17 May 22
1 edit
@divegeester said"Taking measures".
Your new tactic seems to be alerting posts for the sake whilst contributing nothing to the thread, as usual.
I suggest you enjoy your little play whilst it lasts, I’m taking measures to prevent your attempts to sabotage threads.
No doubt there is more integrity alerting posts which violate the ToS than in alerting posts (or "taking measures" ) against people who hurt your feelings.
You DO know the difference, yes?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 May 22
2 edits
Divegeester,
Do you believe that there was a uniting of humanity with divinity ?
Do you believe that if there was a uniting of divinity with humanity it was only for the sake of Jesus being on earth OR for OTHER humans united with divinity being on the earth as well?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
17 May 22
@sonship saidDo you remember me writing about this extensively in recent months, where I fully explained what and why I believed on this and even theorised on how it would work?
Divegeester,
Do you believe that there was a uniting of humanity with divinity ?
Do you believe that if there was a uniting of divinity with humanity it was only for the sake of Jesus being on earth OR for OTHER humans united with divinity being on the earth as well?
At the time you blanked it but maybe you didn’t read it at all, after all you do like to employ your selective memory quite a bit.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 May 22
4 edits
@divegeester
I remember you writing some things repetitively which you seemed to think underscored a unitarian and modalistic rejection of three distinct Persons of the Trinity.
And I remember you writing it again a couple more times as if to say "You apparently didn't see this. Read it another time again."
It appears that from now on you may simply refer to the past as if you're tired of having to expain yet again. But I don't think your referal back is adaquate to demonstrate there is no revelation of the three-oneness of God. It says God is one, which I believe is the truth of His word.
I can discuss the matter with others perhaps if all you plan to do from now on is repeat
Ie. "I addressed your point before back then and there. Remember?"
I can take up my points with someone else, referring to your ideas as I understand them.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
19 May 22
@sonship saidI think you’re a lying toad sonship, you KellyJay and Jospehw alike, are three liars who lack any fabric of intellectual honesty. Three religionists sucked so deep into their dogma like planets are sucked into black holes in the cosmos, no escape can’t see light, only their own darkness.
@divegeester
I remember you writing some things repetitively which you seemed to think underscored a unitarian and modalistic rejection of three distinct Persons of the Trinity.
Anyway, if you want to pretend that you don’t know what I believe and why I believe it then so be it. I could ask one of the atheists and they could explain it to you if you like.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 May 22
1 edit
@divegeester
Boo Hoo! You don't think highly of me.
I mean Boo Hoo.
In the meantime the Son sits down on the right hand of God "forever". He is the same, yesterday, today, yes, even forever.
And the sons of God reign forever and ever.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
@sonship saidI don’t know you and if I did know you then I might think highly of you. But “you” isn’t what I see here in this place.
@divegeester
Boo Hoo! You don't think highly of me.
What I see here in this forum is a small group of prideful religionists who think they are projecting the love and mercy of god, the fellowship of the gospel and path to atonement.
What is actually presented is regurgitated dogma, other people’s teachings repackaged into a presentation of “sonship” who wants to read his own posts and feel that tingle of pride, that zing of self and the sense of rank.
That’s what I see. What you see in me is an alleged friend of atheists, a heretic who grinds your gears everyday.
I’d rather be a friend of sinners and atheists and have a meaningful dialogue with them, I’d rather be called a heretic than defend eternal genocide.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 22
2 edits
I don’t know you and if I did know you then I might think highly of you. But “you” isn’t what I see here in this place.
Too late to make this excuse. You already know me a little.
Backing out now with is a bit late.
What I see here in this forum is a small group of prideful religionists who think they are projecting the love and mercy of god, the fellowship of the gospel and path to atonement.
Show us how it is done then.
See if you can do so without ripping words away from the mouth of Christ and from the
pages of the New Testament.
if slapping your hands over the mouth of Christ and the New Testament writers and ripping sentences and paragraphs out of the New Testament is your expression of great love, well, some of us prefer to show Christ without those drastic measures.
That eliminating whole portions of the New Testament because of your self censorship, is not what I want to do.
"doing nothing out of partiality" is what Paul told Timothy to be.
"I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to maintain these principles without bias, and to do nothing out of partiality." (1 Tim. 5:21)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 22
What is actually presented is regurgitated dogma, other people’s teachings repackaged into a presentation of “sonship” who wants to read his own posts and feel that tingle of pride, that zing of self and the sense of rank.
What you disagree with you assign the label "regurgitted dogma".
What you disagree with stems from others "pride."
What you don't believe you blame on the damage of "rank."
What you cannot refute is just me wanting to read my own posts.
None of these excuses amounts to much.
When what I present is not rote but carefully examined from many angles can
be presented in faithfuness, frankness, with consideration of varying aspects as I
do.
Hiding, watering down, splicing out, censoring, whipping up emotional frenzy against, sweeping under the rug, blaming others, is the stuff unfaithfulness.
It reaks more of man pleasing.
It is better to take on some matters head on rather than labor to eliminate words
from the Scripture to be substituted with delf interested human concepts of
fallen man.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 22
3 edits
That’s what I see. What you see in me is an alleged friend of atheists, a heretic who grinds your gears everyday.
You go out of your WAY . . . to "grind gears."
You standby on watch for opportunities to "grind gears."
You're mad because I can apply some "oil" of the word of God and show your
deliberate "grinding" doesn't work as splendidly as you imagine.
But for the record, I believe God can use even an wrongly taught Gospel to bring men and women to Himself. In spite of human mistakes (your's or mine) God can still work. I believe some inadaquate songs, even movies, not so accurate books, even some heterodox teaching, God in His graciousness can still indirectly use to touch people's hearts.
If people get out their New Testaments and decide to read for themselves and make their own decisions about some of these things, I am overjoyed. I know the Spirit of God is working behind His word.
So its a win / win for me just for people to see the word of God and quite possibly want to read more for themselves.
Yes, I do love to see the word of God repeated and spoken and rightly as possible expounded. There is no crime in that.
Why shouldn't I like to see that the Son of God is eternal and the sons of God reign with Him "forever and ever"?
Maybe if you stop mentioning "sonship" to endorse what you don't like in the New Testament, I'll stop mentioning YOU to call you OUT on your accusations. You speak to your audience without needing to mention how much you distance yourself from "sonship.' And I stop showing you that I have reasons for the hope that is within me, in response to your false accusations.
I’d rather be a friend of sinners and atheists and have a meaningful dialogue with them, I’d rather be called a heretic than defend eternal genocide.
Then tell them the truth.
Stop being a man-pleaser comforting them that they can reject the Lord Jesus
and not arrive before God on judgment day condemned for not being redeemed.
IF you think that will mean non-existence, that's a hard opinion to back up.
But regardless of the nature of being lost, you're no "friend" of the sinner if you tell them Jesus is only the temporary Lord and temporary Son of God and yelling "GENOCIDE!" will be some dubious comfort to them if they find it was consequential that they rejected God, His salvation, and chose to be unbelieving, dying in their sins.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
21 May 22
@sonship saidWhat “excuse”? “Backing out” of what?
@divegeesterI don’t know you and if I did know you then I might think highly of you. But “you” isn’t what I see here in this place.
Too late to make this excuse. You already know me a little.
Backing out now with is a bit late.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
21 May 22
@sonship saidHow many “beings” are there in the Godhead? One or three?
What is actually presented is regurgitated dogma, other people’s teachings repackaged into a presentation of “sonship” who wants to read his own posts and feel that tingle of pride, that zing of self and the sense of rank.
What you disagree with you assign the label "regurgitted dogma".
What you disagree with stems from others "pride."
What yo ...[text shortened]...
from the Scripture to be substituted with delf interested human concepts of
fallen man.
How many “spirits” are there in the godhead? One or three?
Simple questions which you will run away from.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 22
5 edits
How many “beings” are there in the Godhead? One or three?
HUMAN LANGUAGE is inadaquate to fully describe the nature of God.
In that He is Father - Son - Holy Spirit limited human langauge is hard pressed to explain this mystery.
But we can experience and enjoy the reality of the living God.
There is one God.
In the Old Testamtent God had many names - For example
Yahweh
(Genesis 2:4, Isaiah 40:3; 10; 1 Samuel 1:20; Exodus 6:1-4, 3:1-22)
Elohim
(Gen. 1:1, 17:7, Ps 19:1 Jer. 31:33)
Yahweh-Rohi
(Psalm 23, 80:1, 95:7, Isaiah 40:11, Jeremiah 31:10, Ezekiel 34:12, 23)
Yahweh-Shammah
(Ezekiel 48:35, Genesis 28:15, Ezekiel 48:35, Psalm 23:4, 46:1, 139:7-12, Jeremiah 23:23-24, Amos 5:14)
Yahweh-Rapha
(Exodus 15:26, Exodus 15:26, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 6:2, 41:4, 103:3, 147:3, Isaiah 19:22, 30:36, 57:18-19, Jeremiah 3:22; 17:14, 30:17)
Yahweh-Jireh
(Genesis 22:13-14)
Yahweh-Nissi
(Exodus 17:15)
Yahweh-Shalom
(Judges 6:24)
I cannot find such a passage of God saying Yahweh-Shalom and Yahweh Nissi and Yahweh are "We". Though you do have "Let Us" and "Become like one of Us" and "Who will go for Us" the sense does not seem as if God is referring to His varied names.
But in the New Testament we see the Father and the Son as a Divine "We"
But in the New Testament we have that we may in the Father and the Son as a divine "Us".
Whether we should use limited words like "persons" we cannot stress "persons" too far. I would certainly not use seperate beings or seperate persons to describe God. So what should we do? We enjoy the reality of God and praise Him He is mysteriously the three-one - the Triune God -
"We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23)
Crying "regurgitating dogma!" does nothing.
Crying "rank, love to read yourself" does NOTHING.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 22
1 edit
You press - "So how man beings are there ???"
There is one God and there is the Father and the Son and the indwelling Holy
Spirit.
Yelling "Rank, Dogma, Regurgitation!!" means nothing.
Three Persons okay in a limited sense for now.
How many “spirits” are there in the godhead? One or three?
One eternal Spirit who is also called "the seven Spirits of God".
Simple questions which you will run away from.
I have never once run away from you speaking of the mystery of the Triune God.
Perhaps you over imagine your invincibility of a Modalistic, ancient Arian and Unitarian Christology. Maybe you count being answered straightfowardly as somehow "running away."
Which one of the Us is not the eternal God?
"That they all may be one even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, that the world may believe that You have sent Me." (John 17:21)
Is the Father temporary?
Or is the Son temporary?
OR ARE BOTH the eternal God ?