nothead,
1. The order of Melchizadek was for the purpose of showing Christ priesthood as being eternal.
Nevertheless all know priests are lesser beings than God. Just say "theos" and tha...that's IT folks.
2. Taken the nature of man or angels? Christ took on the nature of man and not angels which shows he was neither. So your point about being over the angels is not scriptural to the wording of taken on the nature. It is not a given and this is your humanistic reasoning.
Em, methinks you got your own thinking bassackwerds. Trinies say BOTH man and God not NEITHER a man or an angel. The number of times Jesus is SAID to be a man numbers right at 150 times, sir. The number of times GOD is in my book, nada.
So then twice Wong do not a right make, my man. Two Wongs DON'T make a white, and one Wong happens to be Wong aw da way, WHITE?
3. Probably written about Solomon is guessing.
Yauaw.
TIS guessing, but there aren't many other options, ALL being kings coronated as options.
Nevertheless as a double-fulfillment prophesy, the first option in near-view WAS a man, considered an "elohim," sir.
Jesus rebuked Peter in Matthew 16:22-23; and in verse 23 where Jesus said, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou, art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
This is a double reference and we know Peter is not Satan. So your double fulfillment about Solomon even though you are not sure if it was written about Solomon is off base and is not scriptural or correct about double fulfillments.
FULFILLMENT is a manifestation of prophesy. Jesus was not being a PROPHET, here...since he wasn't PROPHESYING anything, genius. Nothing to FULFILL, and heavens to Betsy if Peter DID fulfill being "satan." Instead he got the indwelling Holy Spirit in the upper room and traditionally DIED upside down on his own cross. So then you only exemplify your own confusion once again.
4. Elohim is used in many more passages including Genesis 1:26 than passages talking about heathens. You are trying to show proof by showing that Elohim can be applied to heathens which would have no bearing or do away with the passages on the Elohim of God. That is ridiculous thinking and even if that is true is irrelvant to the context of the Godhead.
Not exactly. I am SHOWING proof that good elohim who are NOT God exist and have always existed in the minds of the Jews, the People of the Promise, sir.
5. It is about believers as I showed. This doesn't mean God cannot be unified in himself and it doesn't mean that he cannot be unified with the other two members of the Godhead.
"Two OTHER members of the Godhead," are normally thought of as two other Gods, sir. I realize that trins don't SAY this, indeed they cannot orthodoxically. However, this would be the first dissonance between common sense and reality, as opposed to imagination and unreality, sir.
The fact is, HE is a HE only and "three members of the Godhead" are a THEY sir. You contradict yourself with aplomb and debonair, having no compunction or sense not to do so.
6. I believe it is inherent ontology because I believe in the three in one which the bible talks about and is given in the formula of Matthew 28:19 and shown that they are separate entities with different responsibilities. The Father in heaven was talking to the Son on earth. Were they the same individual? It depends on what your definitions and context which I am not sure you have distinctively yet. Since the bible shows they are separate entities with different responsibilities of their own that act separate apart from each other but yet are always in harmony and unity that cannot be broken your neuter declensioned is not really correct. Unity is more than number one concerning individuals and at the same time they are one in unity in harmony.
...and of course you and yours have made a whole THEOLOGY based upon a single verse. One which was probably NOT in the original Hebrew Matthean text. One which is mentioned NOT in eighteen times Eusebius mentions the Great Commission.
One which a PLETHORA of scholars, both trin and non-trin have considered added on laters. NO MATTER that no Koine manuscript doesn't have it, the original has been lost forever, except in the Syriac Sinaiticus and Shem Tov Matthew. Why would they have this to say about it?
1) It does not match up to the Lukan Great Commission.
2) It sticks out like a sore thumb among serene thumbs, sir. NOTHING in NT collaborates or supports.
3) It is simply inconceivable JESUS would have considered a Trinity in his day OR mentioned a God of three "names."
4) It is the only TRIN FORMULATION or actually three in verse together scripture at all, unless you consider the Johannine Comma valid.
5) But most of all, it CONTRADICTS the single Jesus only baptisms of Acts 5 times and more than several verses by Paul.
7. One could say the Father and Son were created according to the plan. Physically they were not created because they have always been, always is and always will be completely eternal.
Or one could say the Father is uncreated. I do. You are completely unorthodox if you say the Father is created, and this I say with confidence.
8. Jesus was begotten of the Father before the foundation of the world prophetically and then physically when Christ was born.
You don't even realize the EVOLUTION of Creedal thought, sir. Jesus is considered UNCREATED in evolved rationalism.
However, Jesus was the God men and he was not created physically or otherwise by the Father because he was conceived when the Holy Ghost would come upon him and the power of the Highest would overshadow Christ. The last part of Luke 1:35 says therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. God is holy, Jesus is holy and the Holy Spirit is holy. Being begotten is why he is called the Son and the Father which is relationship of unity. Because Christ was the God-man is why they have these offices and the subordination that Christadelphians support doesn't violate compound unity.
The "echad" of the Adonai was NEVER a compound unity.
It is the numerical "one" and stands alone and unique. NO OTHER ONE can be God in context of OT said umpteen times and in Mk 12 by the Christ. You are so Wong you are Wong all the way, Wongmeister.
Once again it goes back to definitions and context to the scriptures to understand being created and begotten. This is why I believer your position is confused.
Being created IS being being a being begotten, sir. Why you think God is YOUR "Father" sir? YOU are uncreated or what?
9. Jesus said they shared glory before the foundation of the world in John 17. Let the angels worship him which was referring to Jesus. If the father is the only God why would he share his glory with worship and the fact that noone can be saved by any name or person's blood except for Jesus. Once again you need to understand proper usage and meaning of compound unity instead of inferiorism.
Prove compound unity and I will lick your pink booties, sir. Pink are your booties and pink is the complexion of your pretty face by the time I'm done wit ye.
10. You need to study the kenosis of Christ. You misunderstand the relationship of the father and son and why it is worded in the new testament the way that it is. This misunderstanding leads to subordination and inferiorism in the Godhead. This is not a scriptural.
I don't need to understand kenosis at all, sir. If God made himself a man, then He is no longer God is He? Sir?
Simple common sense trumps the intellectual scintillations of the titillated every time.
11. God the father is not known as the Father in fruition in the old testament and Christ was not known as the Son in the old testament. The only passages have to do with the prophecies of the Messiah.
God means deity or divinity. They can be used of the false Gods as well. The number of persons can be understood in the meaning of true deity.
Godhead means that which is divine. Colossians 2:9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily or in human flesh. It is used of all three persons in the deity in Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so they are without excuse.
Jesus is divine by virtue of the glory or shekinah or radiance or light of God only. This is the Holy Spirit UNITY of the "compound UNITY" which Jesus did mention when he said both that "I and the Father are one," Jn 10, AND "that they may be one as we are one," Jn 17.
12. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were all called God and Lord and Jehovah.
BOOLoney. Prove it.
13. Yahweh named the Father? Jehoshua is a type of Christ which was the salvation of the Jews and of all men being able to forgive sins. Yahweh was not the father literally in the old testament for he did not really become the Father literally until his begotten son at the time of the birth of Christ.
Jesus ALWAYS referred to his God as "the Father," a REPLACEMENT nomos for "YHWH" now too sacred to say out loud. Sir.
Get your facks straight. Ged God Theology. Ged a life and HAVE God Theology.
14. It is not bias and your assessment about the number of singular Elohim doesn't cancel out the pluralism of the Godhead.
Deuteronomy 6:4-6 one Lord Malachi 2:10 is one God and is echad, to unify, collect, be united in one, one in number. I have already explained the unity of number and harmony. So your not the main point between singular and plural is wrong and null and void. You are trying to be one sided in your definition and not harmonize with the scriptures of plural Elohim which is many scriptures and not just one.
NO SCRIPTURE says God is plural in Person, OR that God has more than one God-mind but ESPECIALLY one God-will. Correction.
15. There are new testament jews that will tell you of the trinity.
...and they ABROGATE the Shema and the First Command of the Ten, sir. So what? What GOOD THING can I say aboudem?
16. Deuteronomy 6:4, the shema is; Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. All three are called throughout God and Lord in the scriptures. Scriptures show that the Father if you will was the predominant speaker in the old testament and in the gospels was the Son and now it is the Holy Spirit. Your assessment is not consistent with the scriptures.
Show me where any OTHER ONE is in context of Shema also God. Thank you sir. For your support sir.
17. Actually, there are not three Gods because they are all one in harmony that has never, is not now and can never and will never be broken. That is the impossibility.
FIND "three in poifeck harm to thee" I mean harmony and I will lick your fur-topped BOOTIES sir.
18. That is the proper scriptural explanation, inspiration of unity with all people with the one Godhead. The scriptures reveal the way and the truth and the life of Christ and the Father who sent his Son and the Holy Spirit who the Son sent. It is completely logical in the proper context.
BLAH and bleh and bleh. GOSH you got some kinda tootin' beans in your beany or WHAT sir?
What you should do is explain what your exact position of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and if they are all divine or not divine and why and why you think your position is logical. Thanks Jerry Kelso
Have I said a single thingybobber ILLOGICAL, sir? Shew me where, oh man.
