Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He created it to be unclean and it will always be so.
Reference please.God did appear as an angelic being to Jacob.
Two angels cannot have one being.If the two angels had one being they would be one angel in being and two in person.
Let's face it, you arrived at that conclusion because they share a common title, "elohim" or "theos". Yet those titles do not make them one being since those titles were used of other men besides Yeshua, yet they are not part of the one true God.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine being and will which rejects any possibility of polytheism and having three gods. We know God is one God and that he revealed himself as three persons in the New Testament, thus he is one in being and three in person.
The logos is a thing (the Father's spoken words, thoughts, will, etc.). It was never a living being until it was made flesh.A spirit being can naturally unite itself to flesh as we see in the divine Word or Logos.
We know for a fact that the bride consists of many individuals. Nowhere in Scripture are we told the only true God consists of more than one individual. You are reading that into the text. Yeshua told us the only true God is one being, his Father (John 17:3). Since the Son has a God (his Father), he cannot also be God. That would mean one God worships another God. The Father worships no one.How many brides does Christ have? One or many? The bride of Christ is one bride but consists of a huge number of people, male and female. The Trinity being 3 does not equal 3 Gods anymore than the bride is multiple brides.
It wasn't created unclean:
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
We know for a fact that the bride consists of many individuals. Nowhere in Scripture are we told the only true God consists of more than one individual.
YHWH had a purpose in preserving more clean beasts than unclean for use after the flood.
Genesis 32:30, says Jacob saw God face to face. In normal cases two angels can’t have one being, but in the case of God, yes God can be multiple persons and have one being. As I said it depends on how theos and elohim is used, and you seem to bend it as you will and downplay it when ever it refers to anyone other then the Father. We know that the New Testament refers to all members of the Trinity as God in the sense of divinity. The Word Was God, it isn’t a thing and it was always a living being.Reference please.
Two angels cannot have one being.
Let's face it, you arrived at that conclusion because they share a common title, "elohim" or "theos". Yet those titles do not make them one being since those titles were used of other men besides Yeshua, yet they are not part of the one true God.
The logos is a thing (the Father's spoken words, thoughts, will, etc.). It was never a living being until it was made flesh.
Yes, I know that is what you are trying to do, but you are not succeeding because you are not providing Scripture. You can say "the Son is God" a thousand times, but that won't make him the only true God. There is no doubt that the Son is "elohim" and "theos", but that does not mean he is the only true Elohim since those words were used of beings other than YHWH. As you read verses where "God" is used of the Son, remember that the speaker NEVER said "God" because the speaker was NOT speaking English. He was speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. No one in Scripture ever used the word "God". That word is a trinitarian invention.We are told the Father and Son and HS are God. I am only proving that ONE of something doesn't mean there aren't others forming that ONE thing.
Can't your God make up His mind? First they were unclean, then they were clean, then they were unclean, then they were clean, and come judgment day they will be unclean again??Any animal was clean to eat after the flood, including pigs. It wasn't until a LONG time later that God didn't want Israel to eat pigs and a LONG time later God re-allowed people to eat pigs again (NT age).
Genesis 32:30, says Jacob saw God face to face.
They can't have one being in abnormal cases either.In normal cases two angels can’t have one being,
Only when you try to force the trinity doctrine into whatever verses you desire.but in the case of God, yes God can be multiple persons and have one being. As I said it depends on how theos and elohim is used, and you seem to bend it as you will and downplay it when ever it refers to anyone other then the Father. We know that the New Testament refers to all members of the Trinity as God in the sense of divinity.
If it was always a living being, then prove that from the OT, not from one misunderstood verse in the NT.The Word Was God, it isn’t a thing and it was always a living being.
Yes, I know that is what you are trying to do, but you are not succeeding because you are not providing Scripture.
Can't your God make up His mind? .
I agree. There are many things that are one, but comprised of many. Almighty YHWH is not one of them. YHWH is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).I referenced scripture by speaking of the bride and who she is comprised of. In Trinitarian Christianity we know ONE thing can be composed of many and still be ONE.
There is nothing in the NT that teaches pigs are now edible. Please address Isaiah 66:15-17.There is only one God and he decides what he wishes to decide. It's a fact that once all animals were clean to eat, then for only Israel some animals were unclean to eat, then in the NT all were clean to eat again. God changing his mind does not insult God or his decisions as you attempt to insinuate.
There is nothing in the NT that teaches pigs are now edible.
Please address Isaiah 66:15-17.
That is your incorrect interpretation of the vision. The correct interpretation was given by YHWH in Acts 10:28;Acts 10 and 11 show God has made unclean animals clean to eat. Not to mention there is no NT commandment to not eat certain meats.
You missed the point. It has nothing to do with Judaism and it does not refer to anything in the past. It is a prophecy of the future in which YHWH will destroy those who eat swine's flesh. He will do so with His fiery judgment during the future Day of YHWH that Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:7-10. The question is, why would He destroy such people if it is now permissible to eat swine's flesh? The answer is, it is not permissible to eat swine's flesh or mice or any other abominable thing. You have grossly misinterpreted Scripture. Unbelievers will most certainly be destroyed for doing those things, but Christians will hopefully be spared such a fate by virtue of Yeshua's finished work and because you do so in ignorance. You may not lose your salvation, but you will most definitely suffer loss of rewards in the Kingdom.I don't practice Judaism. The people doing these things were gentiles at the time who were pagans and were considered unclean people eating what was unclean for Jews. It has no relevance to people of the new covenant who may freely ear pig meat with no condemnation.
That is your incorrect interpretation of the vision. The correct interpretation was given by YHWH in Acts 10:28;
"...But God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
It has nothing to do with Judaism and it does not refer to anything in the past.
Deuteronomy 5:4 is talking about Moses not all of Israel. Man has seen images and manifestations of God or forms of God not God himself. The Hebrew word translated as angel can have a variety of meanings and we know the Angelic being that appeared to Jacob was God himself as Jacob said I have seen God face to face. If I assumed two angels had one being they would be two in person and one Angel in being. Your the one that downplays any verse that backs the concept of the trinity, so it’s not me forcing it into the text, it’s you rejecting any possibility of it being in the text. Let’s not leave the issue of John 1:1 behind, you need to prove your interpretation from this passage, as you said the Word was not always a living being and isn’t a person. This verse proves otherwise, so I’m not obliged to go to the Old Testament as this rests my case.Deu 5:4 YHWH talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,'Did all Israel see God face to face as well? No, because no man has ever seen God (YHWH). Hosea 12:4 tells us Jacob wrestled with an angel, not God Himself. God is not an angel and neither is His Son.
They can't have one being in abnormal cases either.
Only when you try to force the trinity doctrine into whatever verses you desire.
If it was always a living being, then prove that from the OT, not from one misunderstood verse in the NT.
Both interpretations are correct. One was the surface teaching, the other was the deeper teaching. God showed that unclean animals were now clean to also teach that unclean men can be made clean.
It's about destroying sinners and at the time eating swine flesh was considered bad. There are other things also listed that these bad people did. God is not going to return and destroy people simply because they eat pig meat. That's taking the scripture out of context, not to mention out of historical context.
This passage is Moses speaking to Israel.Deuteronomy 5:4 is talking about Moses not all of Israel.
First you say man has not seen God himself, but then you say Jacob saw God himself. The fact is, Jacob did not say the word "God" because he did not speak English. He said "elohim", a word used of angels. No man has seen God. They were seeing angels.Man has seen images and manifestations of God or forms of God not God himself. The Hebrew word translated as angel can have a variety of meanings and we know the Angelic being that appeared to Jacob was God himself as Jacob said I have seen God face to face.
Does any text mention the word "trinity"? No. Does any text mention the trinity consists of three persons comprising the one true God? No. Does any text say the three persons are co-equal and co-eternal? No. You read all of that into the texts. I do not "downplay" such poor scholarship. I outright reject such poor scholarship.Your the one that downplays any verse that backs the concept of the trinity, so it’s not me forcing it into the text, it’s you rejecting any possibility of it being in the text.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Trinitarians came up with the interpretation that the logos was a living being that became a living being. No where in Scripture were men ever taught that the logos was a living being. Therefore, the correct interpretation is that the logos was YHWH's spoken words and thoughts which became a living being. Yeshua was in YHWH's mind/plan until it was time to make him a reality. He was then created as Colossians 1:15 states.Let’s not leave the issue of John 1:1 behind, you need to prove your interpretation from this passage, as you said the Word was not always a living being and isn’t a person. This verse proves otherwise, so I’m not obliged to go to the Old Testament as this rests my case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?