Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Deity of Jesus; Not True from Hebraic POV

nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:14:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

But what if the relationship of the gods is like a marriage?

Gen 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 2:
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In a marriage a plural becomes a singular when using the biblical definition and any discriptive of the relationship uses symbolism mearly as a formula for communication.

For instance Jesus could not be a true son and yet have been with God in the beginning. Therefore it is seen as an analogy.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So if the gods concider their relationship to be the equivalent of a marriage it is not correct that they should make reference to themselves as the one true god

FYI: I am a dualist (not in the Gnostic sense of use) when it comes to the godhead and not a Trinitarian so I have skipped over the arguments of the senseless edicts of the Council of Nicaea.

Eli
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:24:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 6:14:04 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

But what if the relationship of the gods is like a marriage?

"Gods" are not Hebraic Understanding OR Trinitarian Understanding. You stand in a separate category altogether.
Gen 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 2:
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In a marriage a plural becomes a singular when using the biblical definition and any discriptive of the relationship uses symbolism mearly as a formula for communication.


What is SINGULAR is the spiritual bond between man and woman, once the flesh is consummated in intercourse. This is the ideal as Jesus said. Thus the "echad" is not a unity of Persons, rather a shared singular "echad" of relationship.
For instance Jesus could not be a true son and yet have been with God in the beginning. Therefore it is seen as an analogy.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This would not be the Semitic Understanding either, since "the Logos" was one of two definitions according to Jews, 1) What God said 2) A replacement name for "YHWH" since the sacred name was now masked.

I believe the first definition to be true. And simple according to Judaic POV.
So if the gods concider their relationship to be the equivalent of a marriage it is not correct that they should make reference to themselves as the one true god


The One True God was proclaimed in Deut 6:4 as Peshat Law...not a mystical or gnostic "one" as the Greeks held...rather a singular God firstly in name or identity, and secondly in existence as "elohim." "YHWH Elohim, YHWH one."

This Peshat Law was rendered as plain as any of the Ten Commands.
FYI: I am a dualist (not in the Gnostic sense of use) when it comes to the godhead and not a Trinitarian so I have skipped over the arguments of the senseless edicts of the Council of Nicaea.

Bully for you. This is your problem not mine.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 1:55:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

Please explain how God can be singular when the word "elohiym" is plural and refers to more than one entity. It is similar to the word "family" or the word "crowd" in English. Those words indicate more than one person or entity. You can obviously have ONE family or ONE crowd but that family/ crowd is obviously not a single person.
Do your research. The word "elohiym" (reference H430 in the Strongs Lexicon) is the PLURAL masculine noun ( grammatical gender) of the SINGULAR 'elowahh" (ref H433 Strongs Lexicon.)

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

A crowd can also "by itself" be the LORD or ruler of whatever they happen to rule over.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

It is just as impossible for a member of any family to be the whole family.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

The word "elohiym" does not refer to an individual character. The word 'elowahh" is the singular form of "elohiym"

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:36:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 1:55:43 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

Please explain how God can be singular when the word "elohiym" is plural and refers to more than one entity. It is similar to the word "family" or the word "crowd" in English. Those words indicate more than one person or entity. You can obviously have ONE family or ONE crowd but that family/ crowd is obviously not a single person.
Do your research. The word "elohiym" (reference H430 in the Strongs Lexicon) is the PLURAL masculine noun ( grammatical gender) of the SINGULAR 'elowahh" (ref H433 Strongs Lexicon.)

This is Hebrew convention, like the noun face(s) and water(s) for large bodies of water.
Whether a royal "plural" or a plural of many attributes or dimensions or extent in view, it served in stead of capitalization as we do today...well known by Hebrew grammarians as not a NUMBER of persons in view. Indeed the almost 11,000 SINGULAR pronouns and verbs attributed to YHWH trump the "etymology" of the noun itself. What you ignore is the obvious view of the Jews that their God had only a single (mono) view of God through and through, unlike modern trinitarians who view God as THREE Persons (poly) in one Godhead (mono). For instance the first Command of the Ten also used a plural form of FACE at the end, translated "presence" in some translations yet all English translations of say FACE, not "faces."

A better way of putting this convention is here:

http://www.hebrew-streams.org...
The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

Ex. 20

Thou shalt have no other
gods before me

...notice the ME is singular even though the Hebrew is "faces" (olphini).

...and don't you dare use this bit of "knowledge" to instigate another false lead.
FACES is the technical aspect but the conventional aspect is that the plurality of the word is not meaning a plurality of NUMBER of faces...of God. The ancient depictions of the trinitarian FACES with the Father straight on, and the Holy Spirit looking left and the Son looking right in profile...are hokey and awry. AVATARS of God a la Hinduism and certain forms of Buddhism.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's also not true from a historical POV.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:01:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:39:17 PM, bulproof wrote:
It's also not true from a historical POV.

Could be true from any objective subjective POV. Any one person, any one individual.

True from Nicaean POV. From the POV of the Council of Constantinople 381 A.D.

True from mainstream POV. But not objectively true one whit.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:11:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

did the jews read isaiah??
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:44:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:11:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

did the jews read isaiah??

yeth?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:56:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 8:44:07 PM, nothead wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:55 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

did the jews read isaiah??

yeth?

sorry is that a yes....??
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 11:18:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Who was Adam's father? and why do you think many say Jesus is the second Adam? Since you are speaking of the Lord God of Israel, He is owner of Heaven and earth. What is His place in heaven? And what is His place in earth?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 3:50:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:36:56 PM, nothead wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:55:43 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

Please explain how God can be singular when the word "elohiym" is plural and refers to more than one entity. It is similar to the word "family" or the word "crowd" in English. Those words indicate more than one person or entity. You can obviously have ONE family or ONE crowd but that family/ crowd is obviously not a single person.
Do your research. The word "elohiym" (reference H430 in the Strongs Lexicon) is the PLURAL masculine noun ( grammatical gender) of the SINGULAR 'elowahh" (ref H433 Strongs Lexicon.)

This is Hebrew convention, like the noun face(s) and water(s) for large bodies of water.
Whether a royal "plural" or a plural of many attributes or dimensions or extent in view, it served in stead of capitalization as we do today...well known by Hebrew grammarians as not a NUMBER of persons in view. Indeed the almost 11,000 SINGULAR pronouns and verbs attributed to YHWH trump the "etymology" of the noun itself. What you ignore is the obvious view of the Jews that their God had only a single (mono) view of God through and through, unlike modern trinitarians who view God as THREE Persons (poly) in one Godhead (mono). For instance the first Command of the Ten also used a plural form of FACE at the end, translated "presence" in some translations yet all English translations of say FACE, not "faces."

A better way of putting this convention is here:

http://www.hebrew-streams.org...
The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

Ex. 20

Thou shalt have no other
gods before me

...notice the ME is singular even though the Hebrew is "faces" (olphini).

...and don't you dare use this bit of "knowledge" to instigate another false lead.
FACES is the technical aspect but the conventional aspect is that the plurality of the word is not meaning a plurality of NUMBER of faces...of God. The ancient depictions of the trinitarian FACES with the Father straight on, and the Holy Spirit looking left and the Son looking right in profile...are hokey and awry. AVATARS of God a la Hinduism and certain forms of Buddhism.

My point was simply that the word God is not referring to an individual character any more than the word Family does.

I agree with you that the trinitarian concept is garbage but so is the concept of God being an individual supernatural creator character which is separate from all of creation.

It is as silly as claiming the sheep in the paddock have a supernatural creator who is not one of the sheep when you know sheep are the only creators of sheep.

Anyway that is sidetracking from the OP.

I do not believe the character Jesus in the bible stories is God any more than I AM God.
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 4:30:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 11:18:19 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Who was Adam's father?

God?

and why do you think many say Jesus is the second Adam?

Since he put right what Adam put wrong? Since he stood IN PLACE as ten righteous men Abraham negotiated for could might have stood in place of the many in Sodom?
Since one righteous man is the direct opposition in symmetry to the one who mezzed up? This would not LOGICALLY be God however...not in symmetry and not as an opposite.

Since you are speaking of the Lord God of Israel, He is owner of Heaven and earth. What is His place in heaven?

Number one being? I would guess so...

And what is His place in earth?

Number one being? Omnipresent via Spirit...
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 4:36:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 3:50:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:36:56 PM, nothead wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:55:43 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

Please explain how God can be singular when the word "elohiym" is plural and refers to more than one entity. It is similar to the word "family" or the word "crowd" in English. Those words indicate more than one person or entity. You can obviously have ONE family or ONE crowd but that family/ crowd is obviously not a single person.
Do your research. The word "elohiym" (reference H430 in the Strongs Lexicon) is the PLURAL masculine noun ( grammatical gender) of the SINGULAR 'elowahh" (ref H433 Strongs Lexicon.)

This is Hebrew convention, like the noun face(s) and water(s) for large bodies of water.
Whether a royal "plural" or a plural of many attributes or dimensions or extent in view, it served in stead of capitalization as we do today...well known by Hebrew grammarians as not a NUMBER of persons in view. Indeed the almost 11,000 SINGULAR pronouns and verbs attributed to YHWH trump the "etymology" of the noun itself. What you ignore is the obvious view of the Jews that their God had only a single (mono) view of God through and through, unlike modern trinitarians who view God as THREE Persons (poly) in one Godhead (mono). For instance the first Command of the Ten also used a plural form of FACE at the end, translated "presence" in some translations yet all English translations of say FACE, not "faces."

A better way of putting this convention is here:

http://www.hebrew-streams.org...
The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

Ex. 20

Thou shalt have no other
gods before me

...notice the ME is singular even though the Hebrew is "faces" (olphini).

...and don't you dare use this bit of "knowledge" to instigate another false lead.
FACES is the technical aspect but the conventional aspect is that the plurality of the word is not meaning a plurality of NUMBER of faces...of God. The ancient depictions of the trinitarian FACES with the Father straight on, and the Holy Spirit looking left and the Son looking right in profile...are hokey and awry. AVATARS of God a la Hinduism and certain forms of Buddhism.

My point was simply that the word God is not referring to an individual character any more than the word Family does.

Sure, but a family of God is a Roman or Greek pantheon...see how your definition of "Theos" has changed from the Hebraic Informed View?

I agree with you that the trinitarian concept is garbage but so is the concept of God being an individual supernatural creator character which is separate from all of creation.

Well are you an ex-heepy or what? All is one, we are God and God is all? Ommmm, and Amitaba on top?

It is as silly as claiming the sheep in the paddock have a supernatural creator who is not one of the sheep when you know sheep are the only creators of sheep.

I know sheep deep when I hear it, ma'am.
Anyway that is sidetracking from the OP.

Agreed. Stop it.
I do not believe the character Jesus in the bible stories is God any more than I AM God.

Good for you. Have a nice hair day. Yours must be a bit frazzled from all this intellectualizing.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 5:56:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 4:36:04 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:50:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:

My point was simply that the word God is not referring to an individual character any more than the word Family does.

Sure, but a family of God is a Roman or Greek pantheon...see how your definition of "Theos" has changed from the Hebraic Informed View?

No I don't. I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.

I agree with you that the trinitarian concept is garbage but so is the concept of God being an individual supernatural creator character which is separate from all of creation.

Well are you an ex-heepy or what? All is one, we are God and God is all? Ommmm, and Amitaba on top?

I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 6:05:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 4:30:02 AM, nothead wrote:
At 11/30/2015 11:18:19 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Who was Adam's father?

God?

and why do you think many say Jesus is the second Adam?

Since he put right what Adam put wrong? Since he stood IN PLACE as ten righteous men Abraham negotiated for could might have stood in place of the many in Sodom?
Since one righteous man is the direct opposition in symmetry to the one who mezzed up? This would not LOGICALLY be God however...not in symmetry and not as an opposite.



Since you are speaking of the Lord God of Israel, He is owner of Heaven and earth. What is His place in heaven?

Number one being? I would guess so...

And what is His place in earth?

Number one being? Omnipresent via Spirit...

First and last and everything in between.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 6:09:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 5:56:11 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/1/2015 4:36:04 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:50:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:

My point was simply that the word God is not referring to an individual character any more than the word Family does.

Sure, but a family of God is a Roman or Greek pantheon...see how your definition of "Theos" has changed from the Hebraic Informed View?

No I don't. I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.

I agree with you that the trinitarian concept is garbage but so is the concept of God being an individual supernatural creator character which is separate from all of creation.

Well are you an ex-heepy or what? All is one, we are God and God is all? Ommmm, and Amitaba on top?

I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.

Hebraic view is that no one has seen God definitively. John says it four times in his gospel. So then what exists could might well be an objective imagination in your bean, ma'am. Totally awry in concept, accuracy and deviant. Jesus can't be God, except as a false imagination of men...and women. No one has seen God, but He TELLS us in Torah HE is ALONE. And this was the Great Command given as they were crossing the river Jordan.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 6:36:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 6:09:09 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 5:56:11 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/1/2015 4:36:04 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:50:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:

My point was simply that the word God is not referring to an individual character any more than the word Family does.

Sure, but a family of God is a Roman or Greek pantheon...see how your definition of "Theos" has changed from the Hebraic Informed View?

No I don't. I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.

I agree with you that the trinitarian concept is garbage but so is the concept of God being an individual supernatural creator character which is separate from all of creation.

Well are you an ex-heepy or what? All is one, we are God and God is all? Ommmm, and Amitaba on top?

I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.

Hebraic view is that no one has seen God definitively. John says it four times in his gospel. So then what exists could might well be an objective imagination in your bean, ma'am. Totally awry in concept, accuracy and deviant. Jesus can't be God, except as a false imagination of men...and women. No one has seen God, but He TELLS us in Torah HE is ALONE. And this was the Great Command given as they were crossing the river Jordan.

What exactly is objective imagination ?

If what exists is any kind of imagination in your bean then you must be imagining your own existence.

No one has ever seen Mother Nature. She is alone too.
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 11:01:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 6:05:21 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/1/2015 4:30:02 AM, nothead wrote:
At 11/30/2015 11:18:19 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Who was Adam's father?

God?

and why do you think many say Jesus is the second Adam?

Since he put right what Adam put wrong? Since he stood IN PLACE as ten righteous men Abraham negotiated for could might have stood in place of the many in Sodom?
Since one righteous man is the direct opposition in symmetry to the one who mezzed up? This would not LOGICALLY be God however...not in symmetry and not as an opposite.



Since you are speaking of the Lord God of Israel, He is owner of Heaven and earth. What is His place in heaven?

Number one being? I would guess so...

And what is His place in earth?

Number one being? Omnipresent via Spirit...

First and last and everything in between.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

What I consider one of the top trin-"proofs" for the deity of Jesus, however as a prophet he could speak the first-person words of his God, as if he was God.

All Hebraic understanding was that the Messiah had the special authority of their God, YHWH. A SUPER prophet may even speak MORE THAN a previous one, the first-person words of their God.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

What makes you think Paul is talking about Jesus here?
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 11:07:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 6:36:01 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/1/2015 6:09:09 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 5:56:11 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/1/2015 4:36:04 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:50:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:

My point was simply that the word God is not referring to an individual character any more than the word Family does.

Sure, but a family of God is a Roman or Greek pantheon...see how your definition of "Theos" has changed from the Hebraic Informed View?

No I don't. I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.

I agree with you that the trinitarian concept is garbage but so is the concept of God being an individual supernatural creator character which is separate from all of creation.

Well are you an ex-heepy or what? All is one, we are God and God is all? Ommmm, and Amitaba on top?

I understand the Hebraic view of God to be "that which exists" . That which is exists is everything you see and everything you don't see. My view is the same as that.

Hebraic view is that no one has seen God definitively. John says it four times in his gospel. So then what exists could might well be an objective imagination in your bean, ma'am. Totally awry in concept, accuracy and deviant. Jesus can't be God, except as a false imagination of men...and women. No one has seen God, but He TELLS us in Torah HE is ALONE. And this was the Great Command given as they were crossing the river Jordan.

What exactly is objective imagination ?

Well an imagination is not something real, oh yes it is...it is an objective imagination from any one subject? An objectively false imagination? Right? Tally ho...

If what exists is any kind of imagination in your bean then you must be imagining your own existence.

No...but many imagine things which are not...being imaginations as it were. Ask yourself this: "What is an imagination?" You might come up with something true.

No one has ever seen Mother Nature. She is alone too.

But she is an imagination of some...objectively speaking...
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 3:40:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:

Hi nothead, read through your post and no one had addressed any of the claims in your OP so......

Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

I made that initial investigation and found nothing of the sort. The concept first shows up in the oldest book of the Old Testament. That is quite a few days before the Council of Nicaea, no?

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God?

This is untrue. Not only did Jesus say He was God, others said it, some to His face. And the Father said it, using the actual word "God". And the Bible said it, using the actual word "God".

I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

Study can often be good. But sometimes "study" used to validate pre-concieved beliefs is not so good.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

How so? But say you're right. What should we draw from that? Hebrews of Jesus' day opposed His claims and interesting conversations between them and Jesus are recorded in the Bible. Can you address the rebuttals Jesus had for them?

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

Which is in complete agreement with what Jesus told us about God.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

This also agrees with Jesus and the New Testament. Where do you find the contradiction?

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

Why?

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.

The very person who helped repeat that concept called Jesus God, using the very word God. Weird no?

An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Did Jesus die for the salvation of men?

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

I have heard your claims, I have yet to see any reasoning for why you claim what you do. I have so far seen no contradiction or perversion of the faith.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.

This is of course your spin on the "Godhead". I think I will give the Bible a tad more authority than your pronouncements.

EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Agreed. Which is why the Catholic Church now wallows in it.

You've done nothing here but tell us how you feel. Yours is not a new position. Even Jesus (and the apostles) was met with such ideas, and He firmly debunked them using scriptures.

But every few years since then, a new crop of "Bible students" come up with the same old tired arguments, having not read, or read and not understood, Jesus' responses. Solomon did say there was nothing new under the sun.
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 3:50:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 3:40:58 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:

Hi nothead, read through your post and no one had addressed any of the claims in your OP so......

Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

I made that initial investigation and found nothing of the sort. The concept first shows up in the oldest book of the Old Testament. That is quite a few days before the Council of Nicaea, no?

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God?

This is untrue. Not only did Jesus say He was God, others said it, some to His face. And the Father said it, using the actual word "God". And the Bible said it, using the actual word "God".

I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

Study can often be good. But sometimes "study" used to validate pre-concieved beliefs is not so good.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

How so? But say you're right. What should we draw from that? Hebrews of Jesus' day opposed His claims and interesting conversations between them and Jesus are recorded in the Bible. Can you address the rebuttals Jesus had for them?

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

Which is in complete agreement with what Jesus told us about God.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

This also agrees with Jesus and the New Testament. Where do you find the contradiction?

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

Why?

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.

The very person who helped repeat that concept called Jesus God, using the very word God. Weird no?

An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Did Jesus die for the salvation of men?

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

I have heard your claims, I have yet to see any reasoning for why you claim what you do. I have so far seen no contradiction or perversion of the faith.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.

This is of course your spin on the "Godhead". I think I will give the Bible a tad more authority than your pronouncements.

EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Agreed. Which is why the Catholic Church now wallows in it.

You've done nothing here but tell us how you feel. Yours is not a new position. Even Jesus (and the apostles) was met with such ideas, and He firmly debunked them using scriptures.

But every few years since then, a new crop of "Bible students" come up with the same old tired arguments, having not read, or read and not understood, Jesus' responses. Solomon did say there was nothing new under the sun.

Okay, then I got a serious pretenda, I mean contenda.

Lettuce start with where Jesus said he was God. I'ma gonna Aunt Gemima you Ethang.

That means I'ma gonna sit on you 'til you bleed.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 6:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 3:50:16 PM, nothead wrote:
At 12/2/2015 3:40:58 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Lettuce start with where Jesus said he was God. I'ma gonna Aunt Gemima you Ethang.

That means I'ma gonna sit on you 'til you bleed.

Ok, unless you're really fat, that isn't a serious threat.

I will assume that you aren't the type of idiot who will insist that unless Jesus literally said "I am God", He could not have possibly meant that He was God. If you are that type of idiot, tell me now and I will concede and we can crown you champeen of all idiots.

If you are some other kind of idiot, we can proceed. Because I'm not so dense as to think that it is only those 3 words, "I am God" in that order which can convey the idea that Jesus is God.

So, are you the type of idiot I can talk to or not?
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 8:12:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 6:44:04 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/2/2015 3:50:16 PM, nothead wrote:
At 12/2/2015 3:40:58 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Lettuce start with where Jesus said he was God. I'ma gonna Aunt Gemima you Ethang.

That means I'ma gonna sit on you 'til you bleed.

Ok, unless you're really fat, that isn't a serious threat.

Figurative. Figuratively fat. This means formidable to you, sir. Depending upon which extremity is under me. Especially if your head is under.

I will assume that you aren't the type of idiot who will insist that unless Jesus literally said "I am God", He could not have possibly meant that He was God. If you are that type of idiot, tell me now and I will concede and we can crown you champeen of all idiots.

Why would Jesus wax figurative or secretive or mystical when the OT God never did?

If you are some other kind of idiot, we can proceed. Because I'm not so dense as to think that it is only those 3 words, "I am God" in that order which can convey the idea that Jesus is God.

I have about 150 variants upon this most basic claim. NONE were said in the Bible, sir.

So, are you the type of idiot I can talk to or not?

Yezz I am an idiot you can certainly talk to, sir. Plz give us your best shot, when and where Jesus said he was God, veiled or not.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 8:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Spoken like a true Closed System Law of One Yew!

http://www.debate.org...

Your mind is obviously owned by the Yew.

Ribbit :)
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 9:31:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 11:01:50 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 6:05:21 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/1/2015 4:30:02 AM, nothead wrote:

Since you are speaking of the Lord God of Israel, He is owner of Heaven and earth. What is His place in heaven?

Number one being? I would guess so...

And what is His place in earth?

Number one being? Omnipresent via Spirit...

First and last and everything in between.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

What I consider one of the top trin-"proofs" for the deity of Jesus, however as a prophet he could speak the first-person words of his God, as if he was God.

How exactly do you perceive Beginning and End to be" one of the top trin-"proofs" for the deity of Jesus" ?

All Hebraic understanding was that the Messiah had the special authority of their God, YHWH. A SUPER prophet may even speak MORE THAN a previous one, the first-person words of their God.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

What makes you think Paul is talking about Jesus here?

I don't. What makes you think I do ?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 9:43:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 11:07:50 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 6:36:01 AM, Skyangel wrote:

What exactly is objective imagination ?

Well an imagination is not something real, oh yes it is...it is an objective imagination from any one subject? An objectively false imagination? Right? Tally ho...

I have no clue what you are rambling on about.
Imagination exists in humans minds and it is always subjective due to people being personally involved in their own thoughts, imaginations and judgments.

If what exists is any kind of imagination in your bean then you must be imagining your own existence.

No...but many imagine things which are not...being imaginations as it were. Ask yourself this: "What is an imagination?" You might come up with something true.

No one has ever seen Mother Nature. She is alone too.

But she is an imagination of some...objectively speaking...

Fair enough. So is Zeus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and God. All invisible supernatural or magical characters are imaginary.
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 12:21:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 8:15:05 PM, Toad-Uoff wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:49 PM, nothead wrote:
Christians who make an initial investigation of the deity of the Christ find right away the evolution of the concept was the instigation of the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Why investigate in the first place? Em, since Jesus never said he was God? I started from this impetus about four years ago. I went through the major "proof-texts" which might imply deity and re-examined them.

And found out right off the bat, the Hebraic Streams of Consciousness would NEGATE this view of true deity as a Red Flag and direct oppositional premise to.

The Shema states God is SINGULAR first in identity (YHWH) and secondly in existence (elohim). YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the original form of the Shema and it's First Principle.

The First Command of the Ten STATES God is by Himself as YHWH.

"I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt. You shall have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.

This NEGATES Jesus being God from the primal two tenets or BASTIONS of faith in the Hebrew religion. It is simply impossible therefore, for Jesus to be God Almighty.

And in fact, the repeated concept of Jesus, sitting or standing in heaven at the Right Hand of his God and Father...is true and pristinely so. SUBORDINATE to his God.
An "elohim" under his God and over angels and men. SECOND PLACE, in both ontology and authority. Amen.

Since modern Christianity has in fact done away with Law, and the Prophets, and the Old Testament, they did in fact PERVERT the ancient tenets of faith. But they in truth were preceded by their OWN "fathers" in the faith, way back when...during the beginning of the fourth century A.D.

What you and yours have essentially done is RE-define God Himself...to be a HODGEPODGE of "Godhead" from which other Persons emanate or manifest from.
EITHER an emanation OR "hypostasis..." this concept by itself was the Olde Forke in the Roade...to heresy.

Spoken like a true Closed System Law of One Yew!

http://www.debate.org...

Your mind is obviously owned by the Yew.

Ribbit :)

Hardly. The exegetical method is to consider how Hebraic understanding would understand in turn NT verse and passage. And how the Jews were always considering their OWN primal tenets of faith. The Shema and the First Command of the Ten, Ribbit.

Gordon Fee's First Exegetical Principle: Consider the historical context, in general.

It's not YEW making you geddit but JEW making you geddit, GEDDIT, sir?
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 12:24:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 9:31:50 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/2/2015 11:01:50 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 6:05:21 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/1/2015 4:30:02 AM, nothead wrote:

Since you are speaking of the Lord God of Israel, He is owner of Heaven and earth. What is His place in heaven?

Number one being? I would guess so...

And what is His place in earth?

Number one being? Omnipresent via Spirit...

First and last and everything in between.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

What I consider one of the top trin-"proofs" for the deity of Jesus, however as a prophet he could speak the first-person words of his God, as if he was God.

How exactly do you perceive Beginning and End to be" one of the top trin-"proofs" for the deity of Jesus" ?

All Hebraic understanding was that the Messiah had the special authority of their God, YHWH. A SUPER prophet may even speak MORE THAN a previous one, the first-person words of their God.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

What makes you think Paul is talking about Jesus here?

I don't. What makes you think I do ?

You not JisG, ma'am? I assumed you were. Sorry for being an assumer, ma'am.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 6:43:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 9:43:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/2/2015 11:07:50 AM, nothead wrote:
At 12/1/2015 6:36:01 AM, Skyangel wrote:

What exactly is objective imagination ?

Well an imagination is not something real, oh yes it is...it is an objective imagination from any one subject? An objectively false imagination? Right? Tally ho...

I have no clue what you are rambling on about.
Imagination exists in humans minds and it is always subjective due to people being personally involved in their own thoughts, imaginations and judgments.


If what exists is any kind of imagination in your bean then you must be imagining your own existence.

No...but many imagine things which are not...being imaginations as it were. Ask yourself this: "What is an imagination?" You might come up with something true.

No one has ever seen Mother Nature. She is alone too.

But she is an imagination of some...objectively speaking...

Fair enough. So is Zeus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and God. All invisible supernatural or magical characters are imaginary.

Zeus is and was Real.

God is and was Real.

The Easter Bunny MAY be Real too.

The Tooth Fairy is also Real, he calls himself Vin Diesel. He and the Rock played each other's roll. D-wayne is the Pacifier (aka: Little Bo Peep).

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire universe, and all there ever will be to know and understand." - Albert Einstein

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." - Albert Einstein

"The Law of One rules the roost of a Closed System, creating the inevitable, OnEism, also known as Can't/Death/Hell; whereas the Law of Zer0 rules the roost of an Open System, creating the evernevernevermore, Zer0ism, also known as Can/Eternal Life/Heaven." - Old Toad Proverb

"Can't = Closed System = Death = Hell = st00pid; Can = Open System = Eternal Life = Heaven = Intelligent" - Old Toad Proverb

"There is no don't/Me, there's only do/We. Therefore, if you can't don't, then don't can't; then once free of the kNot, We-Can/Wiccan happens Naturally." - Old Toad Proverb (aka: Law of We-Can/Wiccan/Nature/Zer0ism)

Ribbit :)