Study your Bible to know who God is.

Originally posted by jaywill

religious dogma not supported by the text. Once again I am interested in what the text actually states, not your religious dogma. All dogma shall hence forth be ignored by me, unless it makes reference to the original language texts, otherwise I am uninterested.

I am not impressed at your rational for rejecting Isaiah's prophe en Jehovah the King." (Isa. 6:6)

If you're getting dogma it is correct dogma.[/b]

i dont care whether you are impressed or not, i am not interested in impressing you, I
am interested in what is actually written in the Hebrew text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont care whether you are impressed or not, i am not interested in impressing you, I
am interested in what is actually written in the Hebrew text.

i dont care whether you are impressed or not, i am not interested in impressing you, I am interested in what is actually written in the Hebrew text.

No you aren't. You are interested in your Watchtower dogmatic Christology.
You're interested in preaching "another Jesus" like the false apostles Paul refered to.

Are you suggesting only native Hebrew and Greek speakers can know the revelation of God ?

Originally posted by jaywill

i dont care whether you are impressed or not, i am not interested in impressing you, I am interested in what is actually written in the Hebrew text.

No you aren't. You are interested in your Watchtower dogmatic Christology.
You're interested in preaching [b]"another Jesus" like the false apostles Paul refered to.

Are you suggesting only native Hebrew and Greek speakers can know the revelation of God ?[/b]

Lol, insult, the last bastion of the truly desperate. I am suggesting that if we want to
get to know God we must dispense with a dogmatic approach and let the scriptures
speak for themselves, regardless of any preconceptions we may harbour. If this takes
the form of a study of the original languages in order to get a proper and accurate
understanding of scripture, then yes, that is what it takes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, insult, the last bastion of the truly desperate. I am suggesting that if we want to
get to know God we must dispense with a dogmatic approach and let the scriptures
speak for themselves, regardless of any preconceptions we may harbour. If this takes
the form of a study of the original languages in order to get a proper and accurate
understanding of scripture, then yes, that is what it takes.

Lol, insult, the last bastion of the truly desperate.

The only "bastion" we Christians need is the Word of God and our experience of God. No other "bastions" are required.

You just got insulted, I guess, at the frank word. You are preaching "another Jesus" from what the apostles and the New Testament preaches.

I am suggesting that if we want to
get to know God we must dispense with a dogmatic approach and let the scriptures
speak for themselves, regardless of any preconceptions we may harbour. If this takes the form of a study of the original languages in order to get a proper and accurate understanding of scripture, then yes, that is what it takes.

Even given interpretive disagreements with Isaiah 9:6, you still have too many other places in the Bible affirming the incarnation of God in Christ.

I do not yield on Isaiah 9:6. But even if I marked it up as "questionable" concerning the incarnation, there are simply too many other passages affirming God became a man.

As it stands, I am pretty sure that Jesus Himself probably refered to the Isaiah passage. He came very close here:

"Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.

Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father ?" (John 14:8,9)

Jesus could well have been refering to Isaiah 9:6. But if He wasn't He certainly had the ground to ask Philip had he ever read Isaiah's prophecy - the Son given is to be called the Eternal Father.

After His resurrection Christ reviewed many OT passages to confirm His nature and mission:

"And beginning from Moses and from ALL THE PROPHETS, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27)

"These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled. Then He opened their mind to understand the Scripture." (Luke 24:44,45)

I think He probably included Isaiah's prophecy in 9:6. However, John does say that the prophet Isaiah saw Christ's glory and wrote of Him:

"But though He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe into Him, that the word of the prophet Isaiah which he said might be fulfilled, Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For this reason they could not believe, because again Isaiah said, He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, that they might not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and turn, and I will heal them.

These things said Isaiah because he saw His glory and spoke concerning Him." (John 12:37-41)

"In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord ... Then I said, Woe is me, for I am finished! For I am a man of unclean lips, and in the midst of a people of unclean lips I dwell;

Yet my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts." (Isa. 6:1,5)

Now you can explain to us how many FIRSTS there are and how many LASTS there are concerning God.

If Jehovah says "I am the First and I am the Last, And apart from Me there is no God" (Isa. 44:6) and Jesus Christ in His glorified states utters "Do not fear, I am the First and the Last" (Revelation 1:17) ...

Are there TWO Firsts ?
Are there TWO Lasts ? .

How can there be a Last AFTER "the Last" ?
How can there be a First BEFORE "the First" ?

I prefer to believe that the child is Jehovah the Mighty God and the Son is the Eternal Father incarnated.

The night I received Christ into my life is the night I met God. No Hebrew or Greek tutors were there to conjugate the subjunctive or review the second and third declension.

It was me and the Holy Spirit. And by calling on Jesus to surrender to Him the Father instantly became a reality to me in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by jaywill

Lol, insult, the last bastion of the truly desperate.

The only "bastion" we Christians need is the Word of God and our experience of God. No other "bastions" are required.

You just [b]got insulted, I guess, at the frank word. You are preaching "another Jesus" from what the apostles and the New Testament preaches.

ly became a reality to me in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.[/b]

i see, dogma can now be used as a premise to insult others with impunity, lol, one
wonders what it cannot be used for, mystical bodies, fairy dust, imposing ones
exegesis on scripture, cleaning the car, all sorts of things. You should patent it.

Jaywills Dogma, New improved formula, kills more than 99.9 percent of all logical and
rational arguments based on an examination of the text.

muhaha, its just brilliant. 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i see, dogma can now be used as a premise to insult others with impunity, lol, one
wonders what it cannot be used for, mystical bodies, fairy dust, imposing ones
exegesis on scripture, cleaning the car, all sorts of things. You should patent it.

Jaywills Dogma, New improved formula, kills more than 99.9 percent of all logical and
rational arguments based on an examination of the text.

muhaha, its brilliant. 😀

i see, dogma can now be used as a premise to insult others with impunity, lol, one wonders what it cannot be used for, mystical bodies, fairy dust, imposing ones exegesis on scripture, cleaning the car, all sorts of things. You should patent it.

Jaywills Dogma, New improved formula, kills more than 99.9 percent of all logical and rational arguments based on an examination of the text.

Ridicule will not come off as more intellectual then dogmatism. I know you like to mention fairy dust.

If you object to the word "mystical" as "mystical body of Christ" it can only be because you LACK EXPERIENCE.

"He who is JOINED to the Lord is ONE spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

Let me break that down for you:

The man who has been JOINED to Jesus Christ has his human spirit united, mingled, co-joined with the Spirit of God - the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Now you may mock and jeer that some of us refer to a mystical union or a mystical body of Christ. But we are forced to in discribing something of the supernatural. Something very unusual that man cannot be born naturally into is going on here.

You cannot KNOW it except through experience.

You know we are going around in circles. "The MYSTERY OF THE FAITH" is the expression that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. "the MYSTERY OF THE FAITH" (1 Tim. 3:9) was not an expression inserted after the fact by trinatarians.

The glory of this mystery, which is CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27).

Why should we not use a word like "mystical" to frame this mysterious yet REAL enjoyment of the indwelling Triune God ?

I guess nothing is left but to refer to Greek and Hebrew experts then. You want to sling language experts at each other?

Do you know Greek better than Dean Alford or the author of Vincent Word Studies ? Do you think they would go along with your - Jesus the angel Michael gospel, because they can fluently read and translate directly Greek to English ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] i see, dogma can now be used as a premise to insult others with impunity, lol, one wonders what it cannot be used for, mystical bodies, fairy dust, imposing ones exegesis on scripture, cleaning the car, all sorts of things. You should patent it.

Jaywills Dogma, New improved formula, kills more than 99.9 percent of all logical and rational argumen ael gospel, because they can fluently read and translate directly Greek to English ?

first of all, it is clear that you have no idea of what the term 'spirit', actually means, nor
can you without an underlying understanding of the base text. When will you realise
this Jaywill? You are quoting verse upon verse without actually taking the time to
learn what the terms mean. If you will take anything away from these 500 or so
posts, then study the text in the original languages, that is what we have stated
through out.

-Removed-

Isaiah does not call Jesus Almighty God, does he, nooo, he doesn't, for we know this
when we examine the original language text, its divesgeester that says Jesus is
Almighty God, not Isaiah. why? because he wishes to impose his dogma upon the text,
where none exists, that is why.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
first of all, it is clear that you have no idea of what the term 'spirit', actually means, nor
can you without an underlying understanding of the base text. When will you realise
this Jaywill? You are quoting verse upon verse without actually taking the time to
learn what the terms mean. If you will take anything away from these 500 or so
...[text shortened]... sts, then study the text in the original languages, that is what we have stated
through out.

first of all, it is clear that you have no idea of what the term 'spirit', actually means, nor can you without an underlying understanding of the base text.

I know Who the Holy Spirit is. And I know my own human spirit which has been made "one spirit" with the Lord.

I know because of the word of God, which is "living and operative and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the division of soul and spirit ..." (Heb 4:12)

I learn this division deep within me by experience and not by Lexicons and dictionaries as useful as they are.

Because there is no regeneration of the spirit in your religion you have no idea of these things. And in the vacuum you have substituted human concepts void of experience.

When will you realise this Jaywill? You are quoting verse upon verse without actually taking the time to learn what the terms mean. If you will take anything away from these 500 or so posts, then study the text in the original languages, that is what we have stated through out.

I realize that you are of all men to be pitied. For in your self confidence you have no idea what the Bible is speaking of in matters of the regenerated human spirit and the Holy Spirit.

But there is one thing which you may be right about. Quoting the Bible is of no use to you at this time and probably for a long time to come. I mean quoting the word in ANY language, English, Greek, Hebrew, Latin. It appears that the word of God has no effect on you at all, in any language.

Your problem is not in the Bible or with Scripture. It is something else in the heart.

Originally posted by jaywill

the child is called mighty God, not almighty God, you do know the difference after all it was pointed out to you from the Hebrew text, oh but wait, you need to ignore it because the text contradicts your dogma, but hey we knew that already, but thanks for demonstrating it.

The child is called Mighty God because the child is Jehovah ...[text shortened]... biblical. The FACT of the three - one nature of God seen in the Bible.

This is from your post:

"A son honors [his] father, and a servant his lord. Therefore if I am a Father, where is My honor ? And if I am the Lord, where is My fear? says Jehovah of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name.

But you say, How have we despised Your name?" (Malachi 1:7)

Perhaps this is the real reason the Jewish priests would not pronounce His
name. But His name could not be eliminated because it has survived in
the praise by the people, that is in, "Hallelu YAH" and by the real name
of His Son, "YAH shua" for He said He came in His Father's name.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Isaiah does not call Jesus Almighty God, does he, nooo, he doesn't, for we know this
when we examine the original language text, its divesgeester that says Jesus is
Almighty God, not Isaiah. why? because he wishes to impose his dogma upon the text,
where none exists, that is why.

If you had studied the Greek and Hebrew like you claim, you would know
the the Son of God's name is not really Jesus and is not even pronounced
close to that name because it was obtained from tranliterations.

Originally posted by jaywill
quote] first of all, it is clear that you have no idea of what the term 'spirit', actually means, nor can you without an underlying understanding of the base text. [/quote]

I know Who the Holy Spirit is. And I know my own human spirit which has been made "one spirit" with the Lord.

I know because of the word of God, which is "living and
Your problem is not in the Bible or with Scripture. It is something else in the heart.

the problem with your argument Jaywill is that not all references to spirit are
necessarily the Holy spirit, once again i tell you truly, if you want to understand what
type of spirit is being referenced in the text, you must examine the text in the original
language. There is no substitute for this, you cannot gain accurate knowledge of
scripture through a mystical experience.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you had studied the Greek and Hebrew like you claim, you would know
the the Son of God's name is not really Jesus and is not even pronounced
close to that name because it was obtained from tranliterations.

transliteration, first of all, learn to spell correctly, then you may make reference to how
a particular name is pronounced in the original language. Do you speak any other
languages other than complete nonsense RJH, for i perceive that you are certainly
fluent in it, for what your text has to do with anything, i cannot say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
transliteration, first of all, learn to spell correctly, then you may make reference to how
a particular name is pronounced in the original language. Do you speak any other
languages other than complete nonsense RJH, for i perceive that you are certainly
fluent in it, for what your text has to do with anything, i cannot say.

Maybe, you should learn to use proper capitalization in sentences
before you start judging someones typing errors. My text has to
do with the fact that you do not know these orignal languages as
you claim. You are only taking the word of those you choose to
believe. This is the same thing you accused me of doing, but I
admitted I did not know the original languages well. Why do you
not admit the same?