The orgins of Yahweh

[cgaviria]

No; while you and your wife are consubstantial, you are also discrete beings. This is anthropomorphism, by the way: you're trying to reason about an infinite being from a human perspective; we are created in God's image, not vice versa.



Maybe, but that's not how God works.



No.



You previously denied the unique individuality of the Holy Spirit, going so far as to refuse to use the definite article. Have you now changed your mind?



We don't say He is. The three persons are not components of a multi-part God.



Congratulations, you just described Orthodox Trinitarian theology regarding the relationship of the persons.

We are made in the image of God, so surely characteristics we possess can surely be used to describe how God relates to humans. He is higher than we are, even higher than Iesou, and from scripture we can clearly see that Iesou and the Father are two distinct beings, so obviously when Iesou says that "I and the Father are one", and "that they may be one as we are one", he is talking about unity, not that literally anyone who is one with the other that they are literally one person, it is a figure of speech of being in unity, being of one mind figuratively, being of one accord. Being one is actually a very strong term, because it describes that everything that you do with whoever you are one with is in complete and total perfect alignment of the other whom you are one with.

 

[nomadictheist]

This is because you don't understand the distinction between the Father and all other beings. The Father is the one true God. Any other being, that may be called God, is merely a little god, which even includes Iesou Christ who is a little god in relation to the Father... as he is lesser than the Father, and is called God because the Father has made him Lord over all of his own creation. And yes, there are indeed multiple little gods, each in their own measure of authority in the household of the Father, but only one true God, the Father, who him alone ONLY predetermines all things, and only him alone has infinite knowledge (knowledge without a number), and is the one who gives authority, even to Iesou Christ, as Iesou would not have any authority unless it were granted to him by the Father, and Iesou has the highest measure of authority of all the sons of God. And all, including Iesou Christ, have come into existence because of the Father.

What is your exegesis on this? The Bible does not teach us to believe in a lot of "little gods." In fact, to the contrary, it teaches us not to believe in a lot of little gods.

 

[redleghunter]

And yes, there are indeed multiple little gods, each in their own measure of authority in the household of the Father,

Can you list all of the above 'little gods'?

 

[Commander Xenophon]

We are made in the image of God, so surely characteristics we possess can surely be used to describe how God relates to humans.

We are an image of God, not the other way around. So we can't use human attributes to limit, constrain or define the unlimited, unconstrained and indefinite aspects of divinity. "God is unsearchable in His ways."

He is higher than we are, even higher than Iesou,

Jesus Christ is God, of equal honor, glory and divinity with the Father.

and from scripture we can clearly see that Iesou and the Father are two distinct beings,

No, untrue. John 1:1 says otherwise, as do many other passages.

so obviously when Iesou says that "I and the Father are one", and "that they may be one as we are one", he is talking about unity, not that literally anyone who is one with the other that they are literally one person,

He is talking about our participation in God through the uncreated energies; we do not become one with God in the same way He is one wi God.

it is a figure of speech of being in unity, being of one mind figuratively, being of one accord.

No; that's a union of will. We are now consubstantial with God because of the glorification of the human nature by the Incarnation of the Divine Word (see Emanu-el).

 

[cgaviria]

Can you list all of the above 'little gods'?

Iesou Christ is the full representation and image of the Father, so he is indeed God, hence,

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20 [NIV])

Also, angels are little gods, hence,

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' (Psalm 82:6 [NIV])

Even the angel in the burning bush was called God,

There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. (Exodus 3:2 [NIV])

When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." (Exodus 3:4 [NIV])

Even Moses was made as God,

Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. (Exodus 7:1 [NIV])

Even Satan is called a god,

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4 [NIV])

The reason this beings are called gods is because of the measure of authority they have been given by the Father, not because they are the Father, or have always existed as the Father has always existed (never began). Yet even in all these, being "little gods", only the Father alone is the true God from whence all receive authority from, including Iesou Christ, who was given authority by the Father, to be God.

 

[cgaviria]

We are an image of God, not the other way around. So we can't use human attributes to limit, constrain or define the unlimited, unconstrained and indefinite aspects of divinity. "God is unsearchable in His ways."



Jesus Christ is God, of equal honor, glory and divinity with the Father.



No, untrue. John 1:1 says otherwise, as do many other passages.



He is talking about our participation in God through the uncreated energies; we do not become one with God in the same way He is one wi God.



No; that's a union of will. We are now consubstantial with God because of the glorification of the human nature by the Incarnation of the Divine Word (see Emanu-el).

Somehow I am constraining the Father when you were the one just the other day that God emptied himself as if he were a bucket? My use of these analogies are not to limit the Father, in fact, the very opposite, to assert and respect his power as the only being of infinite knowledge and that he alone predetermines all things, and that when, a being lesser than him, such as Iesou Christ, asserts that he is one with the Father, it is to describe his complete and perfect unity with the Father, but not that the Father is somehow made complete by this unity, as he is not in need of anyone, and he has created all for his own pleasure, which includes Iesou Christ. I am, in fact, giving more glory to the Father by the statements I am making.

 

[nomadictheist]

Iesou Christ is the full representation and image of the Father, so he is indeed God, hence,

Indeed, Jesus is God. There's not one of us here on this thread who would deny this.

Also, angels are little gods, hence,

Your exegesis on this scripture is supported neither by the whole of scripture, nor by scholars

Even the angel in the burning bush was called God,

Once again, your exegesis is unsupported both by scripture and by scholars. There are two explanations for why the Angel of the Lord in the bush is referenced first and then God calls from the midst of the bush. Neither of them involve the Angel of the Lord being a "little god."

Even Moses was made as God,

Yes, Moses was made "like God to Pharaoh." God uses the word "like" for a reason - it's a metaphor for the relationship from Moses to Pharaoh, because Moses would be the one instructing Aaron what to say and do. Thus, just as God didn't speak directly to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, but through prophets, Moses would not speak directly to Pharaoh, but would speak through Aaron.

Even Satan is called a god,

There is some debate about that particular verse, since some of the early church fathers understood it to mean that God blinded their eyes, but either way, the "gods" of other nations were called "gods" as well, and elsewhere they were called "false gods." By this logic the bellies of those who oppose Christ are also gods (Philippians 3:19). Discernment is necessary when attempting exegesis

The reason this beings are called gods is because of the measure of authority they have been given by the Father, not because they are the Father, or have always existed as the Father has always existed (never began). Yet even in all these, being "little gods", only the Father alone is the true God from whence all receive authority from, including Iesou Christ, who was given authority by the Father, to be God.

Not so. The authority of your government was given to them by God, but you are not to call your governor, your senators, or even your president "god." Similarly, the authority of every king is given by God, yet it was a sin for Nebuchadnezzar to call himself a god, and a sin for Herod to accept praise as a god (a sin for which he died immediately).

Receiving authority from God does not make one God, nor does it make one a god.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Somehow I am constraining the Father

Yes.

when you were the one just the other day that God emptied himself

You constrain Him twofold: by anthropocentrically and denying His revealed attributes based on a false analogy, and then by denying His omnipotence.

as if he were a bucket?

Don't mock. Just don't.

My use of these analogies are not to limit the Father,

You have limited Him by imposing an artificial and unnatural boundary between Him and His Son and Spirit, who are of one essence and being with Him, and then by denying His omnipotence.

in fact, the very opposite, to assert and respect his power as the only being of infinite knowledge

In asserting this, you're denying Scripture, and imposing your aesthetics on the Godhood.

and that he alone predetermines all things, and that when, a being lesser than him, such as Iesou Christ,

Jesus Christ is not according to His divinity a separate or lesser being.

asserts that he is one with the Father, it is to describe his complete and perfect unity with the Father,

This unity is according to essence and existential being; this is implied by "complete and perfect."

but not that the Father is somehow made complete by this unity, as he is not in need of anyone, and he has created all for his own pleasure, which includes Iesou Christ.

He did not create Jesus Christ. He begat Him. There is a huge difference. Otherwise we would manufacture our children.

I am, in fact, giving more glory to the Father by the statements I am making.

No, you're taking it away, by denying His true nature; you unwittingly slander Him by describing His nature as that of a Unitarian idol, misdirecting our worship to a false God.

 

[cgaviria]

Indeed, Jesus is God. There's not one of us here on this thread who would deny this.


Your exegesis on this scripture is supported neither by the whole of scripture, nor by scholars


Once again, your exegesis is unsupported both by scripture and by scholars. There are two explanations for why the Angel of the Lord in the bush is referenced first and then God calls from the midst of the bush. Neither of them involve the Angel of the Lord being a "little god."



Yes, Moses was made "like God to Pharaoh." God uses the word "like" for a reason - it's a metaphor for the relationship from Moses to Pharaoh, because Moses would be the one instructing Aaron what to say and do. Thus, just as God didn't speak directly to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, but through prophets, Moses would not speak directly to Pharaoh, but would speak through Aaron.


There is some debate about that particular verse, since some of the early church fathers understood it to mean that God blinded their eyes, but either way, the "gods" of other nations were called "gods" as well, and elsewhere they were called "false gods." By this logic the bellies of those who oppose Christ are also gods (Philippians 3:19). Discernment is necessary when attempting exegesis

Not so. The authority of your government was given to them by God, but you are not to call your governor, your senators, or even your president "god." Similarly, the authority of every king is given by God, yet it was a sin for Nebuchadnezzar to call himself a god, and a sin for Herod to accept praise as a god (a sin for which he died immediately).

Receiving authority from God does not make one God, nor does it make one a god.

I really don't care what scholars have to say, hence,

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. (Matthew 11:25 [NIV])

No person should use "this is not what the scholars teach" as an argument to refute something. Clearly I provided you with scriptures indicating that there are indeed "gods" out there, so there is indeed a plurality of "gods", although there is only one true God from whence all draw authority from, which is the Father.

Being a "god" is a loose term, what matters is understanding the meaning behind someone being called a god. And as I explained, it related to authority. Moses was like God, because of authority given to him, to bring forth plagues and punishment upon Egypt. Iesou Christ is like God the Father, because he has been given authority to create in the beginning, and also has been given all authority over creation, and has also been given authority to bring forth judgment upon the entire earth when he comes again. Any being that is called "god", other than the Father, is called that because of authority given, it doesn't mean that they are equivalent to the Father to be God as he is, but it merely reflects an authority granted, which could be conveyed as them being a god. Even with Satan being called a god, it can surely be observed that he has enslaved all men to himself, so surely all the billions of humans that are enslaved to him can surely categorize him as a "god" because of this great authority he has been given, but not to say God as the Father is God, but a god that has a measure of authority that has been predetermined by God, and the authority of Satan will also be revoked by the one who also gave him this authority. This is a very simple concept to understand for someone that has understanding and has wisdom.

 

[supersoldier71]

Does it matter what my native tongue is? Or are you just merely trying to make points of insults to imply im stupid? I suggest that instead of reviling me that you refute my statements with scriptures.

My friend, I have done nothing--literally NOTHING--to imply any such thing. I commended you on your intellect. I also clearly if you were engaging us in Socratic questioning, then you are, in my opinion, doing a very good job of it.

I do have serious concerns however because it DOES matter what your native tongue is in terms of linguistics. Are you able to study the Bible in your native tongue? Is this not a question one believer would ask another if he were concerned about the other's spiritual well-being?

What I'm reading with your concept of "little gods" is, in fact, a well-known heresy promoted by Herbert Armstrong, Oral Roberts (and his entire brood of poisonous offspring) and others. The reason why I am concerned is that Armstrong, Roberts et al were renowned for "prophesying" and then backpedaling when their predictions failed to occur.

As I said before, I will say again, I respect your intellect enough to assume that you know that these things cannot be true because no true man (or woman) of God would aggrandize themselves while bringing dishonor to God: "You will know a tree by its fruit...."

And surely you are already fully aware of the fact that while we are indeed created in the image of the Living God: we are thoughtful, we are social, we are spiritual, we are emotional etc,, these are all communicable characteristics of God, that is He has shared them with some of His creations. His incommunicable characteristics: His holiness (3 TIMES!), His sovereignty, His glory, His timelessness, His uniqueness...you and I do not possess those, and so to call His children "little gods" is more than slightly inaccurate, it's blasphemous!

And I'm sure you're already aware of all these things, at least intellectually, which was why I have expressed my genuine concern over whether you are able to study the text in your native language. If you are not, the Body of Christ exists to glorify Him, and to serve each other: for these purposes alone, we have been called...why would you take offense when I express concerns for your well-being?

God bless.

 

[cgaviria]

Yes.



You constrain Him twofold: by anthropocentrically and denying His revealed attributes based on a false analogy, and then by denying His omnipotence.



Don't mock. Just don't.



You have limited Him by imposing an artificial and unnatural boundary between Him and His Son and Spirit, who are of one essence and being with Him, and then by denying His omnipotence.



In asserting this, you're denying Scripture, and imposing your aesthetics on the Godhood.



Jesus Christ is not according to His divinity a separate or lesser being.



This unity is according to essence and existential being; this is implied by "complete and perfect."



He did not create Jesus Christ. He begat Him. There is a huge difference. Otherwise we would manufacture our children.



No, you're taking it away, by denying His true nature; you unwittingly slander Him by describing His nature as that of a Unitarian idol, misdirecting our worship to a false God.

There is so much confusion in your own words, masked by seemingly wise theology. I'll just let you carry on in your own "stuff". I don't have time to argue endlessly with someone who refuses to see reason on such simple matters.

 

[nomadictheist]

I really don't care what scholars have to say, hence,

This is the very definition of pride, one of the greatest sins in the Bible. "I am better able to interpret the Bible than all who came before me and all who exist today."
If scholars disagree with the word of God, then they are wrong. This includes you, insomuch as you can actually be termed a "scholar." It has been demonstrated that your teaching does not align with God's word.

No person should use "this is not what the scholars teach" as an argument to refute something. Clearly I provided you with scriptures indicating that there are indeed "gods" out there, so there is indeed a plurality of "gods", although there is only one true God from whence all draw authority from, which is the Father.

You provided scriptures that say that there are some that could be called "gods" out there. But they are not gods, they are merely worshiped as such. As I said, if you take this literal approach to every use of the word "god" then the bellies of those who oppose Christ are also gods.

False gods are gods only insomuch as they are treated as such by humans. They are not gods in any real sense, and even the angel in Revelation rejected worship because he was only a "servant of God" like John.

Also, you will see that I didn't just say what scholars teach - it's not what the scriptures, nor what scholars of scripture, teach.

Being a "god" is a loose term, what matters is understanding the meaning behind someone being called a god. And as I explained, it related to authority. Moses was like God, because of authority given to him, to bring forth plagues and punishment upon Egypt. Iesou Christ is like God the Father, because he has been given authority to create in the beginning, and also has been given all authority over creation, and has also been given authority to bring forth judgment upon the entire earth when he comes again. Any being that is called "god", other than the Father, is called that because of authority given, it doesn't mean that they are equivalent to the Father to be God as he is, but it merely reflects an authority granted, which could be conveyed as them being a god. Even with Satan being called a god, it can surely be observed that he has enslaved all men to himself, so surely all the billions of humans that are enslaved to him can surely categorize him as a "god" because of this great authority he has been given, but not to say God as the Father is God, but a god that has a measure of authority that has been predetermined by God, and the authority of Satan will also be revoked by the one who also gave him this authority. This is a very simple concept to understand for someone that has understanding and has wisdom.

First of all, you make a lot of claims here that are not scripturally supported. You say that being given authority by God makes one a god, but the Bible clearly says that all authority comes from God, including the authority of government officials and kings. Yet when Herod allowed people to praise him as a god he was struck dead on the spot. When Nebuchadnezzar lifted himself up, he was caused to eat grass like a wild animal. The Bible is clear. There are no "little gods" in any real sense of the word.

We can make anything we want into "our gods," but that does not actually make them "gods." I can carve an image out of wood, set it up, and bow down to it. That doesn't make it a god. Any god that is not the One God is an idol, and as such forbidden for anyone to worship.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else. There is no God beside me."

 

[cgaviria]

My friend, I have done nothing--literally NOTHING--to imply any such thing. I commended you on your intellect. I also clearly if you were engaging us in Socratic questioning, then you are, in my opinion, doing a very good job of it.

I do have serious concerns however because it DOES matter what your native tongue is in terms of linguistics. Are you able to study the Bible in your native tongue? Is this not a question one believer would ask another if he were concerned about the other's spiritual well-being?

What I'm reading with your concept of "little gods" is, in fact, a well-known heresy promoted by Herbert Armstrong, Oral Roberts (and his entire brood of poisonous offspring) and others. The reason why I am concerned is that Armstrong, Roberts et al were renowned for "prophesying" and then backpedaling when their predictions failed to occur.

As I said before, I will say again, I respect your intellect enough to assume that you know that these things cannot be true because no true man (or woman) of God would aggrandize themselves while bringing dishonor to God: "You will know a tree by its fruit...."

And surely you are already fully aware of the fact that while we are indeed created in the image of the Living God: we are thoughtful, we are social, we are spiritual, we are emotional etc,, these are all communicable characteristics of God, that is He has shared them with some of His creations. His incommunicable characteristics: His holiness (3 TIMES!), His sovereignty, His glory, His timelessness, His uniqueness...you and I do not possess those, and so to call His children "little gods" is more than slightly inaccurate, it's blasphemous!

And I'm sure you're already aware of all these things, at least intellectually, which was why I have expressed my genuine concern over whether you are able to study the text in your native language. If you are not, the Body of Christ exists to glorify Him, and to serve each other: for these purposes alone, we have been called...why would you take offense when I express concerns for your well-being?

God bless.

Don't patronize me, although I am not offended by your statements, I can still perceive that your statements are ill-given, even with your sarcastic tone of "concerns for your well-being" is it obvious. Are you really that interested in me? Then learn from the scriptures and things I am saying, because they are teachings that are in scripture, not what is taught by mainstream church which are false teachings. It does not matter if i am an idiot, or if I am intelligent, if English is my native tongue, or not, what matters is the scriptures I am quoting you, will you in your arrogance accept these scriptures, or try to discredit me in whatever way you can to thus reject them? I suggest you stop masquerading your "concerns" for me, as if I were an idiot to not perceive your sarcasm, and if you wish to refute anything I am saying, then do so with scripture.

 

[cgaviria]

This is the very definition of pride, one of the greatest sins in the Bible. "I am better able to interpret the Bible than all who came before me and all who exist today."
If scholars disagree with the word of God, then they are wrong. This includes you, insomuch as you can actually be termed a "scholar." It has been demonstrated that your teaching does not align with God's word.


You provided scriptures that say that there are some that could be called "gods" out there. But they are not gods, they are merely worshiped as such. As I said, if you take this literal approach to every use of the word "god" then the bellies of those who oppose Christ are also gods.

False gods are gods only insomuch as they are treated as such by humans. They are not gods in any real sense, and even the angel in Revelation rejected worship because he was only a "servant of God" like John.

Also, you will see that I didn't just say what scholars teach - it's not what the scriptures, nor what scholars of scripture, teach.



First of all, you make a lot of claims here that are not scripturally supported. You say that being given authority by God makes one a god, but the Bible clearly says that all authority comes from God, including the authority of government officials and kings. Yet when Herod allowed people to praise him as a god he was struck dead on the spot. When Nebuchadnezzar lifted himself up, he was caused to eat grass like a wild animal. The Bible is clear. There are no "little gods" in any real sense of the word.

We can make anything we want into "our gods," but that does not actually make them "gods." I can carve an image out of wood, set it up, and bow down to it. That doesn't make it a god. Any god that is not the One God is an idol, and as such forbidden for anyone to worship.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else. There is no God beside me."

We are cautioned by scripture to beware of false teachers. So yes, I will steer clear from anyone teaching things that are false, regardless of how scholarly they are, and this is not being proud, this is following a word of caution. All my claims are scripturally supported. They are not commonly taught in the churches because most everyone is headed straight towards perdition, so it logically stands to reason that most do not know the truth. If you don't wish to accept what I am saying, then fine, be on your way then, I'm not going to endlessly reason with someone refusing to accept even scriptures I am quoting that prove what I am saying.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

There is so much confusion in your own words, masked by seemingly wise theology.

It's not "seemingly" wise, it is wise, and these are not my own words.

I'll just let you carry on in your own "stuff".

Not my "own," but the "stuff" of the Christian Church.

I don't have time to argue endlessly with someone who refuses to see reason on such simple matters.

Most of what you have presented, with the exception of a paragraph I cited earlier, is unreasonable.

 

[Dkh587]

It's not "seemingly" wise, it is wise, and these are not my own words.



Not my "own," but the "stuff" of the Christian Church.



Most of what you have presented, with the exception of a paragraph I cited earlier, is unreasonable.

You & @nomadictheist and everyone else's need to stop wasting your time on him regarding this subject. He has been proven wrong by countless posters(including me), and he continues to spew erroneous doctrines.

Let him remain in error. The Scriptures that he's trying to teach are the same scriptures that will condemn him if he stays in his error.

He doesn't even recognize the Messiah in the Tanach. In fact, he's SO in error, he willfully denies the Messiah in order to uphold his erroneous doctrine. It's sad & very bizarre.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

We are cautioned by scripture to beware of false teachers. So yes, I will steer clear from anyone teaching things that are false, regardless of how scholarly they are, and this is not being proud, this is following a word of caution. All my claims are scripturally supported.

No, they aren't. You claim they are, but you have a different idea of what constitutes Scripture; you base your doctrines on 1 Enoch, and you reject various authentic scriptures like Matthew 28:19, and distort others, like John 1:3.

They are not commonly taught in the churches because most everyone is headed straight towards perdition,

Apparently everyone other than you, because to date I've found no one else who regards YHWH as a creature, or who holds to the exact combination of heretical doctrines you offer (sinless perfectionism, Macedonianism, the denial of all emergency medical treatment, annhilationism, etc.).

so it logically stands to reason that most do not know the truth.

Possibly. However, being in a minority of one and standing in opposition to the beliefs of all other Jews and Christians, past and present, and to the canonical Scriptures, is a precarious position.

If you don't wish to accept what I am saying, then fine, be on your way then, I'm not going to endlessly reason with someone refusing to accept even scriptures I am quoting that prove what I am saying.

You haven't proven your case from the Scriptures. You have presented an argument, @nomadictheist and I and other people disagreed, and offered logically valid refutations of your position.

 

[supersoldier71]

Don't patronize me, although I am not offended by your statements, I can still perceive that your statements are ill-given, even with your sarcastic tone of "concerns for your well-being" is it obvious. Are you really that interested in me? Then learn from the scriptures and things I am saying, because they are teachings that are in scripture, not what is taught by mainstream church which are false teachings. It does not matter if i am an idiot, or if I am intelligent, if English is my native tongue, or not, what matters is the scriptures I am quoting you, will you in your arrogance accept these scriptures, or try to discredit me in whatever way you can to thus reject them? I suggest you stop masquerading your "concerns" for me, as if I were an idiot to not perceive your sarcasm, and if you wish to refute anything I am saying, then do so with scripture.

Again, why would I patronize you?

Why would you assume the worst?

Do you speak from the abundance of your own heart?

When Christ tells us to love God with all our hearts, all our minds, all our souls and all our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves; who do you see as your neighbor? I am telling you that I am concerned about your spiritual well-being because I am compelled to do so by Christ Jesus and enabled by the Holy Spirit of God.

Christ tells us that we must love our enemies, however, I have done nothing to you that you should call me an enemy.

John tells us that they will know us by our love.

Which is it then, friend?

I am not your enemy but yet you have anger and distrust towards me. What are the implications for your own spiritual well-being?

 

[cgaviria]

It's not "seemingly" wise, it is wise, and these are not my own words.



Not my "own," but the "stuff" of the Christian Church.



Most of what you have presented, with the exception of a paragraph I cited earlier, is unreasonable.

Nothing of what you have said is wise. It is seemingly wise, but it isn't. The truth is,

The Father and Iesou are two distinct beings, that are ONE because they are in complete unity, but not because they are literally one person. I won't even point out other unwise things you believe in, this statement is very simple and straightforward. If you can't even understand this, then you cannot be expected to understand other greater matters. And I've already reasoned with you enough on other topics to know in what manner of disarray your whole theology is. I wish it weren't the case, sometimes I get angry trying to reason with people like you, but at the end of it all, it grieves me more than anger me, because I know you guys are simply just accepting what the churches are teaching you... and who am I but just a dude on a forum trying to tell you otherwise.

 

[cgaviria]

You & @nomadictheist and everyone else's need to stop wasting your time on him regarding this subject. He has been proven wrong by countless posters(including me), and he continues to spew erroneous doctrines.

Let him remain in error. The Scriptures that he's trying to teach are the same scriptures that will condemn him if he stays in his error.

He doesn't even recognize the Messiah in the Tanach. In fact, he's SO in error, he willfully denies the Messiah in order to uphold his erroneous doctrine. It's sad & very bizarre.

I deny the Messiah? Where do you people come up with this crap and nonsense of things I've never said.