The 66 books of the Bible conclude with a marriage scene in Revelation 21 and 22.
Two chapters are given to describe a city called "New Jerusalem" which is said to be the Wife and Bride of the Lamb.
This means that the redeeming God Who became incarnated as the Lamb of God obtains for Himself a counterpart to match Him.
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
And I saw the holy city, New Jerusaem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."
This is a post and not a book I write here. These final two chapters of the 66 books of the Bible are profound symbolism representing that God accomplishes His eternal purpose of obtaining a match for Himself.
The "city" New Jerusalem is a dwelling place of God and man in mutual abiding. And she is a match, a counterpart, a romantic other as a bride and wife of the Redeeming God.
God's people are collectively brought into a state in which they match God so as to marry God. Just as Eve was brought out of Adam and then brought TO Adam as his wife, so the New Jerusalem is taken out of God, built up and brought to God to be His counterpart.
God obtains His eternal purpose.
Rak999 is in the dark about all these things and very ignorant.
ok jaywill i am back and i still have not seen your attempt to locate where Christ is called Almighty God, because if you cannot or will not then i must assume that you you have accepted the fact that there is no such occurrence and as a direct consequence you must issue a public apology to both Rajk999 and myself for trying to inculcate false teachings with in us.
Christ has many titles and names my friend but nowhere is he ever termed ALMIGHTY GOD and you must either change your view or issue an apology or come up with the readies, the choice is yours!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're funny.
ok jaywill i am back and i still have not seen your attempt to locate where Christ is called Almighty God, because if you cannot or will not then i must assume that you you have accepted the fact that there is no such occurrence and as a direct consequence you must issue a public apology to both Rajk999 and myself for trying to inculcate false teachi ...[text shortened]... st either change your view or issue an apology or come up with the readies, the choice is yours!
I owe no apologies. And I gave you my reasons and repeated more than once a proper interpretation of Isaiah 9:6.
As much as I love to expound the truth of the Bible there is a limit to how many repetitions I want to write for one stubborn person like yourself.
You see Robert, some of us can tell the difference between someone who is firmly standing on the Bible's teaching and someone who is just being plain stubborn.
Concerning Isaiah 9:6 and concerning Jehovah being the Mighty God as well as the Almighty God, you are just being plain stubborn.
Thankyou for the opportunity to expose some errors of the old Arius heretical teaching that the divinity of Christ is incomplete, a teaching which I recall was refuted and rejected by the ancient church orthodox scholars centries ago.
And though people like "The Way International" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" dust that false doctrine off and re-use it it is stands refuted.
My God is the man Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by jaywilllook Jaywill, I know that it is with reference to God himself, that is understood, he is the Almighty God, that is clearly evident, what i am asking is where is the Christ referred to as ALMIGHTY GOD, the Word yes, a mighty god yes, the firstborn of all creation yes, the only begotten son yes, BUT NEVER IN A MILLION ZILLION SQUILLION TRILLION YEARS HAS HE EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER BEEN CALLED ALMIGHTY GOD, NEVER!!!!!
You're funny.
I owe no apologies. And I gave you my reasons and repeated more than once a proper interpretation of [b]Isaiah 9:6.
As much as I love to expound the truth of the Bible there is a limit to how many repetitions I want to write for one stubborn person like yourself.
You see Robert, some of us can tell the difference between someone alse doctrine off and re-use it it is stands refuted.
My God is the man Jesus Christ.[/b]
you cannot prove it, the game is over, you and the other trinitarians have been checkmated, and the sadness of this is, that from now on, your other assertions will also be treated as suspect. You will now be handed over to Satan as punishment, until you are repentent, may God have mercy on your soul!
1 Corinthians 5:5 (To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.)
Originally posted by robbie carrobie===================================
look Jaywill, I know that it is with reference to God himself, that is understood, he is the Almighty God, that is clearly evident, what i am asking is where is the Christ referred to as ALMIGHTY GOD, the Word yes, a mighty god yes, the firstborn of all creation yes, the only begotten son yes, BUT NEVER IN A MILLION ZILLION SQUILLION TRILLION YEARS H ...[text shortened]... an for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.)
1 Corinthians 5:5 (To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.)
=====================================
LOL !!
The Apostle Paul, you ain't.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLook. I offered you an interpretation and the reasons for it. You never addressed those reasons
Still speaking of that which you do not understand?
and just kept repeating your same line. You may interpret my silence as tacit acceptance of your
argument if it helps you sleep at night, but truth be told your unwillingness to actually debate the
point in a reasonable fashion made the conversation meaningless.
In this way, you are no different than any of the other Christians in this forum, even if you do
adhere to a bizarre manifestation of Christianity.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillThe Hebrew for what you are rendering 'Almighty God' says nothing of the sort. This is the sort of
You're funny.
I owe no apologies. And I gave you my reasons and repeated more than once a proper interpretation of [b]Isaiah 9:6.
As much as I love to expound the truth of the Bible there is a limit to how many repetitions I want to write for one stubborn person like yourself.
You see Robert, some of us can tell the difference between someone ...[text shortened]... alse doctrine off and re-use it it is stands refuted.
My God is the man Jesus Christ.[/b]
post-New Testament interpretation that the Hebrew Scriptures suffer from in light of the Gospels
and the traditional teachings that stemmed from them.
No Hebrew Bible translates these verses this way; the translation reads:
...and he shall become the chieftainship on the shoulder blade of him and he shall call name of him
one counseling El masterful Father of future chief of well-being.
'One counseling' means 'one with extraordinary wisdom.'
'El masterful' means a warrior for the Jews, like God.
'Father of future' means 'forever serving his people.'
'Chief of well-being' means just what it says.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
Modern Christian translations take their Scripture as a lens through which they modify the
original meaning of the Hebrew. However, those translations are not even close yet they persist.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesioa rather excellent resource the link you gave, and i thank you for it ! although my own Hebrew interlinear reads a little different, , ' to us, is given, a son, the government, the to of increase, peace, Prince of, everlasting father, mighty , the god, counselor.
The Hebrew for what you are rendering 'Almighty God' says nothing of the sort. This is the sort of
post-New Testament interpretation that the Hebrew Scriptures suffer from in light of the Gospels
and the traditional teachings that stemmed from them.
No Hebrew Bible translates these verses this way; the translation reads:
...and he shall become the c brew. However, those translations are not even close yet they persist.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYeah, you offered an interpretation and reasons which rendered the passage incoherent. I not only addressed your reasons in detail, but offered a much stronger interpretation that was completely coherent. I asked you several times to address the incoherency of your interpretation, but you declined. Like I said earlier, you seem to have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Perhaps it's time you recognized this about yourself. You can either remain in denial or address it. If you don't address it, how are you any different from those "other Christians" you constantly deride?
Look. I offered you an interpretation and the reasons for it. You never addressed those reasons
and just kept repeating your same line. You may interpret my silence as tacit acceptance of your
argument if it helps you sleep at night, but truth be told your unwillingness to actually debate the
point in a reasonable fashion made the conversation meaningl ...[text shortened]... ans in this forum, even if you do
adhere to a bizarre manifestation of Christianity.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yeah, you offered an interpretation and reasons which rendered the passage incoherent.
Nope. My interpretation was consistent with the passage and, unlike yours, consistent with the
other views Jesus clearly espoused. Yours was not only semantically untenable, made no sense
in light of the original Greek. I addressed my justification for my interpretation in detail, but since
you only want to monologue on your own tortured, perverse, and incoherent reading, I declined to
repeat myself after the third or fourth time.
If you don't address it, how are you any different from those "other Christians" you constantly deride?
You're right. If I don't address it, I am no different. But I did. You just didn't want to discuss it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiolol. As evidenced by your response, I can only surmise that you have yet to come to terms with not being able to see the forest for the trees. You are so lost in the details, that you can't see the "big picture". In this way, you are no different from those "other Christians" you constantly deride. I'd think that you could at least see how your translation of the original greek is inconsistent with any other translation that I found. Since you failed to provide any translations that agrees with yours, I can only surmise that you could not find any either. Face it, you painted yourself into a corner with this translation and thus had to come up with a completely incoherent interpretation of the passage where you effectively dispensed with two of the three statements that Jesus made about the fruits by which one can know true / false prophets.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Yeah, you offered an interpretation and reasons which rendered the passage incoherent.
Nope. My interpretation was consistent with the passage and, unlike yours, consistent with the
other views Jesus clearly espoused. Yours was not only semantically untenable, made no sense
in light of the original Greek. ...[text shortened]... address it, I am no different. But I did. You just didn't want to discuss it.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneEr. I did give you a translation that accorded. You ignored it. I showed you the original Greek.
lol. As evidenced by your response, I can only surmise that you have yet to come to terms with not being able to see the forest for the trees. You are so lost in the details, that you can't see the "big picture". In this way, you are no different from those "other Christians" you constantly deride. I'd think that you could at least see how your translati ...[text shortened]... e statements that Jesus made about the fruits by which one can know true / false prophets.
You ignored it. You cited Strong's concordance in error. I quoted it literally. You just keep repeating
yourself. I'm not going to play that game.
Feel free to be a 'last word freak,' but I'm not going to continue to defend something in another
thread. People can read it for themselves. Thread 101146 You may find the 'yes I did/no you didn't'
line of debate stimulating. I do not.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI can only hope that they do read it for themselves.
Er. I did give you a translation that accorded. You ignored it. I showed you the original Greek.
You ignored it. You cited Strong's concordance in error. I quoted it literally. You just keep repeating
yourself. I'm not going to play that game.
Feel free to be a 'last word freak,' but I'm not going to continue to defend something in another
threa ...[text shortened]... ay find the 'yes I did/no you didn't'
line of debate stimulating. I do not.
Nemesio
I can only hope that you eventually recognize your inability to see the "big picture".
Good luck.
======================================
BUT NEVER IN A MILLION ZILLION SQUILLION TRILLION YEARS HAS HE EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER BEEN CALLED ALMIGHTY GOD, NEVER!!!!!
you cannot prove it, the game is over, you and the other trinitarians have been checkmated, and the sadness of this is, that from now on, your other assertions will also be treated as suspect. You will now be handed over to Satan as punishment, until you are repentent, may God have mercy on your soul!
1 Corinthians 5:5 (To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.)
=============================================
Robert has wiggled his way out of explaining how ANY child could be called Mighty God or any Son could possibly be called Eternal Father.
If A = B and B = C then it follows that A = C.
Jehovah is the Mighty God (Jeremiah 32:18).
The child born is called Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6).
That makes the child Jehovah the Mighty God, as a human child. It also makes Him Jehovah the Almighty God as a child.
Secondly Robert fails to explain how there could be TWO Eternal Fathers - one whom the Son is, and another whom I suppose he says is the Almighty God.
Lastly Robert uses a verse from First Corinthians about gross sexual immorality to pretend that he has some kind of apostolic authority to deliver me to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. That is as Paul instructed the church in Corinth to remove the sinning believer from the midst of the congregation.
Lastly, I never saw Robert explain how both Jehovah and Jesus could be the First and the Last unless Jesus is Jehovah God incarnate.