 2600 more times, in the OT.

Out of the 9 choices I would have to go that 2-4 (true God) applies best to this verse.

[CoreIssue]

Do you dispute this is the meaning of elohim?

The verse is from the KJV. elohim translated as God, as done over 2600 more times, in the OT.

Out of the 9 choices I would have to go that 2-4 (true God) applies best to this verse.
OK.

But do you admit it says plural in composition, as in 3 personages acting as one?

The definition does not say plural in quality or attributes. But in head count.

Really, we are all plural in qualities and attributes.

[MHz]

Do you dispute this is the meaning of elohim?

The verse is from the KJV. elohim translated as God, as done over 2600 more times, in the OT.

Out of the 9 choices I would have to go that 2-4 (true God) applies best to this verse.
OK.

But do you admit it says plural in composition, as in 3 personages acting as one?

The definition does not say plural in quality or attributes. But in head count.

Really, we are all plural in qualities and attributes.

No I don't admit that. Nor am I alone in that thought.

* Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Volume 1 (edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody Press, 1980, page 44):

This word [elohim], which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah [Strong's #433], is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

What does "not intended as a true plural when used of God" mean?

Nor does Strong's definition include 'the (true) God in the section under what is plural (section #1). What does Strong's define (the true God) as? There is no indication of Father, Son and Spirit (1st, 2nd, 3rd persons) in Strong's definition, it only says "the (true) God.

Then there is this,

S&H 515:16-21 The eternal Elohim includes the forever universe. The name Elohim is in the plural, but this plurality of Spirit does not imply more than one God, nor does it imply three persons in one. It relates to the oneness, the tri-unity of Life, Truth, and Love. "Let them have dominion."

The link you provided also covers a verse from the 1st chapter of the 1st book. It says God says let 'us' make man in our image and likeness. Man is dust and breath of life. The verse after that is said doesn't have three, it has man and woman, that is a pair. Verses before that have the words 'God said' several times. Who is listed before that, God and the Spirit of God, that is two, mankind is made of two, a man and a woman, husband and wife that are referenced as being 'one flesh'. I would be more than willing to admit God and His Living Spirit are inseparable, but only one is God and only one is the Spirit.
For your trinity to work in that book when 'God said' (something should be done), who did it?

You may think I'm just being ignorant, I'm not, I take all scripture very seriously.

Trinity paints a picture of 'three being equal' that would seem to contrast with Scripture, blasphemy towards 'one' should bring a similar 'punishment', it doesn't,
M't:12:32:
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him:
but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him,
neither in this world,
neither in the world to come.

Same 'crime' against two different 'people' carries a different punishment, that would seem that there is some sort of difference between them in the Father's viewpoint.

[CoreIssue]

Do you dispute this is the meaning of elohim?

The verse is from the KJV. elohim translated as God, as done over 2600 more times, in the OT.

Out of the 9 choices I would have to go that 2-4 (true God) applies best to this verse.
OK.

But do you admit it says plural in composition, as in 3 personages acting as one?

The definition does not say plural in quality or attributes. But in head count.

Really, we are all plural in qualities and attributes.

No I don't admit that. Nor am I alone in that thought.
Well, historians do disagree with all of you that say this.

Historically, plural of majesty cannot be found prior to around 1200 AD, in Europe.

Just assigning this meaning does not make it so.

* Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Volume 1 (edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody Press, 1980, page 44):

This word [elohim], which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah [Strong's #433], is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God.

Yes. And it says the general niew is plural of el (god), thus gods.

Pretty plainly stated that IS the mainly held view.
The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God.
Really? Based on WHAT evidence exactly?

Never said it does not literally mean gods, in the Bible. Not inconsistant with the Hebrew uniplural. In fact, totally in harmony of uniplural, as used in the other instances of uniplural, in the OT.

Not found in history. Not found used for any pagan or other king in the OT.

So, wht exactly is the supporting evidence for uniplural, besides a couple of people saying it?

By the way, Gleason was a Trinitarian, as were others, from the Blue, you referenced.

This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

Which is false.

That is what makes it a uniplural.

Gleason was not a linquist. The linquist do not support plural of majesty, anymore than than historians do. They say uniplural.
What does "not intended as a true plural when used of God" mean?
It means you have taken a minority position, statement, by trinitarians, in fact, and tried to make it fact.

Neither linquists nor historians support this claim. It has NO foundation.

Of course anti-Trinitarians latch onto it. But it does not support them.

Nor does it escape the NT Trinitarian declarations.

Nor does Strong's definition include 'the (true) God in the section under what is plural (section #1). What does Strong's define (the true God) as? There is no indication of Father, Son and Spirit (1st, 2nd, 3rd persons) in Strong's definition, it only says "the (true) God.

God. Plural. Uniplural.

Is Council plural, in example? No. it is singular.

But is a Council singular in personage? No. It is plural.

You have nothing to back this position, other than a minority claim.

Then there is this,

S&H 515:16-21 The eternal Elohim includes the forever universe.

Excuse me! Don't even go pleading a Pantheistic statement in an argument.

The name Elohim is in the plural, but this plurality of Spirit does not imply more than one God, nor does it imply three persons in one. It relates to the oneness, the tri-unity of Life, Truth, and Love. "Let them have dominion."

Not even a Christian concept.

The link you provided also covers a verse from the 1st chapter of the 1st book. It says God says let 'us' make man in our image and likeness. Man is dust and breath of life. The verse after that is said doesn't have three, it has man and woman, that is a pair. Verses before that have the words 'God said' several times. Who is listed before that, God and the Spirit of God, that is two, mankind is made of two, a man and a woman, husband and wife that are referenced as being 'one flesh'. I would be more than willing to admit God and His Living Spirit are inseparable, but only one is God and only one is the Spirit.
For your trinity to work in that book when 'God said' (something should be done), who did it?

Nope. Not going there.

Until you can provide support for plural of majesty from linquists and historians, this is a done conversation.

You may think I'm just being ignorant, I'm not, I take all scripture very seriously.

Not igornant. Just trying to find facts for false beliefs, that do not exist.

Trinity paints a picture of 'three being equal' that would seem to contrast with Scripture, blasphemy towards 'one' should bring a similar 'punishment', it doesn't,
M't:12:32:
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him:
but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him,
neither in this world,
neither in the world to come.

Nope. Not going with false arguments of against God versus against a man.
Same 'crime' against two different 'people' carries a different punishment, that would seem that there is some sort of difference between them in the Father's viewpoint.
Nope. Not going with the divine flesh premise.

Give me linquists and historians that support this claim. Never seen one.

Even the hightest esteemed Unitarian linquist to ever live admited the Bible teaches Trinity.

And don't go with the nonsense the Bible is sufficient and you say it declares plural of majesty.

It does not. Linquists and historians deny that.

The links I gave states, as I have stated, it is a historical fallacy to say plural of majesty, back then. And not only cites history, but the Bible, to show it is not used.

[CoreIssue]

More evidence against plural of majesty claims here. (http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm)

[CoreIssue]

The idea Jews never had a concept of Trinity, always saw elohim as plural of majesty, always agreed on these issue and so on totally false

And here (http://www.appleofhiseye.org/Whatdoyouthink/TheTrinity/tabid/809/Default.aspx) is evidence.

What you don't see, even from those who rejected Trinity, was plural of majesty. You see claims of manuscript error, angels, other heavenly beings, and so on.

This is dramatic refutation of Plural of Majesty. As in the ancient Jewish scholars didn't embrace it.

[MHz]

Of course anti-Trinitarians latch onto it. But it does not support them.
I Just read it before I posted it so it wasn't 'bookmarked' or anything.


Until you can provide support for plural of majesty from linquists and historians, this is a done conversation.
Fair enough, I'll see what I can find. This better not be a 20 page thread that leads nowhere, the trying to date Jesus's birth was such a thread and it ended in a total waste of time, even history books can't agree when something took place.


Not igornant. Just trying to find facts for false beliefs, that do not exist.
We'll see.

[MHz]

Here are some articles I have just read.
http://halleluyah.org/Elohim%20Singular%20or%20Plural.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~rday888/prints/elohimplural.html

http://www.halfshekel.com/one-faq/plural.html

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/elohim_and_the_plural_passages_by_segraves.htm

No other comment at this time

[CoreIssue]

Here are some articles I have just read.
http://halleluyah.org/Elohim%20Singular%20or%20Plural.htm
Doctrinal statement. We can trade those all day long.
http://home.comcast.net/~rday888/prints/elohimplural.html
I already covered this, but will do it again.
The truth is that the Hebrew Scriptures do often use the plural word Elohim (as well as some other plural nouns, such as *chayim*, literally plural, meaning "lives", but used singularly: life; Genesis 27:46; Job 10:12) in singular settings, usually with the singular article or singular verbs, etc. This has been called the "plural intensive" -- where the plural is used in a singular context to denote the superlative degree or superiority. It has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine.
46 Then Rebekah said to Isaac, "I'm disgusted with living because of these Hittite women. If Jacob takes a wife from among the women of this land, from Hittite women like these, my life will not be worth living."
False claim.

Women is plural, but speaking of a single group. Plural composition.

Speaking of Rebekah's live, the word is singular, chay, not plural, chayim.

Again, in Job, the word used is chay, not chayim. A false claim.

There is no plural of majesty here. It is plural composition within a uniplural context.

http://www.halfshekel.com/one-faq/plural.html
A doctrinal declaration.

Not even a vague attempt at Hebrew linguistics.

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/elohim_and_the_plural_passages_by_segraves.htm
And again a doctrinal statement.

He even tries to escape the trinity appearing to Abram by claiming the other two were angels, in pure defiance of the full context.

It states God appeared to Abram when Abram saw 3 men approaching.

He talked of their personages in the plural, but called them Lord, not Lords.

The capper is all THREE answered when he addressed them as Lord.

If two were angels, only one would have responded.

And he claims the plural in singular usage of elohim was only 54 times. That is false.

I have already posted historical and linquistic texts supporting the uniplural. Including from ancient Jewish scholars and theologians.

You posted no historical evidence nor actual linqusitic support for ancient sources.

You did not provide the evidence I asked you for. You just posted doctrinal positions.

As I told you, you would not find historical evidence because none exists. Plural of Majesty didn't exist in OT times.

And note none of them even attempt to take on the issues of the scouts coming back from the Promised Land with the ONE grape. Uniplural there as well.

[MHz]

He even tries to escape the trinity appearing to Abram by claiming the other two were angels, in pure defiance of the full context.
Full context would include who arrived at Sodom,
Ge:19:1:
And there came two angels to Sodom at even;
and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom:
and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them;
and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
Ge:19:2:
And he said,
Behold now,
my lords,
turn in,
I pray you,
into your servant's house,
and tarry all night,
and wash your feet,
and ye shall rise up early,
and go on your ways.
And they said,
Nay;
but we will abide in the street all night.

How does lot address the, he calls them 'my lords'.
In this case the choice would be 'theophanic angel'

Lexicon Results for 'adown (Strong's H113)
Hebrew for H113
אדון

Transliteration

'adown


Pronunciation

ä·done' (Key)

Part of Speech

masculine noun


Root Word (Etymology)

from an unused root (meaning to rule)

TWOT Reference

27b
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) firm, strong, lord, master

a) lord, master

1) reference to men

a) superintendent of household,of affairs

b) master

c) king

2) reference to God

a) the Lord God

b) Lord of the whole earth

b) lords, kings

1) reference to men

a) proprietor of hill of Samaria

b) master

c) husband

d) prophet

e) governor

f) prince

g) king

2) reference to God

a) Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh")

c) my lord, my master

1) reference to men

a) master

b) husband

c) prophet

d) prince

e) king

f) father

g) Moses

h) priest

i) theophanic angel

j) captain

k) general recognition of superiority

2) reference to God

a) my Lord,my Lord and my God

b) Adonai (parallel with Yahweh)


It states God appeared to Abram when Abram saw 3 men approaching.

He talked of their personages in the plural, but called them Lord, not Lords.

The capper is all THREE answered when he addressed them as Lord.

Close, this is how he addressed them,
Ge:18:3:
And said,
My Lord,
if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away,
I pray thee,
from thy servant:

In this case is see no reason why 'of men' wouldn't apply here, being as they have already been called 'men' in Vs:2.

Lexicon Results for 'Adonay (Strong's H136)
Hebrew for H136
אדני

Transliteration

'Adonay


Pronunciation

ad·o·noy' (Key)

Part of Speech

masculine noun


Root Word (Etymology)

am emphatic form of H113

TWOT Reference

27b
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) my lord, lord

a) of men

b) of God

2) Lord - title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence


If two were angels, only one would have responded.
The '3 men' later leave and Abraham is still with the LORD,
Ge:18:22:
And the men turned their faces from thence,
and went toward Sodom:
but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

Lexicon Results for Yĕhovah (Strong's H3068)
Hebrew for H3068
יהוה

Transliteration

Yĕhovah


Pronunciation

yeh·ho·vä' (Key)

Part of Speech

proper noun with reference to deity


Root Word (Etymology)

from H1961

TWOT Reference

484a
Outline of Biblical Usage

Jehovah = "the existing One"

1) the proper name of the one true God

a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136



Who was Sarah referring to in this verse, God or Abraham?
Ge:18:12:
Therefore Sarah laughed within herself,
saying,
After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure,
my lord being old also?


And he claims the plural in singular usage of elohim was only 54 times. That is false.
An issue you will have to take up with the author.


I have already posted historical and linquistic texts supporting the uniplural. Including from ancient Jewish scholars and theologians.

You posted no historical evidence nor actual linqusitic support for ancient sources.

You did not provide the evidence I asked you for. You just posted doctrinal positions.

As I told you, you would not find historical evidence because none exists. Plural of Majesty didn't exist in OT times.
Since it didn't exist as a term, no wonder it wasn't written about.
Your articles also promote a certain doctrine, much is centered on the use of the word 'us', as I have already pointed out, GOD and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in Genesis:1, that is before the word 'us' is used. Neither of your articles touch upon that fact. If two are present the use of the term 'us' is entirely appropriate, nor do they touch on that the Holy Spirit was also present in all the other places where 'us' is used.
Which of your ancient references addressing that specific issue, that God and the Holy Spirit are both mentioned in the first few verses and that is the reason 'us' is used?


I'm not sure what 'role' you have for the Holy Spirit of God having in 'creation' but once God said 'something be done' it is the Holy Spirit that makes those words become reality. Would the Holy Spirit also have been capable of changing men's languages at the tower of Babel?


In the verses below several things are mentioned, LORD and God are in the same sentence, if 'God' is plural then LORD would seem to be separate, which He isn't. Is LORD now plural or is it singular as it has always been? Doesn't 'he' also indicate singular? The three men with Abraham were referenced as 'they'.

Isa:55:7:
Let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts:
and let him return unto the LORD,
and he will have mercy upon him;
and to our God,
for he will abundantly pardon.

The use of 'my' only indicates LORD is singular, there is no 'us' in those two verses.

Isa:55:8:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD.

Isa:55:9:
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

(only interesting if you wonder where all our water came from and how, snow came from heaven but did not return there, it kept recycling within the atmosphere of our earth)
Isa:55:10:
For as the rain cometh down,
and the snow from heaven,
and returneth not thither,
but watereth the earth,
and maketh it bring forth and bud,
that it may give seed to the sower,
and bread to the eater:

Is this speaking of the LORD sending the Holy Spirit someplace?
Isa:55:11:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.


And note none of them even attempt to take on the issues of the scouts coming back from the Promised Land with the ONE grape. Uniplural there as well.

Are you sure that wasn't one branch with a cluster of grapes on it?
Nu:13:23:
And they came unto the brook of Eshcol,
and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes,
and they bare it between two upon a staff;
and they brought of the pomegranates,
and of the figs.

Just guessing that this is what you were referencing, if I am in error, please point me to the correct passage.

[CoreIssue]

Not going there.

You are trying to go back to purely doctrinal declaration.

I am still waiting for you to establish a real foundation to support your thinking, which you have not.

You claimed Plural of Majesty, I showed it was possible because it did not exist in OT times nor was even a consideration by ancient scholars and theologians.

Ball is in your court to provide history and such to the contrary.

Fact is you have nothing but doctrinal declarations, from a minority position.

[MHz]

Not going there.

You are trying to go back to purely doctrinal declaration.

I am still waiting for you to establish a real foundation to support your thinking, which you have not.

You claimed Plural of Majesty, I showed it was possible because it did not exist in OT times nor was even a consideration by ancient scholars and theologians.

Ball is in your court to provide history and such to the contrary.

Fact is you have nothing but doctrinal declarations, from a minority position.

Plural of Majesty would involve just God, (1st person as you call Him), Strong's definition has 9 ways 'God' has been used in Scripture. One of those nine says 'the (true) God, yet that is not 'defined', if that is a reference to 'GOD' then that is singular. Any use of 'us' (which your two articles cover in some detail) is God speaking to somebody, in this verse it is the LORD speaking to the three men,
Ge:18:17:
And the LORD said,
Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
Ge:18:18:
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,
and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Ge:18:19:
For I know him,
that he will command his children and his household after him,
and they shall keep the way of the LORD,
to do justice and judgment;
that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Here is another link, you might want to 'correct them' as they seem to have it wrong and it is a fairly respected source of information.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9032466/Elohim
singular Eloah (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofetim), and the Messiah—is usually employed in the Old Testament for the one and only God of Israel, whose personal name was revealed to Moses as YHWH, or Yahweh (q.v.). When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,” and sometimes with a further identification Elohim hayyim, meaning “the living God.”
Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense. Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections.

[CoreIssue]

Yea. Real good source.

One that calls cults Christian, in example. And sees all religions believing in the same God.

Real credible.

So, exactly what was their source for this declaration? I don't see that, but it is a doctrinal, not from any historical source.

I gave you actual historical evidence. You give me nothing.

[MHz]

I gave you actual historical evidence. You give me nothing.
And here I thought you gave me some quotes from some uninspired book put in an article by another man who was also uninspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

Too bad this link didn't take a thought one step further, like who God was addressing when saying 'we' and 'our' way back in the first chapter of the first book. Even today, all mankind who are alive enjoy the presence of the 'Breath of Life', which is the Spirit of God, even though they may be unsaved heathens.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/uniplurality.html

in part,
"Here, we again see indication of separate personality which is tied in with God. The Lord was the Saviour of the children of Israel, yet "the angel of his presence" also saved them, and their rebellion "vexed" His holy Spirit, indicating personality on the part of that Spirit...how can an impersonal object be "vexed"?"

Can 1/3 of the 'trinity' be 'vexed' without 'vexing' all three?

[CoreIssue]

Don't throw the inspired by the Holy Spirit argument. That is nonsense, since it means, in fact, your doctrine is right because you feel led to it by the Holy Spirit.

Well, the Holy Spirit tells me you are completely wrong and getting nothing from him.

So move past that kind of attempted argument.

You will not be allowed to preach, which is exactly what you are trying to do, again.

Provide historical backing for your claims. Not your doctrinal claims.

I did. I showed that even the ancient Jewish scholars and theologians, who were enemies of Christ, did not use this argument because the concept didn't even exist for them consider.

You are again failing to debate, but preach.

Either come up with proofs, admit they do not exist or stop posting your claims and statements. This is not a platform for you to preach from.

Show me wrong. If it existed, show it. Don't claim it. SHOW it stated from ancient times.

Answering facts with counter challenges is evasive.

This is a formal warning.

[MHz]

This is a formal warning.
This is a formal exit.

Stop talking about Scripture, ROFL, post only what others have said, how sad.

Kay-gee happened to be talking about the other books of the Bible other than the OT and Revelation, at least that is the way I took it. You thought he meant books other than the Holy Bible. That brings me back to the reason I came back in the first place. At one point in our discussion you said the Sons of God were men and the 'evil ones' were also men, no fallen angels involved at all. So I had wanted to ask you if you had gotten any of that info from outside Scripture, like in this work,
http://www.ecmarsh.com/crl/Forgotten%20Books/The%20Book%20of%20Adam%20and%20Eve.htm


That is nonsense, since it means, in fact, your doctrine is right because you feel led to it by the Holy Spirit.
Not really, reading Scripture is from my own free choice to do so. So is it also by my free choice to take the time to read just Scripture rather than learn a most complex book from uninspired men. If the Holy Spirit is involved, the only assistance is to give me the patience to keep reading when the answer to a question seems to not want to be found, the reward for finally finding the answer (to some question and there have been many questions) is an increase of knowledge about my Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and about the one who sent Him to us, God Almighty.

I guess Strong's does give a definition for the (true) God,

Lexicon Results for 'el (Strong's H410)
Hebrew for H410
אל

Transliteration

'el


Pronunciation

āl (Key)

Part of Speech

masculine noun


Root Word (Etymology)

shortened from H352

TWOT Reference

93a
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) god, god-like one, mighty one

a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes

b) angels

c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)

d) God, the one true God, Jehovah

2) mighty things in nature

3) strength, power

Lexicon Results for Shadday (Strong's H7706)
Hebrew for H7706
שדי

Transliteration

Shadday


Pronunciation

shad·dah'·ē (Key)

Part of Speech

masculine noun with reference to deity


Root Word (Etymology)

from H7703

TWOT Reference

2333
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) almighty, most powerful

a) Shaddai, the Almighty (of God)

[CoreIssue]

I am holding you to the formal exit.

If you post again, it must be the required evidence. Not more rhetoric.

Maybe, somewhere, along the line, you will realize how wrong your approach is.

[kay-gee]

MHz, Kay here! I would be interested to know your thoughts on Pre-destination. I realize that it also is a deep theological issue, But it is something that has always been a puzzle to me. I've in the past even been labelled as "Calvanist" by members of my own fellowship.
Too quickly we assign labels to one another. I do not believe that God callously selects some for salvation and others for damnation. That is calvinism in it's basic definition.
However, I do believe that God has set in motion, an eternal purpose for all creation, and orders it, so that it will ultimately conclude according to that purpose, regardless of the meddling of men. I also believe that your days are literally "numbered" from your birth until your death, and nothing can change it. I base this on a verse I came across in Job and also in Psalms. Try as I may I can't find them now. concordances and every thing. Maybe I could employ your knowledge of finding scriptures to locate them. Also, I would like you to comment on them, using other scriptures OT or NT if you can. I suppose in a nut-shell, I'm alluding to the absolute Soverignty of God. Your help appreciated.

all the best....

[CoreIssue]

There are three main camps on the issue of election and preservation.

Calvinism beleives both election and preservation are pre-destined by God. We have NO choice in either matter. Total Predestination.

Arminianism teaches Total Freewill. We can come to God and leave him as we personally choose.

Secure Arminianism teach we seek God in freewill and then God predestines us to success and Eternal Security. We choose him and he preserves us.

It is the idea that once we are changed by God, we will never leave him. He predestines nothing will change that, per Romans 8, in example.

I am a Secure Arminianist.

[CoreIssue]

By the way. This request will not be used as a platform for MHz to resume preaching.

He will answer the other questions before he takes on another issue. Period.

[CTZonEdit]

I'm confused as to why KG wants to know MHz's thoughts?

Does the issue that MHz believes in another god not representative of the biblical God not concern you at all KG?!

Are you asking because you are intrigued by his ideas and thoughts and want to know more? Or are you trying to sway him out of his cult beliefs?

Seriously questioning why you are asking for biblical help and understanding from someone shown to be locked up in cult ideas and practice.

[kay-gee]

Because this is the MHz thread. It is the only place he can post anymore. I think I posed a question of sufficient depth to warrant imput from MHz. I know he can find those verses for me and find others that will speak to this issue. This is a huge puzzle for me. fatalism vs. free chance.
Don't you think the other topic has run it's course?
all the best........

[CTZonEdit]

OK so you are saying that you are actually interested in knowing how MHz thinks on these topics and wish to add his views to your repertoire?

[kay-gee]

I'm interested what the Bible has to say on the topic. Particularly OT where I am not as strong. MHz excels at digging out the verses. Then I can see them and decide which ones support or challenge my understanding. I do not see a hint of cult like dogma. Only lots of scripture that supports. That is where my interest lies. These are topics rarely dealt with in my own fellowship, and I kinda carry them around in the back of my mind.
all the best...

[MHz]

OK so you are saying that you are actually interested in knowing how MHz thinks on these topics and wish to add his views to your repertoire?

I already covered 'perfect justice', you should be able to tell him why it isn't the way I stated.

Kay-gee, I'll send you a PM. The admins are also welcome to PM me, especially lighthouse.

[MHz]

I also believe that your days are literally "numbered" from your birth until your death, and nothing can change it. I base this on a verse I came across in Job and also in Psalms. Try as I may I can't find them now.
all the best....
I hate it when that happens. The only solution that has worked for me is when I run into a verse that "brings something new' is to follow up on that right then and there, just far enough so I can find it again. The subject I was reading about can always be found again later, think of it as going down an isle in the supermarket you didn't have on your list.

By the way. This request will not be used as a platform for MHz to resume preaching.

He will answer the other questions before he takes on another issue. Period.

Fair enough, like I said I am in no rush in looking for documents by man that are before a subject was even in question. I would have thought Strong's definition of the (true) God would have been enough, same old, same old.

You guys should have enough Scriptural knowledge to give Kay-gee the correct verses, verses not opinions.

I'm confused as to why KG wants to know MHz's thoughts?

Does the issue that MHz believes in another god not representative of the biblical God not concern you at all KG?!

Are you asking because you are intrigued by his ideas and thoughts and want to know more? Or are you trying to sway him out of his cult beliefs?

Seriously questioning why you are asking for biblical help and understanding from someone shown to be locked up in cult ideas and practice.

My GOD is not spelled god, look it up. A cult would seem to me more than one. I am one, just one. It seems I also have a theory that is not believed, that is not the point, the whole point is that I have provided Scripture for every point I have made, straight from the one Book that matters.

Just what kind of cult practice are you giving me 'credit for'?

[CoreIssue]

Warning 2. Answering mean NOTHING else until you answer.

That includes trying to open the door to other issues by asking CTZ quesitons on what he stated.

HE has the right to ask and comment because he does not avoid and dodge answers as you do.

Post the requested evidence. I did, and it denies you.

[kay-gee]

This is where I am at, at this point concerning this issue. I believe that you have been assigned a life to live, from your conception. (a verse in Psalms confirms God knowing us from the time of being a yolk-like substance) Somewhere in Job, there is a verse to the effect that the amount of your days are numbered before you have lived even one. (Paraphrased; this is the elusive verse I'm after if you can help me to find it)
Therefore: we have been given a set number of days, the number which is known only by God, not us. That is why Today is the day of Salvation. Tomorrow may not be yours. If you are 95 years old and never obeyed the gospel you are no better off than the dead teenager. An infant dies before it is a single day old. We all consider that a tragedy, but is it. It is going straight into the arms of God without having to face the drudgery of life. When the 95 year old dies, he's the big loser!
Look at the guy who decided to build bigger warehouses and eat drink & be merry. Every thing was going so good but that night he died. His soul was required of him. He had lived his allotted days.
How about a guy falls out of an airplane and lives. A week later, complications from a common cold takes him out. Life really is that strange. Nothing can change that "appointed" time of your death. Then you will be judged.
Who receives the greater condemnation. The dead teenager who had been on his way to a gospel meeting at the bidding of a friend, or the 95 year old, who has had countless opportunities to hear and respond to the gospel, and ignored???
This is the Kay-gee stand. Am I fatalist or what? Certainly not a Calvinist!
Also the Judas question. Did he repent of what he did before offing himself? I'm not so sure. The NT appears silent on that.
all the best...

[CoreIssue]

This is where I am at, at this point concerning this issue. I believe that you have been assigned a life to live, from your conception. (a verse in Psalms confirms God knowing us from the time of being a yolk-like substance) Somewhere in Job, there is a verse to the effect that the amount of your days are numbered before you have lived even one. (Paraphrased; this is the elusive verse I'm after if you can help me to find it)
Therefore: we have been given a set number of days, the number which is known only byGod, not us.
You failed to complete the thought.

It also says a fool can shorten his days.

So, God gives us x amount of time, but we can subtract from it. Called freewill.
That is why Today is the day of Salvation. Tomorrow may not be yours. If you are 95 years old and never obeyed the gospel you are no better off than the dead teenager.
Actually, they are worse off, because they have more sin to pay for in the Lake.
an infant dies before it is a single day old. We all consider that a tragedy, but is it. It is going straight into the arms of God without having to face the drudgery of life.
True. But also has no rewards. So there is loss, a trade.
When the 95 year old dies, he's the big loser!
Yepper!

Look at the guy who decided to build bigger warehouses and eat drink & be merry. Every thing was going so good but that night he died. His soul was required of him. He had lived his allotted days.

Or was a fool that brought the wrath of God upon him to shorten his days.

But either way, he looses, for eternity.

Materialism is a fool's game.
How about a guy falls out of an airplane and lives. A week later, complications from a common cold takes him out. Life really is that strange. Nothing can change that "appointed" time of your death.
Actually, a fool can shorten his days.

But no one will live beyond his time limit. I agree.

Then you will be judged.

Yep. Either one waits for the Marriage Supper or the White Throne.

Who receives the greater condemnation. The dead teenager who had been on his way to a gospel meeting at the bidding of a friend, or the 95 year old, who has had countless opportunities to hear and respond to the gospel, and ignored???

95 year old.

This is the Kay-gee stand. Am I fatalist or what? Certainly not a Calvinist!

Sounds like an Armianist. I don' know if you believe in Eternal Security or not.
Also the Judas question. Did he repent of what he did before offing himself? I'm not so sure. The NT appears silent on that.
He didn't, because the NT isn't silent on it.

His spirit was there observing. And Christ said he would pay dearly, in eternity.

[kay-gee]

Explain "eternal security". Is that anything like "Once saved, Always saved"?

Where does the NT confirm Judas as lost? Isn't automatic damnation because of suicide, an RCC invention?

I believe that even if someone ends there life by suicide or by carelessness, that that remains their appointed day.

All the best....

[CoreIssue]

Explain "eternal security". Is that anything like "Once saved, Always saved"?
It is the old term for it I grew up with.
Where does the NT confirm Judas as lost? Isn't automatic damnation because of suicide, an RCC invention?

I believe that even if someone ends there life by suicide or by carelessness, that that remains their appointed day.
Who ever said suicide had anything to do with his being lost?

As for Judas, here. (http://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/2005_CRM/WasJudasEverSaved.html)

[kay-gee]

Interesting article about Judas. I will answer your questions faithfully as possible ask away!

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Interesting article about Judas. I will answer your questions faithfully as possible ask away!

all the best...
I think I did ask them already. :scratch:

[kay-gee]

Sorry, different thread!

all the best...

[MHz]

Warning 2. Answering mean NOTHING else until you answer.

That includes trying to open the door to other issues by asking CTZ quesitons on what he stated.

HE has the right to ask and comment because he does not avoid and dodge answers as you do.

Post the requested evidence. I did, and it denies you.
Core, it does take a bit of time to convert a foreign language scan into an search able text in one of the languages I can read.

I already gave you a post that you have not commented on. Strong's definitions for God, which 1of9 says the (true) God and the one that says who the true God is.

Why should I post more when you don't answer the ones I do post? Don't take my silence as having nothing to say in the matter. If you don't understand you don't understand, I do not have any salve for your eyes.

It doesn't matter much to me anymore, I started a conversation with you to explain what I believe (as in an established foundation). That task is complete. You have limited me to posting on this one thread, that's cool, that isn't an issue.
Even locking threads in 'my little corner' isn't much of an issue.
Even if you were to give me the benefit to believe that our versions of just who God is (and isn't) my stay here would not be extended. Other threads you bring up my name, yet prevent me from any opportunity to reply, an issue but not a real big one. It does give me insight into you though, whether to the good or the bad I will not say.

[a.baker]

I don't know too much about the Jewish religion, but I would like to comment. It is a little hard and confusing when you keep running around in circles but if you keep seeking for understanding than eventually there will be an end and the truth will be known. I really like open ended questions because eventually there is an end and those kind of questions are there to make one think about it. I mean really think about it, just keep searching . Those kind of questions eventually give wisdom and an answer. In the end we honor, love, and see the same God. He can work in miraculous ways! HE LIVES!!!:scratch:;):pray:

[CoreIssue]

I don't know too much about the Jewish religion, but I would like to comment. It is a little hard and confusing when you keep running around in circles but if you keep seeking for understanding than eventually there will be an end and the truth will be known. I really like open ended questions because eventually there is an end and those kind of questions are there to make one think about it. I mean really think about it, just keep searching . Those kind of questions eventually give wisdom and an answer. In the end we honor, love, and see the same God. He can work in miraculous ways! HE LIVES!!!:scratch:;):pray:
Sigh. Please don't take this the wrong way, but Judaism does not have the same God.

To reject Christ is to reject God. He is God.

[CoreIssue]

MHz. As said before, your problem is that you do not answer directly questions.

And you did tell me you didn't come on to do anything else but set us straight.

So, again you throw up another 'final' post to take more shots about how wronged you have been.

I did address you on the definition issue.

And I did Warn you your next post had to be an answer.

Again you disregarded.

Bye.

[kay-gee]

The Jews don't believe in the same God? WHAT???????????? excuse, I gotta go out in the back yard and hyper-ventilate!!!

[CoreIssue]

The Jews don't believe in the same God? WHAT???????????? excuse, I gotta go out in the back yard and hyper-ventilate!!!
Then go.

They don't.

Neither do Muslims.

[CTZonEdit]

Hello? They reject Christ! Remember the whole coming to the Father thru me thingy? They reject that part and believe in another version of God entirely.

[kay-gee]

You totally confuse me. After all your talking about Israel and how He still has unfinished business with the Jews, and they are his chosen, people equal to or greater than the Church, (which is no replacement) Only a matter of time till they fire up the old burnt offerings at the temple and get true worship back to normal. These same people flocking back to the Middle East, waited with bated breath for Jesus, so they can get it right and accept Him? Sometimes it would be nice to be able to say that I believe your doctrine, but how can I when it's that contradictory and baffling. Please respond. I Gotta hear how you patch this one, while I catch my breath. No need to discuss Allah. I'm hip to the vital difference of Islam.
all the best...

[Jessie]

ok, if they get the temple up and running with sacrifices.
how is that worshiping the same God we do?

Jesus did away with all that when he went to the cross. He was the sacrifice.
before Jesus, the sacrifices pointed to Him.

They DO NOT acknowledge Jesus. they do not accept him.
they are'nt trying to get it right. they want a messiah but not Jesus.

They are only in the OT.

now how do we worship the same God?

I dont get the baited breath about Jesus. they dont even ackowledge him. nope they sure dont.

[a.baker]

As you can see I don't know a lot about studies of other religions. I was taught growing up that it is the same God, the Jewish religion just doesn't accept Jesus as the messiah. They are still waiting for the messiah to come. And my defense for Jesus is that there is so much proof that He existed. It also seems to me like its the end of times and the antichrist will be coming soon. Which I feel sad for the Jewish religion that they yet have to find Jesus. Jesus was the messiah and Lives! There is too much proof to deny that.

[kay-gee]

Oh my dear Jessie. I thought that was what the whole premill doctrine was about! I'm surprised at you. Isn't the temple in Jerusalem going to be the glory and jewel of the MK? Gods promise to Israel completely after a couple of false starts (sic) Get back to the burnt offerings that have been missing all these years during church age.. Israel is back in business and waiting for the 2nd coming of Jesus to rule over them. Then who is this God that made all these promises He has yet to keep? Yeeeesh! Premill doctrine is mind boggling!
all the best...

[kay-gee]

Core, I hope you didn't off MHz. I've got PMs for him!

all the best...

[Jessie]

dude we are so not on the same page!:nod: your confusing me...:scratch:

I dont know anything about Jesus being in the 3rd temple but I know the AC will be.

can you answer how on earth they will allow Jesus to rule over them, when they have rejected him and still do?

(except for those who turn to Jesus in the trib??)

[InTheWind]

After Armageddon when Jesus returns with the saints and cleans house Jesus will set up his rule in Jerusalem and reign on earth for a thousand years over those that made it through the trib. both Jew and Gentile.

[CoreIssue]

No. The Jews do not worship the Biblical God. They left him and is why they are called the unfaithful wife.

Judiasm, of today, is not the faith of the MK. The Jews do the changing. They accept Christ as God incarnate and Messiah. They accept the Holy Spirit as God. They switch from God being a singular being to God being an uniplural of 3.

Yes, Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice. Now pay close attention, KG, since it appears you are determined to reject Pre-Mill.

The Church exists BECAUSE Israel rejected Christ and the Biblical God. Created their own god.

Israel rejects the NT because it IS about Christ and God's salvation to the earth via grace, not works.

Christ's blood does not become ineffective in the Trib or the MK. You don't get it.

In the OT, the saints were saved, but had to wait for the blood to be applied, at the resurrection, for those who died, and Pentecost, for those who still lived.

During the Church Age WE are the Temples, but God cannot dwell in an unclean Temple, OT, NT, Trib or MK. The Holy Spirit dwells in our spirits.

Our spirits are NOT cleansed because all saints are promised IMMEDIATE cleansing by the blood. But because the Holy Spirit CANNOT indwell and unclear Temple.

Now, listen real close.

When the Church is Raptured, it is because the indwelling ceases, Church is gone and Israel is restored.

Christ said he HAD to leave because the Other Comforter could not come while he was with them. ONE Comforter at a time.

He left, the Holy Spirit came, and we were indwelt. No physical Temple.

In the MK, Christ comes back, which by definition means the Holy Spirit MUST leave and cease to function in the indwelling role.

Christ is PHYSICAL. He cannot indwell us. But he CAN fulfill the Davidic covenant and CAN be our High Priest by the return of the PHYSICAL Temple.

There is no NEED to cleanse our spirits while still in the earthly flesh, then. And there would be no REASON for physical Temple if we were so cleansed.

So the saints must RETURN to waiting for death to be given the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and thus cleansed.

The issue is COVENANTS. Israel is the sole possessor of the physical Temple. Church is indwelt. TOTALLY incompatible covenants in that way.

But it does NOTHING to change or nullify the Cross or Resurrection. It only changes the TIMING of when the Holy Spirit indwells.

Note in Eternity, it changes AGAIN. We CEASE to be Temples. There is NO Temple in the NJ.

Why? Because there is no longer any NEED for blood. Everyone in the NJ is washed and cleansed. No sinners are left. No need for repentence.

Total and final fulfillment is done. So it CHANGES, yet again.

But the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is eternal, for Israel and Church. The cleansing of the blood is eternal. All promises made are then complete.

The issue is the promises of the Covenants. The Abrahamic Covenant MUST be fulfilled through his physical descendents.

That is a covenant that GENTILES cannot take part in.

But the covenant of Salvation is ETERNAL, and did not begin with either Israel of Church. It has existed since Adam and will continue, unchanged, until the end of time.

Covenants teach and declare salvation. They are NOT salvation.

There is NO promise in the Bible that says all saints must IMMEDIATELY receive the blood upon repentence. NONE.

The NT explains we are the Temples. The OT explains the Temple must be clean or God will not be there.

You can carry on about this false issue of sacrifices, nullifying the blood and all this all you want. But your declaration is without Biblical merit.

The blood is not nullified. EVER. The issue is timing.

You demand immediate for all saints, when the OT saints, alone, say you are wrong. And the prophecies of the MK prove you wrong.

Amils try to rewrite, reject or simply disregard those simple realities.

Ezekiel, Zecharial, Isaiah and more TELL you the Temple, sacrifices and offerings are coming back.

Now, either the Bible lied, or you are wrong. Take your pick.

But don't go there about it simply cannot be because of your misrepresenting the NT. PROVE your case by dealing with the prophecies. TELL me why I should dismiss or ignore them.

But DO NOT do so by quoting the NT and saying this nullifies that. To say that is to say God lied in the OT.

This gets so frustrating. Amils log up on this argument and simply refust to deal with the prophecies. Say they cannot be literal because they reject what they say.

MHz did it, Tanner did it, you are are doing it.

Prove it! Stop just declaring! EXPLAIN away the prophecies.

That is the only way you will escape you being wrong about what you say the NT states.

[a.baker]

A couple of threads back I was just giving encouragement to MHz. He seems to be searching for an answer or something. I was just encouraging him to not give up and keep asking questions. Its got to be hard to grow up in a religious belief and later find out theres false in it. That would make one feel like they were living in a lie their whole life and that has got to be hard to face. In my own opinion, the only reason why he spent so much time here was because he was seeking something. If MHz was trying to get people to believe what he does, than I think he would go about it a different way then the internet. Remember no one went out to seek him. He went out to seek a Christian website to get answers to his questions. I hope MHz doesn't stop looking and I will pray for him. He may have retrieved a little possibly because he is thinking about stuff or because he is too stuck on what he believes.

[kay-gee]

Sorry a. baker, but it is more likely that Core turfed him!

To Core, In post #94 you said that MHz was doing it too and so am I and so on!

Let me say this in his defense. He is also Pre-mill! so how is he doing anything like me. He talked often about the MK etc... I'm not really sure what your beef with him was. His posts were virtual carpets of scripture including (and mostly) OT prophets. He is one of the first I've seen to do that. Do I understand all of MHz theology? No! Am I a disciple of MHz? Certainly not! But he was able to back up every single thing that he believes. I admire that.
all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Let us get this real straight.

a.baker, you have an excuse. You probably didn't see the posts on the issues.

MHz didn't come on seeking answers. He didn't come on for honest debate. He came on to tell us how it is. To convert us. He never answered questions. He avoided solid scriptures that refuted him.

He stated, in a PM, that this was his pupose, when he got called on it and got mad.

He goes on sites with an agenda. To covert people to his thinking. He is not a seeker or open to change.

KG, you don't have an excuse. You saw the posts and chose to disregard them. You attempt to be cagey and play MHz and me against each other to achieve your goals.

We are not stupid. I have have several PMs and such, from several people, all noting you are doing that.

But you are still here, because you were let back on after going way to extreme, but asked to get back.

Remember you were banned because YOU were not discussing, but declaring.

I want to see if you can actually answer verses and such, that YOU asked for. Up to you if you do or don't.

Now, I have talked with MHz for over two YEARS. First on RR, where he pulled this same nonsense. He was banned.

He has been banned on site after site for doing this very same thing.

He lasted longer here than he has anywhere else.

Yes, he posts tons of verses. What does that prove? Nothing!

Posts a verse that says x and he says it means y. Posts a word the definition states A and he says it means B.

Don't go there he actually backed what he said.

I could post the Declaration and Bill of Rights and call it the Communist Manifesto?

Did I prove anything? No!

Did I post claimed truths, in abundance? Yes.

John 1, in example, says Christ is the Word, which was God and with God before the incarnation. MHz says the first 3 verses say he was the son of God.

Garbage. Total nonsense. Word was God, with God, does not say Word was not God, instead the Son of God, with God.

You are not stupid, KG. You know he was doing that. But here you are, stirring the pot, to try to make me look the villian, in a.baker's eyes, to get her to your position on Love and such.

Debate must be honest, not composed of tricks and semantical game playing.

I am STILL waiting for you to post something of substance, instead of claims.

We will see how you handle the Amos verses.

[a.baker]

No not a villain. Just brothers and sisters helping each other find the truth in God. And your effort the whole time shows how much you care and love. Thank-x

[CoreIssue]

No not a villain. Just brothers and sisters helping each other find the truth in God. And your effort the whole time shows how much you care and love. Thank-x
Thank you. That means a lot to me. :tiphat:

[CoreIssue]

Ze'ev, if this was not clarified for you before, I apologize. Let me make sure now.

MHz does not practice Christianity. By Bible, Christians Theology, for 2,000 years and simple grammar, he rejects what the Bible teaches, as in:
1. Rejects the Trinity. So many versus, in the Greek and Hebrew, teach Triinity. He changes word meanings, defies simply rules of grammar, and so on, to deny it.
2. Rejects the deity of Christ. John 1, in example, says that Christ is the Word incarnate in the flesh, before the incarnation was God with God in a face to face relationship, and is still God, in the flesh. He does all the efforts in point 1 to escape that.
3. Is an anti-Christ. John, in John 1, states that anyone who denies Christ has come as staed in John 1 is an anti-Christ.
4. Adds works to salvation. But the Bible says it is a gift. If works are added it is no longer a gift. That we can do nothing to save ourselves and those who try to do so are lost.

Just wanted to get that very clear, before you think we are just the same group of Christians disagreeing over points, here and there.

He is far closer to being a Christadelphian than a Christian.

[CoreIssue]

Ooops! I forgot.

In an email exchange, he said point blank he never came on CTZ to discuss, learn or hold open any possibility for change, for himself. He came on to set us straght.

And that was very obvious in his refusals to answer point blank question, diverting away from verses and word definitions he could not cope with and answering questions with questions designed to challenge my question or divert to another question.

Discussion and debate is a two way street. Preaching won't fly here.

[kay-gee]

Gotta say. I am saddened by all this. Go to Jekyll and hyde.

[InTheWind]

Stay in good cheer Kay-Gee, some are very good at selling their product and easily believed heck i fall for more false doctrine and if not for people on this board that can discern it i would be off flying around on a magic blanket or something.
We all like your good happy attitude and your being here, hang tight buddy. :tiphat::hug:

[kay-gee]

Thanks ITW. appreciate ya a ton.

all the best...

[InTheWind]

Your welcome and thanks :tiphat: a smile is like a medicine. :yowza:

[a.baker]

Exactly also why I have come here. I feel like I found Him 100% but yet something feels lost. Only half of my portrait is painted and I need the tools to finish Gods masterpiece.