|
Post by Dave on Nov 9, 2023 22:43:18 GMT -5
Dave" Nope it is on topic – what is the spirit – it is a medium – or the wind – make up your mind and present a valid argument Rob" I have always said the word "ruwach" means "medium" for all contexts. Yep – and you call it the Holy Spirit – because you treat it as a polysemiouns word
A medium can do several things Definition: A medium is defined as something that carries something. Yep – the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God
Such a process cannot be constructed only by the Father on His own. Correct – you teach a weak God tha cannot do things – not allowed
It is not possible for a single source of power to make a medium and have his own power flow through it, You teach that your god cannot make angels or man and there is no Holy Spirit
Jews quote and comment nicely using Lam 3:38 that the Father does not do RA, during normal times, hence the RA is created only inside a medium, and for this to work another eternal uncaused cause has to do this by creating the medium as an affect,
1- you do not understand the Jewish teaching of H4391- מְלָא - melâ' and H5437 – סָבַב - sâbab - and missuse it here 2- your doctrine depends on a another separate creator
There is one example of Saul wanting to talk to Samual, and GOD uses the evil process for Saul's sake to make Saul learn things. However we are told in the torah NOT to consult mediums about the dead, because the dead know nothing when they die, in that very hour their thinking perishes, the torah tells us. Just because one place in the torah uses such mediums, does not mean God really approves, when in other places God expressly tells us NOT to use such mediums.
1- Yep – scripture validate the reality of the archon 2- DUH – just because God tells us that they are very real – does not mean He approves of man interacting with them 3- God NEVER says the archon do not exist or are not real – God says do not consult them
(4) Sometimes the Opposer uses the Medium to carry dysfunctional flows of power, You teach that your satan god is more powerful that God – and/or the Spirit of God
You mock my understanding of RA Ruwach. I do not teach a "evil HS". Stop making up stuff to mock me. For four years you have demanded hat the medium is the HS Man has no spirit – each man is just the HS So what is a ra medium – is that the spirit of your satan god?
You do not have an origin of RA and the evil inclination, You know you are tell a bold face lie - and you do it anyway =====================
Dave" Prove that the Spirit of God is not a spirit Rob" A medium cannot exist, so the term "spirit of God" cannot exist either. WOW – so profound! Scripture is wrong yet again.
Dave" Prove that the evil spirits are just evil Holy Spirits Rob" What? The sinning angels are termed "Evil spirits" What is the evil medium of God
There is no such thing as a "evil Holy Spirit"? Are you OK Dave? God is only and ever always TOV, never RA. So what is the evil Spirit of God – your teaching it here
Dave" Why do you teach that the Holy Spirit can be unclean Rob" I do not teach this? OK – What is the unclean medium of God
Dave" You invented the Robert Method - you are the one who has created an evil and unclean Holy Spirit Rob" I have not said anything of the thing. Again you mock.
ABSOLUTELY MOCK - Answer my questions or shut up ====================
Dave" Do you have any examples of your Robert Method actually working anywhere? Rob" well ruwach means "medium" Then why did you teach it as the HS for the last four years Do you have a consistent answer for anything?
Dave" James 2:8 does not say malak torah- who gave you the authority to rewrite scripture? ROB" you know I write torah always back to Hebrew. Correct – you rewrite scripture to fit your own desires IT IS BLASTOPHEMY
Dave" Just how many gods do you have I do not know more than three. Who are your 3 gods – the Creator – biological Jesus – and the god of evil satan?
Dave" Absolutely – your polytheistic pantheon of multiple gods working together as one unit is rejected Rob" Consider a rugby team with 11 players. 11 different individual players = more than 1
Dave" You don’t even deny it any more – you have a pantheon of gods all working together as one. ROB" Not so Just nonsense! ============
You explain to me (1) How can one uncaused cause show anything relational, that requires many uncaused causes to also exist. Correct – you have a weak god that is unable to love his own creation without help
|
|
|
Post by rob on Nov 10, 2023 5:31:46 GMT -5
Greetings Dave ROBPP" Such a process cannot be constructed only by the Father on His own.Dave" Correct – you teach a weak God that cannot do things – not allowedRob" Why don't you discuss how your Father can make a medium, actively control the medium by Himself and allow His own powers to flow through the medium, in order NOT to destroy sinners by His direct presence. Is this construction naturally possible? No, not in my natural way of thinking. But Dave doesn't think about this or even try. You just mock. OK maybe you just do not understand. After all in your view your Father creates both Tov and Ra, so dealing with RA is perfectly possible in your view. But not in mine, if the Father naturally uses RA in his matter, than I find such a concept totally absurd and wrong. Surely a Father would not tolerate both function and dysfunction working together?
Even Jews agree with me on this, Lam 3:38 GOD does not do both Tov and Ra. RobPP" Jews quote and comment nicely using Lam 3:38 that the Father does not do RA, during normal times, hence the RA is created only inside a medium, and for this to work another eternal uncaused cause has to do this by creating the medium as an affect,Dave" 1- you do not understand the Jewish teaching of H4391- מְלָא - melâ' and H5437 – סָבַב - sâbab - and missuse it here 2- your doctrine depends on a another separate creatorROB" Da 2:35 ....and filled <m@la' (Aramaic)> the whole <kol (Aramaic)> earth <'ara` (Aramaic)>. Da 3:19 ¶ Then <'edayin (Aramaic)> was Nebuchadnezzar <N@buwkadnetstsar (Aramaic)> full <m@la' (Aramaic)> of fury <chema' (Aramaic. You quote stuff but do not use Bible verses? H4391 is only used in two places in the torah. Ge 2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth "H5437" the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; IS there any point in raising your statements? You mock but do not teach? Dave" You teach that your satan god is more powerful that God – and/or the Spirit of God For four years you have demanded hat the medium is the HS Man has no spirit – each man is just the HSRob" I have never said "man is just the HS" You agreed with me that on a subatomic level, all things are sustained by GOD. So does that mean, man is the Father? Of course not. It is the Father's power that flows through the medium (adminstrated by the Shadday) that makes man living with a "breath of life" a quality that comes from the Father. So according to Dave, Rob teaches Man is just the Father. Try to read my sentences carefully Dave, stop misquoting me. Surely you agree on a subatomic level the Father sustains all things, matter, biology and the free will of man, including his breath, his character development and his actions. But man is empowered with free will and can independently choose, but the Father empowers that choice with His sustaining powers. Does this make sense to you? Dave" You know you are tell a bold face lie - and you do it anywayRob" I do not wish to be rude, but r eading Jewish commentaries on the origin of the evil inclination is difficult, so what are you trying to say, I am not mocking Jews or your views. Dave" OK – What is the unclean medium of God?ROb" Dunno, you tell me what you mean? ================ Rob" Consider a rugby team with 11 players.Dave" 11 different individual players = more than 1
Rob" So do you agree that the process of unification makes the 11 players into 1 power flow ? DO you accept that such a process exists in biology? Hearts cells have to do this in order to function with compound unity. Heart cells lose their independence intentionally in becoming a unit. You failed to comment on this idea? Am I correct in saying this idea? You failed to comment on marriage, something the Father invented for Adam and Eve. But if the Father is all alone, whom is the Father married to and what unit can the Father demonstrate? Romans 1:20 says the Father shows us the qualities of the godhead by the creation the Father created. Do you agree with this statement? So something is wrong if the Father created animals with two persons of loving, than there is two personalities of loving in the godhead. Romans 1:20 says to accept this. SO marriage is a fundamental quality of GOD, we are made in His image, gender male and gender female, but GOD is not of biology, but of function. So we see things darkly. Obviously elohiym powers is a family unit of love. Or do you deny that the word meaning of a unit does not exist in Scripture? Try to answer my discussions with your discussions, try to post some Jewish quotes on the nature of the Father, try to get some ideas flowing Dave. Stop making pithy remarks, that suggests you are not even thinking about the discission at hand. ============ Dave" Correct – you have a weak god that is unable to love his own creation without helpRob" That is not a discussion of your view, its a mock of me instead. I asked you how can the Father show relational love. He can't. Not by Himself. Loving created creatures is NOT the same as demonstrating love. Discuss this if you can. You also failed to discuss how the Father can send love. The Father can't. He has nothing but Himself as an expression, and this is role playing. Not demonstrating true relational love. You also failed to discuss how the Father can demonstrate faith. Torah says elohiym is faithful. How can this be, if the Father is all there is? Whom is the Father faithful to? Nobody but Himself. =========== Monotheism, belief in the existence of one god, or in the oneness of God. www.britannica.com/topic/monotheismSo they include the idea of a unit, as "many being montheistic". I agree, such a term exists in the torah. "Many can become a oneness" I showed you many examples before, but you ignore them all and make no comments. SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 10, 2023 10:08:30 GMT -5
ROBPP" Such a process cannot be constructed only by the Father on His own. Dave" Correct – you teach a weak God that cannot do things – not allowed Rob" Why don't you discuss how your Father can make a medium,
God said let there be angels and angels appeared – Boom – Done God said let there be man and man appeared – Boom – Done Just like God said let there be beast and beast appeared - Boom Just like God said let there be plants and plants appeared Just like God said let there be heaven and earth - and it appeared Your argument that God CANNOT create is REJECTED -----------------------------------------
RobPP" Jews quote and comment nicely using Lam 3:38 that the Father does not do RA, during normal times, hence the RA is created only inside a medium, and for this to work another eternal uncaused cause has to do this by creating the medium as an affect,
Dave" 1- you do not understand the Jewish teaching of H4391- מְלָא - melâ' and H5437 – סָבַב - sâbab - and missuse it here 2- your doctrine depends on a another separate creator
You quote stuff but do not use Bible verses? H4391 is only used in two places in the torah. IS there any point in raising your statements? You mock but do not teach?
Rabbi Wolf explained it clearly in the video about the Tree of Knowledge If you do not participate in the discussion it is hard to understand what is being said -----------------------------------------
Dave" You teach that your satan god is more powerful that God – and/or the Spirit of God For four years you have demanded that the medium is the HS Man has no spirit – each man is just the HS Rob" I have never said "man is just the HS"
ABSOLUTE LIE – for a years we discussed how man is nothing more than an animal driven around by the HS You argue there is no inner man – no spirit of man – man is just an animal empowered by the HS
Now you argue that the HS is NOT God - God has no Spirit – 172 times the OT is wrong suggesting the Spirit of God --------------------------------------
You agreed with me that on a subatomic level, all things are sustained by GOD. Yes – God bara Himself to fatten creation out of Himself Yes – God is everything – The Rabbi even said you see a bus go by – there goes God Yes – Christ said – split open a rock and I am there Yes- the Holy Spirit expanded from God forming the matrix / ether of all reality Yes – at the sub atomic level – E of God supports the ALL
E=mc2 – open the M and E is there – look inside the c2 and E is there m= E/c2 – c2 = m/E
Both matter and spirit exist – two different expressions of the E - built upon the E - supported / sustained by the E
Why do you doubt God can create angels / angelic spirits? Who origionally created your evil spirits? Who created the unclean spirits? If your god CANNOT CREATE - spirits - who is the other creator that created them? ----------------------------------
So does that mean, man is the Father? Of course not. No Robert – man is not God – what an intelligent argument you make
So according to Dave, Rob teaches Man is just the Father. Try to read my sentences carefully Dave, stop misquoting me.
You just argued that man has no spirit of his own – man is just an animal empowered by the HS Man is just little pieces of the HS walking around in the body of man This is the teaching of Scientology – we are all god – just small fragments of God -----------------------------
Dave" You know you are telling a bold face lie - and you do it anyway Rob" I do not wish to be rude, It is rude to post outright LIES here and expect anyone to take you seriously
It is an outright LIE that your satan is more powerful than God or the Spirit of God
It is an outright LIE that God CANNOT CREATE - angelic spirits, the spirit of man, or even the BEAST spirits we call Principalities / Archon
It is an outright LIE that there are multiple gods in heaven and two of which are locked in a cosmoc struggle over God's right to rule the universe
The Great Controversy is an outright LIE and Ellen White is an outright LIER The SDA was considered a satanic cult by everyone - until the 1960s when a wave of satanic tolerance exploded in our culture - free love - WELFARE - LGBT - and the rise of the Islamic Spring - all designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith
1970 the founding of the Institute for Creation Research - another outright LIE all designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith
As of 2018 there were 242 Christian End-Times predictions that have come and gone Including the Millerites of 1834 + 4 misses by the Jehovah's Witness all designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith
The Great Controversy is an outright LIE and Ellen White is an outright LIER The SDA was considered a satanic cult by everyone - until the 1960s all designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith Everything Robert has said and done here is the all the proof anyone needs
the rise of the Islamic Spring - all designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith Interesting - I graduated in 1974 and remember this on the news The western backed secular Shaw of Iran (and Queen Farah) destroyed the price of oil. He reduced the price of Iranian oil to make a quick buck to solve his internal economy This cause all oil exporting countries to take a hit - so they invented OPEC and oil price controls
(wiki) The Shaw of Iran - Failure of his overly ambitious 1974 economic program to meet expectations raised by the oil revenue windfall. A short, sharp period of economic contraction and decline in 1977–78
Irainian Revolution 1979 Abrahamic Accords - 1979-2016 for the protection of Israel Today - Russia+Iran+China --vrs-- Israel+Saudi Arabia+Egypt
Hab 1:5 Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. Hab 1:6 For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwellingplaces that are not theirs. Hab 1:7 They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves. Hab 1:8 Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat. Hab 1:9 They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand. Hab 1:10 And they shall scoff at the kings, and the princes shall be a scorn unto them: they shall deride every strong hold; for they shall heap dust, and take it.
WHY NOW? Islamic end-time prophesy When the anti-Christ appears - he will rule the earth for a month One day like a year he will rule like a Lion Their calculation in lunar years = 1008 - 1914 and the Lion = England
One day like a month he will rule as an Eagle Their calculation lunar year/12 = 1918 - 2001 and the Eagle = America
Then the anti-Christ wil come back to the Holy Lands to rule for one day like a week Their calculation lunar year/12/4 = 2001 - 2022 or 2023 and the anti-Christ in the Holy lands = Israel
Gnostic - Recognise what is in your sight Does reality facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith - NO Reality validates scripture right down to the smallest iota - Mat 5:17-20 Ellen White's anti-Semetic teaching is just designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith
Gnostic - Recognise what is in your sight All scientific emperical evidence suggest - the ORDER of Gen 1 creation is the truth DieHard creationist are just designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith
Gnostic - Recognise what is in your sight Why does Robert refuse to address Ellen White's use of the Islamic Bahai advent math to correct Miller's failed end-ties prophesy?
Gnostic - Recognise what is in your sight Why does Robert refuse to recognise Allah as a satanas of Chaldean origin and his Islamic religion of Chaldean origin is opposing Israel in the Promised Holy Lands
Gnostic - Recognise what is in your sight Robert denies Judaism and Christianity - but refuses to deny Islam and Allah -----------------------------
Dave" OK – What is the unclean medium of God? ROb" Dunno, you tell me what you mean? What is a ra ruwach? – evil HS – evil medium of God It is your word game – you play this game so others cannot understand you But you cannot even explain it yourself ================
Rob" Consider a rugby team with 11 players. Dave" 11 different individual players = more than 1
You failed to comment on marriage, It takes more than ONE to create a marriage
Exo 33:20-24 - There is only one God His Face - no man can see - the Father Creator His Glory that man can experience - the Spirit of God - the HS His image - His 3D mortal image of God - Christ as Jesus Christ
There is only one God - you need to argue against Judeo-Christianity to protect your Ellen White satan cult all designed to facilitate the 'fallind away' from the faith ============
Dave" Correct – you have a weak god that is unable to love his own creation without help Rob" That is not a discussion of your view, its a mock of me instead. Why do you insist that it takes two different gods to exist for love to exist? Why cannot God love His creation by Himself Judaism and Christianity teach GRACE = God's Love is unrequited You pretend you cannot understand the word Why do you teach that God needs help doing anything? Answer – you teach a weak God that can be pushed around and even used by your satan god
Your argument that God CANNOT create is REJECTED
Your argument there are pantheon of multiple gods working together is REJECTED
Your argument that God CANNOT create spirit is REJECTED
Your argument that your satan god can force God to change is REJECTED
Your argument that your satan god can use the Holy Spirit for evil is REJECTED
Your argument that God CANNOT be Jesus Christ is REJECTED
Your argument that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is satanic is REJECTED
Do I need to be more clear!?
The only way you can promote your satan as a god in heaven opposing the Creator is to deny both Judasim and Christianity
All your pretend talk about Messanic Judaism - what do they say about the archon / principalities? So I post Rabbi Cahn speaking to this very subject - why are you afraid to even watch it?
All your pretend talk about Messanic Judaism - what do they say about the the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? So I post Rabbi Wolf speaking to this very subject - why are you afraid to even watch it?
|
|
|
Post by rob on Nov 10, 2023 18:45:09 GMT -5
Greetings Dave Dave" Rabbi Wolf explained it clearly in the video about the Tree of Knowledge If you do not participate in the discussion it is hard to understand what is being saidRob" I see, so it my part to follow you, not your part to teach me your view, I have to find out your view by myself? Dave" ABSOLUTE LIE – for a years we discussed how man is nothing more than an animal driven around by the HS You argue there is no inner man – no spirit of man – man is just an animal empowered by the HSROB" How wrong you are, you collect your own thoughts and persue your own agenda, your fail to read somebody else's thoughts. You make up stuff. My theology is crystal clear and has been all along. Go back and read of my use of the words "ruwach" and "nashamah" for instance. Dave" Now you argue that the HS is NOT God - God has no SpiritRob" again you fail to read my words, I said the idea of a medium per se does not exist. The SHADDAY functions as a medium in order to make sinful consequences live under a sinless elohiym power, otherwise all dysfunction would immediately cease to exist. In order to fujnction as a medium the medium has to take a passive role, for a medium is defined as something that carries something. Thus the medium can modify the power of the Father, without getting involved directly. Hence the RA and with it SIN can exist without being totally destroyed by the Father;s direct presence. The torah does not say elohiym is "spirit" a term you use but do not define clearly.Dave" 172 times the OT is wrong suggesting the Spirit of God"ROB" The term "ruwach elohiym" refers to the powers of divinity functioning through a medium. This is administrated by the Shadday so the power of the Father can flow into an imperfect world without destroying the imperfect world. Yes the term "medium" exists, so the idea of the HS is fine, for laymen consider this function as real, and indeed it is real. But the term is actually describing the medium function of the Shadday, and it loosely termed the HS, is fine by me as well.Dave" You agreed with me that on a subatomic level, all things are sustained by GOD.ROB" great we both agree on something profound. Dave" Both matter and spirit exist – two different expressions of the EROB" I have to disagree on this idea, for the Bible does not define GOD in this way. Elohiym powers is not spirit nor matter.Hab 3:4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. A hebrew word used only once here. chebyown H2253 Jeff Benner says in his lexicon the term comes from the idea to hide. So the nature of GOD is hidden from our view intentionally. We are not to know what it is. But we do know how it functions. Dave" Why do you doubt God can create angels / angelic spirits? Who origionally created your evil spirits? Who created the unclean spirits? If your god CANNOT CREATE - spirits - who is the other creator that created them?ROB" Why must an unclean spirit be created in order to become unclean? it is not just the free will of the angel to choose other pathway GOD has already designed for free will? If missing means to live without God empowering your living, than your living (is another pathway) is simply living without God empowering your living fully, but only imparitally. Hence your living is unclean because you are not completely living under all of God's power. It is the same idea of darkness, Darkness is an existence of living under less of God's light. Missing is living under less of God's power flowing through your life. I do not see the need for a second creator to create this affect. It is already a part of the design the free will of a creature written in the free will of creatures, both human and angel. Dave" No Robert – man is not God – what an intelligent argument you makeRob" COrrect but you are happy to say man is just HS, is equally a stupid remark.So when GOD the Father empowers matter to live as Man is partnered to GOD via the medium, it does not make man HS, but able to function as uniquely as elohiym power is, with personal natures, as elohiym is personal with personal natures of love. But you cannot fathom this idea for you cannot see plurality within God. You cannot see many united as a unit of oneness. For you the Father exists in solitude expressing love only secondarily through loving his creation only. But this is not the case, The elohiym power is a family of love and the marriage is a unit of oneness, each member expresses love as a unit of one power. Dave" You just argued that man has no spirit of his own – man is just an animal empowered by the HS Man is just little pieces of the HS walking around in the body of man This is the teaching of Scientology – we are all god – just small fragments of GodROB" I have never taught this idea of yours Dave, nor ever used the term Scientology, or that we are fragments of GOD, this is your term "sparks or spirits". Your agreed with me that on a subatomc level all living matter exists by the passive empowering of of the Father within the medium. So now we can grow and uniquely develop our own spirit, which is the Hebrew word nashamah, the breathing of GOD within us, is both literal breathing and spiritual breathing. One of my faviourite verses Pr 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps. We choose our way from free will, and the GOD empowers our daily steps for that way. This verse embodies both Faith and individual development of the human, without making us into robots. Ro 8:16 The Ruwach itself beareth witness with our Nashamah, that we are the children of God: This is my two pennies with the Greek usage of this word Pneumia used twice. In the OT the term is used once with two hebrew words, as the breath of life, but both Hebrew words are inside the same term. SO I am not making up Scripture verses, I am writing the Greek back into the OT Hebrew words, not used in the NT Greek. Many Greek words do not use the Hebrew words. For example kurious, does not distinguish between adonai, adonay, YHWH. So many Hebrew themes are lost in Greek translation.Dave" It is an outright LIE that your satan is more powerful than God or the Spirit of GodROB" I agree whole heartedly, the OPPOSER known as most Christians as Satan, is never more powerful than the Most High. Correct. By the way I have never said otherwise than my statement here. Dave" It is an outright LIE that there are multiple gods in heaven and two of which are locked in a cosmoc struggle over God's right to rule the universeROb" Hmm? Since a false elohiym power only exists by knowing both function and dysfunction, than you are saying dysfunction never exists. But clearly dysfunction does exists. SO you are saying the Father creates both function and dysfunction intentionally for His glory. So under your view the dysfunctional creatures exist sorely for the purpose to test human free will so the humans comes to love the Father who creates both function and dysfunction. And since the humans sinned knowing both function and dysfunction, these are the first ever creatures to know both function and dysfunction, man is able to oppose GOD as a false elohiym power if we humans choose to. But under your view the Father can do both functional and dysfunctional things at will, including breaking his own laws written for humans to guard. So His own laws of love are not eternal and binding to the Father Himself. Does this make sense? How can a Father judge elohiym powers who are human in origin if the Father also does dysfunctional things too? Does this make sense? If Jews write commenting upon Lam 3:38, the Father does not do both TOV and RA? Than where did the dysfunctional world come from and why is it here? Why don't Jews read Ezekiel 28 suggesting the in the past beginning, perhaps cherubims also sinned and thus became a false elohiym power as well, like humans are today? But Jews cannot fathom anything else except monotheism, so the Father is all alone, and therefore nothing can oppose the Father either. We are left therefore in a Jewish domain with questions unanswered. Dave" The Great Controversy is an outright LIE ROb" Hmm? OK where is the thesis of Dave's discussion? I have to find this one my own? Dave" Gnostic - Recognise what is in your sight Why does Robert refuse to recognise Allah as a satanas of Chaldean origin and his Islamic religion of Chaldean origin is opposing Israel in the Promised Holy LandsROB" What??? Dave" It takes more than ONE to create a marriageROb" so the Father did not create marriage? Who did? Dave" Why do you teach that God needs help doing anything?Rob" SO the Father can do all things by Himself? Including role playing? And thus loving? Adam was lonely. It must be lonely for the Father only in your view. Dave" Your argument there are pantheon of multiple gods working together is REJECTEDROB" De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is echad De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is yachiyd (not used in hebrew) De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is a unit. Jeff Benner teaches the word echad means unit, not cardinally one. A unit is not many. Hence your declaration is wrong. A heart is NOT billions of cells. A unit implies the many become compound unity. A rugby team is not eleven players playing together. That would lead to many failures and few wins. A true rugby team is a unit, with one playing ability, and thus many wins. A marriage is a unit. Lev 18 describes the two becoming literally one flesh. " Your argument there are pantheon of multiple gods working together is REJECTED" is totally correct in a sinful marriage, but in a sinless marriage the "many become a unit of one loving spring, not many springs of love". Try to view the Father's definition of marriage. Dave" God CANNOT create spirit is REJECTEDROb" So the Father can create two media, and flow between the two media without destroying either media, and thus allow dysfunction exist, without destroying dysfunction, because in my view function is the only domain the Father works in. is this possible, that the Father can diminish His own powers and make them virtual to sinners without destroying the sinner, all within the construct of the Father Himself? The Father is light 7 fold more brighter than our Sun is now. OK we also need to block the light using a solid object. OK. Can the object be sinless and allow the Father to block His light? Maybe. Than the sinless human wants to walk away from the blocked light in order to sin. Can not the human walk away on his own and sin? Well on a subatomic level the human exists under the Father's power, so who can the sinner sin without the Father destroying the dyfunctional choice to sin? Y ou require a passive power who can allow this without getting directly involved so the sinner can live under a lesser flow of the Father's power. Such a passive power has to exclude the Father's glory and at the same time allow the free will to sin to continue to live. Can not the Father be an active power and a passive power at the same time over distance, space the time? Including in two bodies, as Dave's expression idea? Hmm? Not in my view. Many would agree the Father cannot sin. This implies the Father cannot break his own laws that define sin. But here we have a problem with verses that seem to imply the Father sins, telling Israel to murder all humans who oppose the Father. In my view the Father cannot sin and cannot violate his own laws of love, so the problem lies in understanding the will of the Father in some problem verses. In my view the Father cannot do dysfunction normally, and thus is normally at peace. However is a sinner wishes to sin, the Father has to create the dysfunctional aspect of the ceatures free will to choose, in order for that choice to exist, and thus the Father only does dysfunction when SIN is required to exist or consequences of sin is required to remain. And in my view it is not possible for the Father to make dysfunction exist using His own powers of SELF. In my view a medium requires the passive and active role of another eternal uncaused cause to function in such as way to allow the Father's power to flow through the medium successfully. This affect will only happen once, for sin never arises a second time. Dave" Do I need to be more clear!?ROB" I have never raised many of the concerns you raise. DO you want this forum to stop? Dave" So I post Rabbi Cahn speaking to this very subject - why are you afraid to even watch it?Rob" Give me a transcript so it uses less download on my part. If the message is written, than it's clear and precise. I do not like listening much, it causes debates on the part of the two listening. The written words are more precise and clear. I prefer to read. Dave" So I post Rabbi Wolf speaking to this very subject - why are you afraid to even watch it?ROB" when you watch a video, it comes with visual and audio influence. The written word comes with no such influence. By beholding we become changed, the torah says, hence I dwell in the written words. Todays preaches dwell in special speaking ways to lure the deceptions of the listener. The written word has power. The written word has faith. Post me some of Rabbi Wolf's words for me to read. Thanks. ====================== Now in a quest to answer Dave's brevity, I pose to you to hjelp me read your view:- ======================= Concerned with defending the absolute unity of God, modalists such as Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius explained the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as the one God revealing himself in different ways or modes:[8]ROB" SO as Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius are humans you would like? The "Jesus Only" movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri-unity of God. In other words, oneness theology does not recognize the distinct persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has various forms / modes / manifestations—some see Jesus Christ as the one God, who sometimes manifests Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The core doctrine of Oneness Pentecostal / Jesus Only is that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit. There is one God who reveals Himself in different "modes." ROB" so the Oneness Pentecostalism is a theology you like? This teaching of the Jesus Only / Oneness Pentecostals has been around for centuries, in one form or another, as modalism. Modalism teaches that God operated in different forms or modes at different times—sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. But passages like Matthew 3:16-17, where two or all three Persons of the Godhead are present, contradict the modalistic view. Modalism was condemned as heretical as early as the second century A.D. The early church strongly contended against the view that God is strictly a singular person who acted in different forms at different times. They argued from Scripture that the tri-unity of God is evident in that more than one Person of the Godhead is often seen simultaneously, and they often interact with one another (examples: Genesis 1:26; 3:22;11:7; Psalm 2:7; 104:30; 110:1; Matthew 28:19; John 14:16). Oneness Pentecostalism / Jesus Only doctrine is unbiblical.ROB" so modalism is your view? But you didn't like be saying that? Modalism teaches that God operated in different forms or modes at different times—sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. Isn't that your view? You teach the Father has three different expressions of Himself, the left hand is the Spirit, the right hand is the Christ. Isn't this the same idea as modalism? ================== I found this thesis. I want you to make comments on this =================== cdn.rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/201608-Gimpel-Richard.pdfTHE ONENESS THEOLOGY OF THE UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH INTERNATIONAL AS ARTICULATED BY DAVID K. BERNARD by RICHARD W. GIMPEL B.S., University of Northwestern – Saint Paul, 1999 A THESIS Charlotte, North Carolina August 2016 (a) I will expound upon the term personhood and see if there are any divine correlations. If God does indeed exhibit personality, what effect does that have on a unitarian view of the Godhead? Within personality, there are other innate characteristics such as relationality, communion and love. If God holds these traits as well, does that strengthen or weaken the case for plurality within the Godhead? (b) I will also evaluate Bernard’s claim that the early church fathers held to Oneness dogma, (c) Finally, I will discuss the ramifications for theologically denying the Triune God. If absolute oneness within God is correct, how does that effect soteriology? Can God be singularly one and still exhibit meaningful expiation and propitiation? Can a unitarian God still be a genuine mediator? All of these positions will be accurately evaluated with fairness.===================================================== Finney also stressed the individual’s ability to reason and to respond accordingly. He preached that the fruits of saving faith were revealed through action and self accomplishment. Since original sin did not exist, according to Finney’s theology, sin consisted solely in sinning. People fell in every direction, as if smitten by God. They broke out into spasmodic laughter or cried out vociferously for mercy. Finney’s goal of preaching to invoke an immediate decision was pragmatically realized. He was credited directly or indirectly with the conversions of approximately 500,000 people. The multiple ecstatic experiences of the people become known in the Holiness Movement as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In 1875 in Rhode Island, five persons, known as “gift people” spoke in tongues. . Soon the student body began to seek this new revelation in earnest and within days, “twelve ministers who were in the school from different denominations, were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with other tongues.”29 As noted earlier, this was not the first time someone spoke in tongues, but it was the first time someone received such an experience as a result of specifically seeking the Holy Spirit with the expectation of glossolalia.
There was only one divine person and his name was Jesus. Father and Holy Spirit were merely titles used to designate various aspects of Christ’s person. Chapter 4 Oneness theology is said to be nothing more than a rehash of the ancient modalism heresy as held by Praxeas (second century) and Sabellius (third century). While Bernard and others are certainly sympathetic to their cause, the United Pentecostal Church International holds its own nuanced views on modalism.
The second form of modalism, modalistic monarchianism, strikes a much closer chord to Bernard’s Oneness. It held that God is “absolute one” while at the same time confirming the absolute deity of Jesus. Within this form of modalism, there is a distinction between traditional Sabellianism and what most contemporary Oneness proponents believe today. Sabellius taught a strict successive-manifestation theory of the Godhead. That is, while agreeing that God is “absolute one,” He only manifested himself in distinct and separate roles chronologically throughout history. Initially, he played the role of Father, then on Earth as the Son, and in this current, post-accession dispensation, he is the Holy Spirit.
ROB" In other words the Father is only role playing in these three expressions. According to Bernard, “God has many titles, but He is one being.” The doctrine of the UPCI is succinctly stated by dual affirmations: 1) God is absolutely one with no distinction of persons and 2) Jesus Christ is the complete fullness of the Godhead incarnate . The foundational support for Bernard’s Oneness theology is the Old Testament Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” In this verse, Bernard claims, we realize God “used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness.”4 Other Old Testament passages seem to concur.
Isaiah 44:6b states, “I am the first and I am the last: besides me there is no god.” Isaiah goes on to reiterate, “I am the LORD and there is no other” (45:6). Correspondingly, Zechariah 14:9 says, “On that day the LORD will be one and his name one.” Because of the transparency of these verses, Bernard contends, “The Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.”5 This “absolute one” is defined as a God without any essential divisions in his nature. Moreover, within him there are no plurality of persons. Rather, they maintain God only has a plurality of manifestations.
ROB" Or in Dave's words "expressions". These manifestations are in no way limited to three, but contain a myriad of roles, titles, attributes and relationships throughout history.
ROB" Hmm? Dave's would see only three expressions? Christ also identified himself as God when he responded to Thomas’ request to see the Father, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Likewise, in John 10:30, Jesus plainly claims divine unity when he states clearly, “I and the Father are one.” Paul adds his support in Colossians, when he claims, “For in him the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily” (2:9). These verses are repeatedly used by Bernard and his supporters as proof-texts for a unitarian view of God.ROB: What ? unitarian view of God? Doesn't Oneness Theology teach GOD is one, now they say GOD is a unit? Which is it? I come to understand the word meaning of this word later.... bother Bernard contends that since the Old Testament affirms God is singularly one and the New Testament confirms Jesus is divine, then it “logically follows that Jesus is the Father.”10 Confidently, he claims only two proof-texts are needed for support.11 The first is Isaiah 9:6b: “his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Since there is only one father (Malachi 2:10 and Ephesians 4:6) and since Isaiah is clearly referring to the coming Messiah (Jesus) as being the Father, then the rational conclusion is that the Son is the Father. Additionally, in Colossians 2:9 Paul states, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Since the Godhead includes the role of the Father, then logically the Father must dwell in Christ. For Bernard, the idea of a unitarian God could not be simpler. In fact, he oftentimes seems flummoxed by the orthodox Trinitarian perspective. ROB: I am confused, is GOD a unit, or is GOD one ? For Bernard, the title Father always refers to God’s deity. It never refers to his humanity. The Father is the divine nature within the Son’s humanity.
ROB" Confused? Bernard realizes on the surface this is a problem, but prepares his sympathizers to view such instances with four helpful aids in mind: 1. The distinction between Jesus and his relationship with the Father is not a distinction between persons, but rather between Spirit and flesh. 2. Jesus had a unique dual nature. When reading a difficult passage, the reader must ask himself what role is being described? His role as man, as God, or both? 3. When there does appear to be a plurality of relationship between Christ and the Father, the reader needs to remember it is a plurality of roles to mankind, not persons. 4. The gospel writers had no concept of the Trinity, so even if some passages seem to indicate a duality of persons, it would be inconceivable to think that would be the intent of the original authors. With these concepts in mind, Bernard attempts to decipher some of the more troubling passages for Oneness. In other words, the divine nature of Jesus (i.e., the Father) created the audible voice to be heard to confirm not relationship, but divinity. However, Bernard and the UPCI contend these prayers do not indicate a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Father. Rather, it is again merely a division of natures. The humanity of Jesus, who was fully man, sincerely prayed to the deity of Jesus, who was fully God (the Father). This was more than just a struggle between two divine wills. It was a struggle between the human will and divine will within Christ If the Son, as second person in the Trinity, were praying to the Father, it seems to logically follow that the Son would be inferior to the Father by asking for guidance and strength.ROB" Wouldn't this simply be an act of FAITH, that one must ask another for power? Both are equal, but one cannot function in one's own power. Doing so is breaking faith, a sin. Oneness proponents are aware of the many other verses throughout the gospels (and New Testament) that make a distinction between Father and Son. However, no matter how many and how varied, the answer is the same: “The way to understand these verses is to view them as distinguishing the divinity of Jesus (the Father) from the humanity of Jesus (the Son).”============= Another dichotomy between apparent persons in the Godhead is the dual witnesses required for validation of guilt or exoneration. The Pharisees were masters of the Old Testament law and very aware of this rule in Deuteronomy 17:6. Jesus used this precept of the law to confirm he was indeed the Messiah. In John 8:17–18, Jesus states, “In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”20 Again, however, Bernard sees this as nothing more than the divine witnessing to humanity. The Father (the divine Spirit nature within Jesus) was one witness while the Son (the human nature within Jesus) was the other witness, thus completing the paradigm=============== The final Father/Son quandary for Bernard and the UPCI is the Johannine plural usage for the Godhead. In John 14:23 Jesus says, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Here we see an apparent notable comparison between persons within the Godhead. Not so, says Bernard. For it is only metaphoric language that Christ is using. Jesus could not be speaking of a literal entrance into the physical body of believers (for obvious reasons), nor could he be speaking of dual divine spirits (one of the Son and one of the Father) because it would contradict other Scripture (cf., Ephesians 4:4). Rather, he is speaking of a metaphorical union between the believer and God. A union of mind, purpose, plan, and life with Christ. This union comes not through two persons in the Godhead, but is with God through the man Christ Jesus. Bernard succinctly states, “Clearly, then, this passage alludes to the union with God that the Son of God had and that we can enjoy by believing and obeying the gospel.”22 For Oneness advocates, this explains the usage of plural language.==================== For Bernard and the UPCI, God the Son is not a Biblical term and therefore is categorically rejected from their religious vernacular. The Son of God, Bernard contends, did not come into being until the incarnation. Before that time, he was simultaneously the Father and Holy Spirit. Since man could not see an invisible spirit God, he “made an exact likeness of Himself in flesh, impressed His very nature in flesh, came Himself in flesh, so that man could see and know him. Bernard laconically states, “The Son of God had a beginning. Bernard concedes that these verses state the Son existed from all eternity as God and with God. However, the Son that existed was only the eternal plan in the mind of God. This plan “of a future Sonship existed with God from the beginning—as an idea in the mind of God.”30 Norris agrees: “In the mind and plan of God, the Son was envisioned. Likewise, ontologically speaking, since Jesus was God, he therefore did pre-exist as God before the incarnation. Oneness proponents point to John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am” and Revelation 13:8b (“the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world”) as support for their proleptic explanation.================================ Laconically stated, it is the only way to be born again. The major proof-text used for this doctrinal position is 2 Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” Others are added for support: Romans 8:9 (“Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him”), Galatians 4:6 (“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts”) and Philippians 1:19 (“through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ”) Not only is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Jesus, but he is also the Father.----------- For Bernard states, “If the Father and the Holy Spirit were two persons, then Jesus would have two fathers.”35 Since Jesus cannot have two divine fathers, and since God is absolutely, singularly one, then the Father and the Holy Spirit are two titles for the same unitarian being.
ROB" Why can't they view the HS as a Mother and the Father as a Father, as those being born require parents? See Luke 1:35 --------------- A gain, this Johannine passage seems to distinguish between persons within the Godhead. Bernard does not concur. He claims a Trinitarian reading of these verses proves too much. For the Holy Spirit then would have a subordinate role (“not speak on his own authority”) as well as potentially being limited in knowledge (“whatever he hears he will speak”). In other words, “he would not be able to say or know anything except what he received from another person.”37 Since this cannot be, Bernard supposes the passage to be more of a warning than a reassurance. He claims Jesus is here describing the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the subsequent working of the Spirit within the believer. The Spirit-filled believer does not have supernatural authority and is therefore not to claim divine authority or doctrinal revelations that are contrary to the Word of God. The apparent “separation of persons” language is merely a conceptual—not personal—distinction between God as Father in relationship versus God as Holy Spirit in action or operation.
ROB" Why not consider the HS as a feminine being, and the voice of the one coming to you is from the Father, via the HS. "For the Holy Spirit then would have a subordinate role" is correct, the HS functions as a medium, an in Hebrew masculine takes precedence over feminine in functions. The function of the medium is a channel for the Father or Son's voice. ============= These titles are numerous throughout Scripture and include the Trinitarian formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Bernard says, “We must understand that ‘the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ is Jesus.”40 It is under this paradigm that the UPCI can explain away troubling verses such as Matthew 28:19 (“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), 2 Corinthians 13:14 (“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”) and 1 Peter 1:2 (“according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for the obedience to Jesus Christ”). All of these various titles are only veiled references describing different aspects and attributes of God that are now perfectly fulfilled in Christ. The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is scrubbed away with a two-pronged attack. Frist, the verse indicates a singular name, not names. The name that encompasses all of these divine titles is none other than Christ himself. Again, Bernard goes back to the Jewish Shema for his foundational defense saying, “The Bible teaches emphatically that God is absolutely one (Deuteronomy 6:4, et. al.), so these titles cannot refer to separate personalities or distinct centers of consciousness in God.================ And for unitarians, speaking of God as a plurality of persons is abhorrent. ROB" The word "unitarian" refers to "one" - not as I see the term "unit". I see. Talk about word game playing confusion. Why can't they use the term "oneness". We can only use anthropomorphic language to describe God, yet using such language inevitably leaves a void. We innately understand in order to have a personal relationship with God it seems logical to require that God himself be a person. However, God is not like a human person. He is much “greater, more perfect, without a body and without bodily restrictions. God is one in essence. He is one in mind, will and emotions. Yet, within the Godhead is a clear distinction of persons. Without a doubt, the Bible seems to attribute personality traits to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit throughout scripture. But what makes up personhood?----------------------- The original use of the word persona seems to fit the modalists’ definition of the Godhead nicely. For the Greeks and Romans, it referred to the mask worn by an actor on stage and embodied both the actor as well as his part in the theatrical performance. By extension, persona included that part a man plays in society in which a definite task is assigned, similar to a staged drama. For Oneness adherents, this conforms to their idea of a unitarian God playing the different roles (i.e., wearing the masks) of Father, Son or Holy Spirit. The mask often changed. The God behind the mask did not.ROB" So the Father is only role playing with three different expressions? ================== Furthermore, if it is correct that personhood signifies relationship, then it logically follows that God, as a relational being, must be in communication with himself. Bavinck says it well, “If God is not productive and is unable to communicate himself inwardly, neither can he impart himself outwardly, in revelation and creation.”9 Scripture seems to concur. There are numerous passages that indicate divine communion between persons of the Godhead. A few examples are Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”), Isaiah 6:8 (“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”), Psalm 110:1 (“The Lord says to my Lord”), Hebrews 1:5 (“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”), John 14:15 (“I will ask the Father and he will give you another Helper”) as well as the High Priestly Prayer in John 17, where Christ is in beautiful communion with the Father. As with communion, the same could be said for love. For God to be love (1 John 4:8), there must be an object of that subject’s love. If God is perfect, which both sides agree that he is, then he must manifest perfect love. However, if God is absolute one, then the only love he could show is self-love. Self-love is not the highest form of love, rather love of another is. It is impossible for God to not be the highest good. Therefore, his love must involve the love of another person(s) before all of creation. The only possible explanation for this quandary is a perfect, divine Trinity. As C.S. Lewis famously notes: The words “God is love” have no real meaning unless God contains at least two persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, he was not love.
Bernard knows this is a Oneness weakness, so he counters by saying we cannot limit God to our concept of love, nor can we limit God to time. He projects presciently that God could and did love his creation from eternity past. ----------- Albeit imperfectly, these illustrations demonstrate how the concept of personhood equates to relationship. And how relationship equates to communion. And how communion equates to love. All of these eternal characteristics beautifully support the idea of a Trinitarian Godhead. Otherwise, “a God who eternally existed in ‘relationship’ only to the utter blackness of nothingness, would be a God who could not be eternally personal, could not be a God who was eternally social, and thus could not be a God who was eternally loving.” This, as the UPCI is unknowingly left with, is a God whose very essence is solitude. Therefore, a unitarian god is in essence alone. If he decides to be social and loving, this is something that is of secondary concern for him, because from all eternity past, he chose to be in solitude. Relational love and communion are not innate within him.
It should come as no surprise then, since we are created in his image (Genesis 1:26– 27), that we, as created persons, mirror these same relational traits. We are created to be in relationship, not solitude, with others. In fact, we long for such communion. ================ This crass vision of three distinct spiritual bodies in heaven is rightly depicted as tritheism.ROB" I would disagree. Elohiym power is described as Family. The word "echad" means "unit", the family function as a unit, hence have oneness. In fact, in his magnum opus, The Oneness of God, he leads off his initial chapter with the verse in bold italics: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”ROB" Scripture does NOT say this, it says elohiym is a unit. NOT one, as in the cardinal number one. A unit is defined as many becoming cardinally one in function and one in power. Such a term is used many times in nature. In marriage the two become a unit of one love. In a rugby team the elven players unite to become a unit of one playing power. In a paddock the two oxen are yoked to become one pulling power. In a heart organ the billions of cells intentionally lose their independence to become unified as one heart functioning as one power. ---------- The Hebraic word for one in this passage is echad. Echad is the word used in the Old Testament to denote compound plurality, “for a unity that is not a simple singularity.”15 It is the kind of united pluralistic one as in “one nation under God” or the idea behind “bunch,” as in “a bunch of grapes.” Its parallel uses are helpful: Genesis 1:9 (“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered into one place”); Genesis 2:24 (“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”); 1 Chronicles 12:38 (“all the rest of Israel were of a single mind to make David king”). The consistent idea behind echad, then, is one made up of others or, as Strong’s Concordance says, “a united one.”16 Significantly, it is always used in reference to God being one (Zechariah 14:9: “On that day the LORD will be one and his name one”). ROB" AS Jeff Benner explains the word meaning for echad is "unit" NOT one. However the term echad implies the "many become one" when the action of uniting the parts, the completed action is a unit of compound unity, hence one power.
Interestingly, there is a Hebrew word for a singular, mathematical one. It is yachead
and is used about a dozen times in the Old Testament, but never as a descriptor for God. Clearly, the use of echad in the Shema, as opposed to the available yachead, seems to weaken the unitarian’s case. It seems odd Moses would not use the latter if he was indeed trying to emphasize God’s singular oneness.------------ Additionally, there is another clue to be found in Deuteronomy 6:4’s use of God. The Hebrew word translated God in the middle of the verse (“The LORD our God, the LORD”) s Elohim, which is the plural of El. Similar to echad, it connotes a plurality of persons in the divine Godhead. El, the singular usage of God, is normally parsed with a qualifying adjective. Elohim is used over 2000 times in the Old Testament and consistently indicates a plurality within the Godhead. Bernard does not deny Elohim is plural, but argues it expresses majesty, not a literal plurality, within the Godhead. However, this objection is weakened by the fact that “majestic plural” is never used to describe kings in the Bible nor did any Hebrew king ever refer to himself in such a manner. A “majestic plural” appears to be a comparatively recent custom. According to Klaas Runia, “In view of the Old Testament emphasis on the unity of God, the plural form for God Elohim is remarkable. It cannot be explained as a ‘plural of majesty’; this was entirely unknown to the Hebrews. ------------- Additional Old Testament support for a plurality of persons within the Godhead is found in Genesis 1:26 (“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’”) and Isaiah 6:8 (“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”). Added to the plural name, Elohim, is the use of plural pronouns used by God when speaking of himself. More than that, there are distinct divine conversations recorded in Old Testament Scripture as well. Psalm 2:7 (“The LORD said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’”) is quoted several times in the New Testament to indicate the Son is referring to Jesus and not David (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5, 5:5). Psalm 110:1 (“The LORD says to my Lord”) is the singlemost quoted verse in all of the New Testament and is notably used by Christ to denote his eternality with the Father.
Bernard is aware of these problematic verses, but deflects them with one of three explanations: 1) God was talking to angels 2) God simply is counseling his own will 3) The foreknowledge, or idea, of the Son is in view. These objections are shaky at best and will be briefly discussed in order. First, nowhere in the Bible is it recorded that angels took part in creation. Nor is it ever stated that man is made in the image of angels. Second, there is no such thing as an abstract will. ----------------- Simply put, the reason for the doctrine of the Trinity is that is what the Bible indicates through its progressive revelation of the Godhead. God is three persons and those three persons maintain distinct relationship with each other throughout eternity. ROB" Not as Dave claims the Father expressing Himself as a trinity of role playing expressions of Himself. --------------- One of these ways is through legal accountability. The Mosaic justice system, which the first century Pharisees held in high regard, included the pronouncement of guilt or innocence based upon the evidence of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:9, 19:15). A singular accusation could not illicit a conviction. Jesus expresses this idea of plurality when the Pharisees accused him of being a witness to himself. Not so, responded Christ, for “In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me” (John 8:13–18). Here is a terrific example of the duality and distinction within the Godhead. Not two Gods, but two distinct persons within the one God. ROB" correct. A unit is describing the oneness of judgement. In marriage a unit describes the oneness of love, the provider love and the responder love unite as one spring of love. --------------- Bernard and the UPCI place tremendous weight on the dual natures of Christ (i.e., the human nature and the Spirit nature). ROB" I notice Dave does too. ----------------- For only God could be the sinless sacrifice that was required. Upon investigation, it appears the UPCI has so distorted the separation between the deity and humanity of Christ that the integrity of his very person is threatened. What results is not an incarnation, but merely a deity dwelling within a man. This cannot bring about salvation, for it is only through God living as a man that this is achieved.ROB" When Jesus died on the cross, this has to include both the divine and the human natures of Christ died, otherwise the sacrifice was not achieved for the law requires life for life. Dave like the UPCI seems to indicate only the humanity of Christ died. ================= There is perhaps no stronger defense for the pre-existence and distinctiveness of the Son than the prologue of John’s gospel. Of particular import is John 1:1–3, 14: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Bernard and his fellow scholars know this is their Achilles heel and put much effort into explaining it away. Bernard’s summation is that the Word was merely the pre-existing thought (not substance) in God’s mind of the proleptic Son to come.28 He backs up this reasoning with ancient Greek philosophical ideas on the word Logos. The Logos was simply the thought, speech and action of the ethereal controlling principle of the universe. John merely parlayed the contemporary understanding of the term and connected it with the prescient view of Christ. However, it was never intended to be seen as a second person within the Godhead. Bernard contends this doctrine came about with help of the Greek Apologists (AD 130–180) whose “chief innovation was the doctrine of the Word (Logos) as a second divine person subordinate to the Father. Additional support for the Word being synonymous with God comes from first century Targums.34 These loose translations (i.e., paraphrases) of the Old Testament repeatedly substituted Word for the holy name of God. For example, in Targum Neofiti 1, Exodus 19:17 (“Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God”) reads “to meet the Word of God.” This is not the exception. Barclay says that in the Targum of Jonathan alone the expression is used in this way about 320 times.35 There can be little doubt, people who were familiar with the Targums were familiar with the Word being a designation for the divine. ================= Bernard and the anti-Trinitarians allege the apostles grew up devout, monotheistic Jews who knew nothing of a plurality within the Godhead. When Christ came and taught them of his divinity, they had no concept of a separation or plurality within the Godhead, but assumed Jesus was now the fullness of God come in flesh. If that were truly the case, then the subsequent generation of church leaders, some of whom were directly mentored by the apostles themselves, would no doubt carry that modalistic theme into their teachings and writings. Likewise, if the Trinity was a bastardization of orthodox Oneness belief, then any widespread promulgation of it would be stamped out as heretical--------------- There are three primary authors in this period whose writings survive. They ministered from approximately AD 95 to 120, and were all leaders of churches that were established in apostolic times. The first of these was Clement of Rome, who is likely the same Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. He wrote his eponymously named epistle, I Clement, in AD 95 or 96. In it, there are two seemingly Trinitarian phrases. The first is in 46:6: “Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of Grace poured out upon us?”3 The context of this rhetorical question is within an argument against those who might bring disunity to the church body. The presumptive use of Trinitarian language in this context seems to reflect the congregation’s foreknowledge and acceptance of such teachings. Not so, claims Bernard. By relating the passage to Ephesians 4:4–6, he simply states the key thought is Oneness, not three-ness.4 He does not give further explanation.
The second relevant passage in I Clement is 58:2, “For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit (who is the faith and hope of the elect).”5 This verse seems to lucidly agree with some nascent formulation of Trinitarian belief and teaching by the bishop and his congregation. It is hard to imagine any strict modalist writing in such a manner—the distinction of persons is too sharp. Bernard casts doubt on the authenticity of the manuscript and equivocates the language, finally stating rather weakly, “This phrase is not explicitly Trinitarian.” --------------------- However, Jesus is never equated or substituted with the Father. In true scriptural form, Ignatius consistently maintains a distinction between the Father and Son. For example, in Magnesians 7:2, he says, “Let us all run together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father and remained with the One and returned to the One.”9 Likewise, in Philadelphians 7:2 he says, “Become imitators of Jesus Christ, just as he is of his Father.”10 And finally, in Ephesians 9:1 he states, “you are stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit.” 11 Despite Bernard’s contradictory claims, there is no hint of modalistic theology in any of Ignatius’ writings. It is true, he oftentimes does call Jesus God, but never exchanges Jesus for the Father or vice versa. He always maintains a distinction between persons. Bernard realizes these examples are problematic and says: "Fourth-century Trinitarians apparently recognized how damaging the writings of Ignatius were to their cause and realized that none of the writings of this age clearly supported their doctrine. Consequently, they interpolated Ignatius’ epistles heavily and forged additional ones" He gives no direct or indirect references to back such a claim.------------- The third relevant early church father is Polycarp (AD 112–118). It is believed he was a direct disciple of the Apostle John. As such, he is an important witness to the faith and doctrine of the early church. He wrote one extant letter, Epistle to the Philippians, in which he notes, “Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up . . . and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead” (Philippians 12:2). Again, we see a familiar dichotomy between the Son and the Father. This is pluralistic language we do not see from unitarians----------- ROB" Do these three witnesses "Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp" all existing before AD 200. Where they influenced by Dave's Roman Catholic Edit? There became such an increase in the separation between persons within the Godhead, that eventually the Nicene Council (AD 325) had to formally set definitional parameters
If the Oneness historians are correct in assuming the apostles were strict unitarian believers, then any delineation from that belief by their mentees wouldquickly have been corrected. We do not see any such formal church correctional statement or creed.------------ There are several other noteworthy Apologists who use Trinitarian language in their writings, but for brevity I will expound only upon one more. Athenagoras (AD 133–190) taught that God is one, while also distinguishing between God and the Word. In his most remarkable of statements he writes in Supplicatio Pro Christianis, “to know the true God and the Word that is from Him—what is the unity of the Son with the Father, what is the fellowship of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit; what is the unity of these mighty Powers, and the distinction that exists between them, united as they are—the Spirit, the Son, and the Father.”19 Again, if the apostles did not lay the foundation for this ubiquitous Trinitarian mindset, then where did it come from? ================== Oneness soteriology consists primarily of a three-step process: repentance, believer baptism in Jesus name and receiving the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. The magnitude and glory of the person and work of Jesus Christ is hard to overstate. For orthodox Christianity, it is rightly the very core of all religious dogma. Bernard and the UPCI do not deny the atonement, but because of their strict unitarian position, they remain silent on Christ placating God’s wrath, coming under divine curse, being literally forsaken by the Father during his passion and being a subsequent mediator. Rather, the work of Christ is reduced to a metaphorical golden key that unlocks any and all necessary soteriological doors if used properly. ------------- More than that, he was forsaken by God on our behalf. In keeping with true covenantal form, he became the suffering servant of Isaiah. He was “smitten by God, and afflicted” (53:4b); he was “numbered with the transgressors” (53:12); and it was the “will of the Lord to crush him” (53:10). On the cross, God turned his back on Jesus and cut him off from all fellowship with him. The isolation from his Father was more than he could bear, as he agonizingly cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). He did not feel forsaken. He was forsaken. Otherwise, our curse and sinfulness was not actually imputed to him. Bernard and the UPCI disagree. Bernard retorts, “It was not one person of the Godhead being deserted by another, but the human nature feeling the wrath and judgement of God upon the sins of mankind. Since it is impossible for God to exist in plurality, this is the only logical conclusion for the UPCI. As such, it strips the cross of its meaning, purpose, weight and subsequent glory. The result is an over-emphasis on religious initiations and rituals.-------------------- Finally, the distinction between persons of the Godhead allow continual mediation between our heavenly Father and his bride. Christ remains our covenantal mediator (Hebrews 9:15, 12:24; 1 Timothy 2;5), as well as our heavenly advocate (1 John 2:1). It is a great comfort for orthodox Christians to know Christ is “sitting at the right hand of the Father” proclaiming his righteousness, and projecting it on our behalf. Oneness advocates have nothing so comforting
-----------------COnclusion------------- T he key for Bernard, and the UPCI, is not dual personhood, but a strict dichotomy between natures.
However, a solitary oneness of God is not rationally sustainable. For without plurality, God cannot be primarily (only secondarily) personal. And if God is not personal within himself, then he cannot be relational. Likewise, if not relational, he cannot be communicable. And, as I have demonstrated, if he is not a plurality, then he cannot be love. There “must needs” be a plurality within the Godhead in order for there to be authentic and realistic meaning to the atonement. God, the Father, did send his Son into the world to be an actual propitiation. Christ actually did absorb the wrath of the Father. He actually did become cursed of God. And he actually was forsaken by Him. All of this constitutes the amazing glory of the passion of Jesus Christ and the love between the persons of the Godhead. Without it we are hopelessly lost. As C.S. Lewis so wonderfully said, “This spirit of love is, from all eternity, a love going on between the Father and the Son. And now, what does it all matter? It matters more than anything else in the world.”
Without a plurality within the Godhead, the UPCI is left with a misunderstanding of the atonement. This misunderstanding inevitably leads to a devaluation of the atonement. ROB" I have seen this before in Dave's statements of the sacrifice of Jesus. Rob summary" I have included this study to try to understand your view, which you fail to explain. You do not understand the Hebrew concept of the "many become oneness". You deny the Hebrew theme. The fact is the idea of "many becoming oneness" is evidence in nature, in marriage and in many examples of Scripture. You would be better off denying Jeff Benner and doing what Jews say of echad, that the word meaning is "one" not "unit". But I have my scholar who supports me, Jeff Benner, the term "echad" means "unit" the noun form of the verb form "unite" when "many become oneness" in function and purpose. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 10, 2023 21:43:46 GMT -5
Dave" Rabbi Wolf explained it clearly in the video about the Tree of Knowledge If you do not participate in the discussion it is hard to understand what is being said Rob" I see, so it my part to follow you, not your part to teach me your view, I have to find out your view by myself? Repeat – if you do not participate in the discussion it is hard to know what is said
Dave" ABSOLUTE LIE – for a years we discussed how man is nothing more than an animal driven around by the HS You argue there is no inner man – no spirit of man – man is just an animal empowered by the HS ROB" How wrong you are We have argued this over and over You teach man has no spirit – there is no inner man – man is just an animal empowered by the HS If you want to deny your own teaching now – that is up to you
Dave" Now you argue that the HS is NOT God - God has no Spirit Rob" again you fail to read my words, I said the idea of a medium per se does not exist. Correct – spirit does not exist therefore there can be no Spirit of God - no spirit of man - no angelic spirits - no evil spirits - no unclean spirits - spirits do not exist Yet you teach that your satan god was an angle created by God - and evils spirits from your satan god possess all mankind
The SHADDAY functions as a medium You just said the medium does not exist – now you change your doctrine the very next sentence
The torah does not say elohiym is "spirit" a term you use but do not define clearly. Dave" 172 times the OT is wrong suggesting the Spirit of God
Dave" Why do you doubt God can create angels / angelic spirits? Who origionally created your evil spirits? Who created the unclean spirits? If your god CANNOT CREATE - spirits - who is the other creator that created them? ROB" Why must an unclean spirit be created in order to become unclean? If they do not exist how do they become unclean spirits?
Dave" It is an outright LIE that your satan is more powerful than God or the Spirit of God ROB" I agree whole heartedly, the OPPOSER known as most Christians as Satan, is never more powerful than the Most High. Now you deny your own teaching God created a tov only world – how did your satan god change God Plan against God’s Will You just argued in the previous post that your satan can use the HS for evil ------------------------------------------
Dave" It is an outright LIE that there are multiple gods in heaven and two of which are locked in a cosmic struggle over God's right to rule the universe Dave" The Great Controversy is an outright LIE ROb" Hmm? OK where is the thesis of Dave's discussion? I have to find this one my own? A pantheon of multiple gods is 100% pagan crap Who can oppose God – no one
Dave" Gnostic - Recognise what is in your sight Why does Robert refuse to recognize Allah as a satanas of Chaldean origin and his Islamic religion of Chaldean origin is opposing Israel in the Promised Holy Lands ROB" What??? Ellen White teaches that Israel is done – obsolute – whatever is going on in the Middle East has nothing to do with scripture according to you and your Ellen White theology In all the discussion with you - you have failed to take a stand
Dave" It takes more than ONE to create a marriage ROb" so the Father did not create marriage? Who did? What one one have to do with the other I can play this game also - ROb" so the Father did not create marriage? Who did? Pink elephants with red toe nails
Dave" Why do you teach that God needs help doing anything? Rob" SO the Father can do all things by Himself? Including role playing? And thus loving? Christian GRACE = God’s unrequited love – why do you deny the Grace of God
Dave" Your argument there are pantheon of multiple gods working together is REJECTED "Your argument there are pantheon of multiple gods working together is REJECTED" Dave" God CANNOT create spirit is REJECTED ROb" So the Father can create two media, Your teaching that God CANNOT create angels is REJECTED ROB" Why must an unclean spirit be created in order to become unclean? If they do not exist how do they become unclean spirits?
Dave" Do I need to be more clear!? ROB" I have never raised many of the concerns you raise. DO you want this forum to stop? If you came here just to LIE – then go away and worship your satan somewhere else You try to teach every blastophemous thing I listed - your denial is meaningless
Dave" So I post Rabbi Cahn speaking to this very subject - why are you afraid to even watch it? Rob" Give me a transcript Always with an excuse – if it is not worth it – go away
Dave" So I post Rabbi Wolf speaking to this very subject - why are you afraid to even watch it? ROB" when you watch a video, it comes with visual and audio influence. Always with an excuse – if it is not worth it – go away
====================== Now in a quest to answer Dave's brevity, I pose to you to hjelp me read your view:- ROB" so modalism is your view?
You know my view – and I refuse to play your word game if you will not participate in the discussion – why should I
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 10, 2023 23:12:41 GMT -5
modalists - the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as the one God revealing himself in different ways or modes:[8] Yes – God – The Spirit of God – and Christ are all God Just three different names for one GodThe Father – that no man can see The Glory of God – Holy Spirit - the Left hand And the 3D image of God – Christ – the Right Hand ROB" so modalism is your view? But you didn't like be saying that? Isn't that your view? You teach the Father has three different expressions of Himself, the left hand is the Spirit, the right hand is the Christ. Isn't this the same idea as modalism? The problem with modality is that it cannot co-exist Water can be liquid – gas – or ice – but not simultaneously
The "Jesus Only" movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri-unity of God. In other words, oneness theology does not recognize the distinct persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has various forms / modes / manifestations—some see Jesus Christ as the one God, who sometimes manifests Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The core doctrine of Oneness Pentecostal / Jesus Only is that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit. There is one God who reveals Himself in different "modes." ROB" so the Oneness Pentecostalism is a theology you like? I am familiar with this – but failure to recognize the distinct persons is errorAt the Cross – it was Christ the image of God – RH When the Spirit descends upon man – it is the Spirit of God – LH At the tent with Abraham and Sarah – it was Christ the image of God – RH When the Spirit comes to tend the flock - it is the Spirit of God – LH When the Comforter comes - it is the Spirit of God – LH At the Second Coming - it is Christ the image of God – RH The Father – that no man can see The Glory of God – Holy Spirit - the Left hand And the 3D image of God – Christ – the Right Hand ================== I found this thesis. I want you to make comments on this the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In 1875 in Rhode Island, five persons, known as “gift people” spoke in tongues. Soon the student body began to seek this new revelation in earnest and within days, “twelve ministers who were in the school from different denominations, were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with other tongues.”29 As noted earlier, this was not the first time someone spoke in tongues, but it was the first time someone received such an experience as a result of specifically seeking the Holy Spirit with the expectation of glossolalia. Yes- it is the scriptural teaching of Jesus Christ Why you include it here I have no idea - you claim is it a satanic teaching The second form of modalism, modalistic monarchianism, strikes a much closer chord to Bernard’s Oneness. That is, while agreeing that God is “absolute one,” He only manifested himself in distinct and separate roles chronologically throughout history. Initially, he played the role of Father, then on Earth as the Son, and in this current, post-accession dispensation, he is the Holy Spirit. ROB" In other words the Father is only role playing in these three expressions. Role playing? Hmmm?Exo 33:20-24 No man can see the face of God and live – so God cannot face man directlyIt is the Glory (Spirit) of God that man can experience – Even that – God had to shield Moses from the Glory But Moses could see the back of God – the image of God – the 3D image - Christ Again the issue is with co-existence Nothing chronological about it – God is always God always Spirit and always Christ – no separation
According to Bernard, “God has many titles, but He is one being.” The doctrine of the UPCI is succinctly stated by dual affirmations: 1) God is absolutely one with no distinction of persons and 2) Jesus Christ is the complete fullness of the Godhead incarnate Yep – God incarnateGod only has a plurality of manifestations. ROB" Or in Dave's words "expressions". Word gameBernard contends that since the Old Testament affirms God is singularly one and the New Testament confirms Jesus is divine, then it “logically follows that Jesus is the Father.”10 ROB: I am confused, is GOD a unit, or is GOD one ? Who is the Creator? OT says God the Father is the Creator NT says Christ is the Creator Only you are confusedHow many coins are pictured? Only one coin + two faces = a trinity You can never see a whole $1 coin - impossible You can see the Heads side or the Tails side - one at a time Simultaniously - never are the 3 seperate - and never are they seen toghther Scripture's example is the best - Exo 33:20-24For Bernard, the title Father always refers to God’s deity. It never refers to his humanity. The Father is the divine nature within the Son’s humanity. ROB" Confused? Why? - DUH - it is so simpleThe word Father always refers to God on His throne Jesus of biology is NOT the Father But - the Father is incarnate within Jesus If the Son, as second person in the Trinity, were praying to the Father, it seems to logically follow that the Son would be inferior to the Father by asking for guidance and strength. ROB" Wouldn't this simply be an act of FAITH, that one must ask another for power? Both are equal, but one cannot function in one's own power. Doing so is breaking faith, a sin. Yes – incarnate – Jesus Christ was inferior to the Father It is proof that Jesus of biology also has (yester ra) At one moment of weakness – Jesus of biology thought of SELF-PRESERVATION But answered Himself saying – Not my Will but God’s Will
================================ Laconically stated, it is the only way to be born again. The major proof-text used for this doctrinal position is 2 Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” Others are added for support: Romans 8:9 (“Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him”), Galatians 4:6 (“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts”) and Philippians 1:19 (“through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ”) Not only is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Jesus, but he is also the Father. Yep – and Robert denies it all----------- ROB" Why can't they view the HS as a Mother and the Father as a Father, as those being born require parents? See Luke 1:35 God is the HS – so you have Father + Father God + biological Mary = Son of ManLuk 1:35 And the messenger answering said to her, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God; The HS came over Mary – the Power of the God – so that the child could be called the Son of God--------------- Bernard and the UPCI place tremendous weight on the dual natures of Christ (i.e., the human nature and the Spirit nature). ROB" I notice Dave does too. Everyone does!----------------- ROB" When Jesus died on the cross, this has to include both the divine and the human natures of Christ died, otherwise the sacrifice was not achieved for the law requires life for life. Dave like the UPCI seems to indicate only the humanity of Christ died. Robert likes to brag that his satan god killed the Creator ================= ROB" Do these three witnesses "Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp" all existing before AD 200. Where they influenced by Dave's Roman Catholic Edit? Thay are the fathers of the Roman Edit – if you had paid any attention over the last four years you would know thatThere became such an increase in the separation between persons within the Godhead, that eventually the Nicene Council (AD 325) had to formally set definitional parameters Yep – th Arian controversy – that Robert never heard of until this year on this forum
|
|
|
Post by rob on Nov 11, 2023 6:31:38 GMT -5
Greetings Dave
RobPP" (a) The medium per se does not exist. (b) The SHADDAY functions as a medium Dave" You just said the medium does not exist – now you change your doctrine the very next sentence Rob: I do admit finding consistent meanings is hard on the www.
"In physics, refraction is the redirection of a wave as it passes from one medium to another. The redirection can be caused by the wave's change in speed or by a change in the medium". End quote.
Here for example the use of medium is wrong, it should be media, not medium.
Media is something made of matter, but a medium is not. I understand your concerns, but than science does not always make consistent word meanings and definitions.
In my view, a medium is a function between media, hence is not concrete, not a noun you can see or feel or touch, hence does not exist as something concrete. But as a function, a medium exists.
Since the medium function is administrated by the Shadday, than in laymen terms (simple non technical language), a medium can be said to exist as something concrete. What you do in your view is make a "spirit" concrete, which is false in my view. The concrete hebrew word for a "spirit thing" is the "owb", which KJV translates as "familiar spirit".
Dave" If they do not exist how do they become unclean spirits? Rob" All creatures in our sinful world live and breathe in a medium administrated and contolled at a sub-atomic level by the Father. You agree to this idea.
In my view this is done by the Shadday, and the laymen terms is the work of the Holy Spirit. So if a sinning angel wants to sin living in the medium of GOD, they can, and in doing so become unclean.
The same thing can happen to humans who also sin, while living inside the medium of GOD, humans become unclean too.
Hope this makes sense to you now. It does not matter if you are saved or unsaved, the same medium of GOD keeps you alive on His probation of grace.
Dave" Now you deny your own teaching God created a tov only world – how did your satan god change God Plan against God’s Will You just argued in the previous post that your satan can use the HS for evil ROb" Are you wanting to know, or looking for ways to mock?
Since meeting you 4 years ago I have come to understand GOD did not create a TOV only world. You have to understand that sinning angels sinned first, long before a human creation on earth.
Jude says that plainly
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Since angels left their estate, they were missing God because they chose to, using free will to sin. Darkness is seen by Jews as a simile of sin. And they say darkness came first during human creation over the earth. Since earth was formless and void with darkness, these things describe a RA world full of sinning. Hence the angels were already on the earth, before GOD created a human creation over the earth.
What I find strange is the very first use of "unit" echad.
Ge 1:5 ..And the evening and the morning was a "day" "unit".
Jeff Benner does not translate echad as "unit" even though he sees the word meaning as "unit"
Ge 1:5 he called out night and evening existed and morning existed one day.
Maybe Gerald Schroeder is wrong to say this is the first time that "TIME" existed?
Maybe something else is on God's mind?
Maybe GOD is making some remark about sin and sinlessness? If the angels were the first to sin, than GOD is creating a sinless world of morning over the darkness, as a unit of time, and as a unit of controversy ( a term you do not like - but I will use it here)
In order for this to work, since GOD never does RA, God allows the Shadday to make a medium function, both active and passive, so the Father's flow can move through the medium, allowing RA to exist when creatures wish to sin. Such an arrangement does not make any agency of GOD an evil agency, but the arrangement allows any creature to live as they please, including the choice to sin, and do RA. I hope this helps you to understand. And since when a creature wishes to sin, God allows the agency for that sinning to rule inside the medium and take charge so the sinner can sin some more directly against GOD. We see this in 1 Kings 22:22
Since we know the Devil is the Provider of all lies, it is logic to assume the being who went to be a lying medium, is the Opposer, the Devil. DAVE" Always with an excuse – if it is not worth it – go away Rob" Hmm? You are worth my time Dave. Dave" The problem with modality is that it cannot co-exist Water can be liquid – gas – or ice – but not simultaneously ROb" I see
Dave" I am familiar with this – but failure to recognize the distinct persons is error ROb" I see
Dave" Simultaniously - never are the 3 seperate - and never are they seen toghther
Scripture's example is the best - Exo 33:20-24 Rob" you say your three expressions of the Father cannot exist at the same time?
Re 4:8 ¶ And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
Here is YHWH (Greek kurios) Elohiym (Greek theos) and Shadday (Greek pantokrator) , strange this suggests three thrones and three co-eternal Beings upon each throne, as GOD. =============
Dave" God is the HS – so you have Father + Father God + biological Mary = Son of Man
Luk 1:35 And the messenger answering said to her, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;
The HS came over Mary – the Power of the God – so that the child could be called the Son of God ROB" Are you saying the Father and the Father expression both came over Mary? to do a born process, the Son of Man?
A born process requires gender male and gender female, the Father and the Holy Spirit (Shadday) are heavenly parents.
You do not consider this idea. Dave" Robert likes to brag that his satan god killed the Creator ROb" I do not. the Moral law demands the death of the Saviour, not some Opposer.
Dave" They are the fathers of the Roman Edit – if you had paid any attention over the last four years you would know that ROb" How far back does the Roman Catholic edit go? We are talking before 200 AD? If the Essenes existed near the Dead Sea Scrolls in AD55, you are saying almost immediately (AD 70 to AD 200) the Christian church was edited by Rome? Thus not a single true Christian witness survived before the Roman Edit?
=================== I noticed you did not think much of the thesis on Oneness Pentecostalism. ====================
The point of the thesis was to rebuke your three expressions idea of a solitary heavenly Father.
He was in all fairness also presenting reasons why plurality in the term elohiym exists, but you ignored the study.
One last attempt on my part:-
(1) Do you acknowledge that "echad" exists as a word in Hebrew?
(2) Do you acknowledge that according to Jeff Benner "echad" means a "unit" ?
(3) Do you also acknowledge Jews do not see "echad as unit", but as the term meaning "cardinally the number one"?
So we have a problem. You claim to respect Jeff Benner as a scholar, so why do Jews read the famous schema incorrectly
De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one...
When according to Jeff Benner the verse should read
De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is a unit....
(4) DO you acknowledge that "many can become a unit" and this function exists in nature as a lesson book to explain the invisible nature of the God head, as Romans 1:20 tells us to do?
If you are not willing to hypotheses these statements, than we cannot test them or falsify them in examining Scripture. If I was to ask you to describe the Father as three expressions, what natural objects could I use and what words in the torah could I look up? You often mention a coin, are there any verses that speak of the Father as a coin?
There are plenty of verses that speak of the Father as a flint rock called tsuwr.
De 8:15 Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;
Job 28:9 He putteth forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the mountains by the roots. 10 He cutteth out rivers among the rocks; and his eye seeth every precious thing.
Ps 114:8 Which turned the rock into a standing water, the flint into a fountain of waters.
Ex 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Rob" A verse you like to use is about the Father.
De 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
How can the Father be a God of truth (also a related word to faith) if the Father is all alone?
De 32:13 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
Why two rocks mentioned here, cela rock and tsuwr rock? Who is the He? De 32:15 ¶ But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
Notice the tsuwr rock of his salvation.
De 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee Strange language?
1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Tsuwr is elohiym. in fact the word "elohiym means the Father whose power flows" in the Ancient hebrew letters.
Ps 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
Now we have a problem, we introduce two rocks.
Ps 78:15 He clave the rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths. 16 He brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers.
When you see the picture Kim took of this place in Jordon, the great cela rock sits on top of the foundation tsuwr rock from which the streams of water did rise.
When you see pictures of Mt SInai which Kim shows, the one mountain shows up as closer view with two peaks.
Hence GOD is not yacciyd (solitary) , GOD is echad (a unit).
There exists plurality of persons within elohiym powers.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 11, 2023 8:47:39 GMT -5
RobPP" (a) The medium per se does not exist. (b) The SHADDAY functions as a medium Dave" You just said the medium does not exist – now you change your doctrine the very next sentence Rob: I do admit finding consistent meanings is hard on the www. Why do you always look for another’s belief to post Has Ellen White's teaching left you so empty that you do not know what you believe anymore - you must look for other peoples beliefs to post
Dave" If they do not exist how do they become unclean spirits? Rob" All creatures in our sinful world live and breathe in a medium administrated and contolled at a sub-atomic level by the Father. You agree to this idea. Where is your answer? You state that God cannot create spirits – so who created them?
So if a sinning angel wants to sin living in the medium of GOD, they can, and in doing so become unclean.
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Yes – the archon of Gen 6 fathered the Nephilim – I agree
Now answer the questions before you 1- Who created the angelic spirits if God cannot 2- Who created the evil spirits if God did not create spirits 3- How does any of this prove your satan god created himself by rebelling, hating, and opposing God’s right to rule the universe 4- precept upon precept, line upon line - why can’t you offer other verse to support your satan god except Catholic Ezk 28 or Isa 14 5- Why you do insist that Jesus Christ taught satanic possession and called it Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Dave" Simultaniously - never are the 3 seperate - and never are they seen toghther Scripture's example is the best - Exo 33:20-24 Rob" you say your three expressions of the Father cannot exist at the same time? LIER - MISSREPRESENTER - Quote "never are they seen toghther"
Did Moses see all three at once – No Moses never saw the face Moses experienced the Glory only after God shielded him And Moses saw the back - this is the only thing scripture says he saw Mock scriptute all you want – does not change the facts
Luk 1:35 And the messenger answering said to her, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God; The HS came over Mary – the Power of the God – so that the child could be called the Son of God ROB" Are you saying the Father and the Father expression both came over Mary? to do a born process, the Son of Man? Nope – I am saying you are deliberately misreading scripture – Nope – I am saying you are deliberately missrepresenting scripture – Nope – I am saying you are deliberately corrupting scripture – on purpose to mock scripture and God
Dave" Robert likes to brag that his satan god killed the Creator ROb" I do not. the Moral law demands the death of the Saviour, not some Opposer. Then why do you teach that your satan killed God – then deny you teach satan is superior
ROb" How far back does the Roman Catholic edit go? We have had this conversation for 4 years – too bad you never bothered to take it seriously
|
|
|
Post by rob on Nov 11, 2023 15:04:01 GMT -5
Greetings Dave Dave" Why do you always look for another’s belief to post Has Ellen White's teaching left you so empty that you do not know what you believe anymore - you must look for other peoples beliefs to post?Rob" Try reading Ellen White understanding of the HS yourself spiritualsprings.org/ss-1383.htmThere are at least 6 pages on this study, click NEXT on the bottom of each. One considers the HS as a medium. Written 2012 years ago now, you will find my views have not changed. Dave" Where is your answer? You state that God cannot create spirits – so who created them?' ROB" I did answer your question "So if a sinning angel wants to sin living in the medium of GOD, they can, and in doing so become unclean." The very next sentence? What are you asking? Dave" Now answer the questions before you1) Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, God created cherubims. All of them sinless with free will to choose and respond to love. 2)Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. A chief cherub chooses to exercise free will to sin. This cherub was given the function to "make holy (guard) the stones of fire" and this is seen by me as the "eternal words of GOD" the "ten directions written by the finger of GOD on stone". 3) Choosing to sin, is termed in Scripture as missing God's flow of power and also breaking faith. The penalty for missing is an immediate ceasing to exist. However since free will is exercised for the first time, God chooses to make provision for free will to run for an allotted time to allow other free will creatures to experience "the fruits of living with less of God in your life". The consequence of living with less of God in your life is termed RA, the fruit of sin or the consequence of sinning. Hence there is no need for a second creation or a second creator, the changes all happen in the exercising of free will and GOD creating RA, so sinning can be observed. Since GOD would immediately destroy RA, this affect is made inside a medium, where the affect is seen without the Father's power destroying the RA directly. A medium can diminish powers and make images that are virtual. 4) I have offered many different ways to prove an Opposer exists and thus is an opposing elohiym power, by definition. In fact every time a human sins, we are actually opposing God, also by definition. But God loves all creatures, but hates their sinning. This included the sinning angels too, and many of them did repent and choose to come back to GOD, but alas many also did not. The Hebrew word itself "oppose/opposer" tells you that there is a word meaning that exists to oppose things. Even used by GOD to oppose the passage of a donkey, ridden by a sinning prophet. God wanted the sinning prophet to bless Israel, rather than curse Israel. The prophet relunctantly agreed. You have listened to my many themes on this, why would you continue to bring this up again? Ps 82:1 (YLT) --A Psalm of Asaph. God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge. How strange Youngs Literal does not make the word "midst" which is plural, demand another plural from elohiym, but instead Young translates singular? Translators violate grammar rules? Ps 82:1 (KJV) <<A Psalm of Asaph.>> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. Ps 82:1 (ASV) <<A Psalm of Asaph.>> God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods. Ps 82:1 (BBE) <A Psalm. Of Asaph.> God is in the meeting-place of God; he is judging among the gods. Ps 82:1 (DBY) <<A Psalm of Asaph.>> God standeth in the assembly of *God, he judgeth among the gods. Ps 82:1 (MKJV) A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the gods He judges. Ps 82:1 (NKJV) <<A Psalm of Asaph.>> God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. Ps 82:1 (RSV) A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: Ps 82:1 (WEB) <<A Psalm by Asaph.>> God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods. ROB" all these translators follow grammar rules, the "midst of" is plural hence the noun must be plural "elohiym's" Ps 82:1 (YLT) --A Psalm of Asaph. God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge. ROB" violate grammar rules, plural with singular terms. So who are these elohiym powers that elohiym judges? Ps 82:6 ¶ I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Here is a clue, humans are false elohiym powers because we know both RA and TOV. What about the word " prince" here? 368 verses use "sar" Ex 2:14 And he said <'amar>, Who made <suwm> thee <'iysh> a prince <sar> and a judge <shaphat> over us? So a prince is also a judge, by logic, one who rules over others. Nu 22:21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 ¶ And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. Here is a massive clue here, written as poetry metaphor. Balaam is a sinning prophet working for a prince (sar) but GOD chooses to OPPOSE the "side-kick" and therefore GOD also chooses to OPPOSE the "sar", the king who rules people with sinning. If you study precept upon precept, line upon line, you will find the "sar" refers to Jesus and the other Opposing prince who fell from heaven, and as Tabor said is the "god of this world". So Psalms 82 is about GOD judging the "god of this world" the "sar" who fell from heaven, but continues on earth. 5) I teach no such thing. Why do you mock? Now answer the questions before you(1) How can a Father in solitary existence from eternity, show relational love, all the Father can show is self love, which is not true love and it from our understanding of sin, selfish love. (2) The torah teaches the royal directions describing love as faithful. How can a Father all alone show faith in His own words if there is no other being to share those words with? (3) Jesus is the imrah, the personification of the Father's words. Thus expresses and demonstrates faith, and supports the Father's words in action. Explain this passage than Pr 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Explain the existence of three words here "ruwach" "eloah" and "imrah" who is termed a "son". The word "elohiym" is not mentioned here. (4) You deny the word meaning of "echad" meaning "unit". This tells us elohiym power is a unit. When Eve and Adam sinned, the word "adam" is also a "unit" Hence the word "elohiym" is also a "unit" Ge 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man "adam" is become as one of us, to know good and evil: Hence the concept of "plurality" exists in the term "eloihym" as well as the term "adam", the "two become a unit" the torah says. You deny this teaching. Why? (5) Why do you deny Romans 1:20 ? Ro 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 that they are without excuse: The Creator created nature is a certain way to reveal to humans the invisible nature of the Godhead, that no human is without excuse. You deny this teaching, why? (6) Adam saw the personalities of love in each animal kind, but in himself saw himself only - solitary. He felt lonely. The Father is teaching us He would be lonely too. GOD is a community of loving that flows as a unit, one spring. Why do you deny Romans 1:20 and the creation teaching us about GOD? Dave" LIER - MISSREPRESENTER - Quote "never are they seen together" Did Moses see all three at once – NoROB" OK sorry, but I showed you a verse where all three elohiym members of GOD are all seen together all at once. But you deny the verse? Why? ROBPP" ROB" Are you saying the Father and the Father expression both came over Mary? to do a born process, the Son of Man?Dave" Nope – I am saying you are deliberately misreading scripture – Rob" Is that all you have to say? nothing? ============================ There is no point in continuing with Gordon's study until you make some answers to my questions Dave. Not a single Jewish quote have you supplied either. www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/955327/jewish/Laws-of-Reciting-the-Shema-Part-II.htm The Tetragrammaton (pronounced "Adonai") implies that G‑d was, is, and will always be—at once (i.e., He is beyond time), and that He is the Master of all. The name Elohim (or Eloheinu) alludes to His strength and power, and that He has the ability to carry out His will in the upper and lower worlds. ROB WHy say the upper and lower worlds? Every Hebrew letter also has a numerical value. When saying echad ("one"), a person should concentrate on the fact that G‑d is the only One (alef) in the seven heavens and in the earth (together these equal chet, eight) as well as in all four directions (dalet).8 These three letters spell echad.ROB not a single comment upon echad's meaning. One should say the first verse as follows: Shema Yisrael (Hear O Israel), pause, Adonai Eloheinu (the L-rd is our G‑d), pause, Adonai echad (the L-rd is one). The pauses emphasize the meaning of the words.ROB" Jews see echad meaning "cardinally one" The verse actually says the "Adonai echad " "The LORD is a unit" DO you choose to support Jeff Benner meaning of echad like Robert does, or do you choose to deny Jeff Benner and support the Jewish view of echad, meaning "cardinally one"? Please reply, and find some Jewish quotes on echad. Take your time too, I have to go to work now. Tery to write something than nothing. I have spent over 6 hours replying this week, even reading a whole thesis of over 40 pages. Where is your time spent on my questions? Enjoy your week. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 12, 2023 7:26:28 GMT -5
Rob" Try reading Ellen White understanding of the HS yourselfYou have taught Ellen White theology here for four years – we should all understand what she has taught you by now – UNLESS you have misrepresented her? 1- Who created the angelic spirits if God cannot 2- Who created the evil spirits if God did not create spirits Dave" Where is your answer? You state that God cannot create spirits – so who created them?'ROB" I did answer your question "So if a sinning angel wants to sin This is exactly why everyone knows you have no answers You claim = God CANNOT create spirits – impossible you say So I ask who created them Your answer – Eze 28:14 God created cherubims. Where is you answer?Do you have one – or are you trapped with yet another Ellen White contradiction that you cannot answer – refuse to answer.So now explain your answerWhat is the Holy Cherub of God Job 32:8 But there is a cherub in man: Pro 20:27 The cherub of man is the candle of the LORD, Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the cherub shall return unto God who gave it. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Cherub is cherub. Have you answered the question?– or have you tried to slip out of your Ellen White contradictionYou demand as FACT - God CANNOT create spirit / ruwach So answer - who created it-------------------------------------- 4) I have offered many different ways to prove an Opposer exists Yes Robert – no one doubts the BEAST of Revelation and thus is an opposing elohiym power, by definition. Yes Robert – there are many other-gods on earth – scripture is filled with them NONE of them are in heaven opposing God ALL of them are opposing man on earth Opposite to you and Ellen White
The Hebrew word itself "oppose/opposer" tells you that there is a word meaning that exists to oppose things. DUH Even used by GOD You have listened to my many themes on this, why would you continue to bring this up again?Trying to get you to clarify your Ellen White contradiction Trying to get you to answer a simple questionFirst you say – satan rebels, hates, and opposes God (as a good Catholic) Then you say – God uses satan to facilitate God Will (as a Jew or Gnostic) Which doctrine is yours?4) I have offered many different ways to prove an Opposer existsYes Robert – the opposer opposes man How does this prove your satan rebels, hates, and opposes God
How does this prove your satan god is face to Face in heaven waring, rebeling, hating, and opposing God's right to rule the universe - as you and Ellen White teach------------------------------------ How strange Youngs Literal does not make the word "midst" which is plural, demand another plural from elohiym, but instead Young translates singular? Translators violate grammar rules? Ps 82:1 (KJV) <<A Psalm of Asaph.>> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (ASV) (BBE) (DBY) (MKJV) (NKJV) (RSV) (WEB) ROB" all these translators follow grammar rules, the "midst of" is plural hence the noun must be plural "elohiym's" Ps 82:1 (YLT) --A Psalm of Asaph. God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge. ROB" violate grammar rules, plural with singular terms. WOW – You could not be more wrong and you are proud of your own ignorance.1- You DENY Gordon's Majestic Plurals (is that the right term you deny) – Elohiym is always plural according to you You demand the verse say gods standeth in the congregation of God; they judgeth among the gods.If you include Gordon majestic Plurals God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among God God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth in the midst of God God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth in the center of God God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth in the middle of God 2) ROB" all these translators follow grammar rules, the "midst of" is pluralAbsolute LIE HOT+ H7130 – קֶרֶב - qereb From H7126; properly the nearest part, that is, the centre, WLC - H7126 – קָרַב - qârab A primitive root; to approach (causatively bring near) for whatever purpose: - (cause to) approach, (cause to) bring (forth, near), (cause to) come (near, nigh), (cause to) draw near (nigh), go (near), be at hand, join, be near, offer, present, produce, make ready, stand, Midst – is not plural – it is an adjective - indicating whereI asked you if you understood the expression in the midst of God But you didn’t bother to answer my question------------------------------------------ ROB" violate grammar rules, plural with singular terms. Yes they do violate grammar rules and include their own religious bias Elohiyn should always be plural - or always singular - not both in the same context------------------------------------------ So who are these elohiym powers that elohiym judges? Where do you get this from? You are adding words to the verse- this verse does not say this at all.This is the Jewish teaching of - to fill vrs to encompass - mele/sabab Hal of AHR - termed this in his words as - "God of the sea -vrs- god in the sea" God is the encompassing whole - everything that happened happened within God / God's creation This verse says - God of all of God's creation - judges from within God This verse says - God of all of God's creation - judges from within His creation The WLC says - God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: So who are these elohiym powers that elohiym judges? Where do you get this from? You are adding words to the verse- this verse does not say this at all.--------------------------------------- How many times have you asked me about the 1st Commandment? Who are the opposing elohiym powers you askNow you say So who are these elohiym powers that elohiym judges?Here is a clue, humans are false elohiym powers because we know both RA and TOV.------------------------------------------------ (1) How can a Father in solitary existence from eternity, show relational love, all the Father can show is self love, which is not true love and it from our understanding of sin, selfish love. (2) The torah teaches the royal directions describing love as faithful. How can a Father all alone show faith in His own words if there is no other being to share those words with? Why do you deny GRACE – what is GRACE Robert? Grace is unrequited love – the very opposite of your teaching(3) Jesus is the imrah, the personification of the Father's words. What do your words mean? Is Jesus Chirst just a man? Is Jesus Christ just God?I, most Christians, and Gnostics say both - (man)+(God) - Nicean Creed and you argue against this teaching--------------------------------------------------- Explain this passage than Pr 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Before or after I employ the Robert corruption method?Who gathered the mediumWho gathered the Holy SpiritWho gathered the spiritIf it is just the wind – then God Did It!5 Every word of God is pure: 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.Explain the existence of three words here "ruwach" "eloah" and "imrah" who is termed a "son". To me this says – Spirit – God – ChristThe word "elohiym" is not mentioned here. So – what is your point?Hence the concept of "plurality" exists in the term "eloihym" You deny this teaching. Why? This teaching is called the Trinity – there is only one God there is no other. No man cannot see his face – but man can experience His Glory (HS) or man can see His image (Jesus Christ) You argue this is a pantheon of 3 different gods(5) Why do you deny Romans 1:20 ? Ro 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 that they are without excuse: The Creator created nature is a certain way to reveal to humans the invisible nature of the Godhead, that no human is without excuse. Why do you post this ? You deny this? You cannot deny this loudly enough.God created a tov world – that was God’s only design / Plan Then it all changed – corrupted – now it is flawed Psa 19:2 The heavens show the handiwork of God you claim the only thing science can uncover is the handiwork of satan and sinWhich contradiction do you believe---------------------------- ROBPP" ROB" Are you saying the Father and the Father expression both came over Mary? to do a born process, the Son of Man? Dave" Nope – I am saying you are deliberately misreading scripture – Rob" Is that all you have to say? nothing? 5 Every word of God is pure: 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. You add words to the verse to deliberately corrupt its meaning============================ There is no point in continuing with Gordon's study You offered it as the PROOF you needed to prove yourself correct Are you afraid it does not support your view after all?---------------------------------------------------- www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/955327/jewish/Laws-of-Reciting-the-Shema-Part-II.htmThe Tetragrammaton (pronounced "Adonai") implies that G d was, is, and will always be—at once (i.e., He is beyond time), and that He is the Master of all. Yep – the Father Creator – is beyond man’s ability to comprehend – beyond our reality – larger than creation – no man can see the Father – the Face of God
The name Elohim (or Eloheinu) alludes to His strength and power, and that He has the ability to carry out His will in the upper and lower worlds.ROB WHy say the upper and lower worlds? DUH Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. One should say the first verse as follows: Shema Yisrael (Hear O Israel), pause, Adonai Eloheinu (the L-rd is our G d), pause, Adonai echad (the L-rd is one). The pauses emphasize the meaning of the words.ROB" Jews see echad meaning "cardinally one" The verse actually says the "Adonai echad " "The LORD is a unit"The Jews do not believe in multiple gods working together to form a unit No one does – except you and other pagan false religions
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 13, 2023 9:13:07 GMT -5
Jews have always seen God as a duality – male/female Gen 1:26 the image of God. The Female aspect of God = the Shekinah – the unseen spirit of the Lord that moves among the people. Male – the father Creator is always on His throne 24/7 in the 7th heaven Jews have always seen God as a duality – male/femaleGod is not within creation – God is larger / greater than creation But God holds creation in His Hands Psa 95:3 For Adonai is a great God and a great King above all gods. (Ellen White - and her Great Controversy - contradict scripture)Psa 95:4 In His hand are the depths of the earth, the mountain peaks are His also. Psa 95:5 The sea is His—He made it, and His hands formed the dry land. Psa 95:6 Come, let us worship and bow down. Let us kneel before Adonai our Maker. Psa 95:7 For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, the flock of His hand. Isa 40:12 Who has measured the waters in the palm of His hand, 100 Bible Verses about God Created Us With His Own Hands www.openbible.info › topics › god_created_us... The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you ... 100 Bible Verses about God Holds Me In The Palm Of His Handwww.openbible.info › topics › god_holds_me_... Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. Isaiah ... But God can reach into creation with His Left or Right Hands Female = the Left hand – Holy Spirit - Shekinah – that moves among the people Male = the Right Hand – the Hand of creation – Instruction - Salvation Judaism also teaches that God Tabernacles with man! – Sukkot God in heaven – tabernacled with man in a TENT – then in a Temple
The only thing the NT Gospels adds to this story = God in heaven – tabernacled with man in a TENT – in a Temple – and as Jesus Christ (God incarnate)Jewish duality becomes Christian Trinity
|
|
|
Post by rob on Nov 15, 2023 6:34:39 GMT -5
Greetings Dave Dave" This is exactly why everyone knows you have no answers You claim = God CANNOT create spirits – impossible you say : So I ask who created them Your answer – Eze 28:14 God created cherubims. Where is you answer?Rob" I think you are answering from your viewpoint. since all your angels do not have free will, you are asking does the Father create evil creatures? Answer: NO La 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? I have Jews to thank for this verse and their commentary. This applies to your demons, yours Satanas and your archons too Dave. A heavenly Father cannot, will not create dyfunctional creatures. For that matter a heavenly Father would never create entropy within matter either. In my view, such bad things came about from sinning creatures, and the bad things are made observable in the Father's world, by the Father creating the bad things, the sinners wishes to experience. Unlike your view, all creatures of higher order have free will, to make sinning decisions if they choose to. DAVE" So now explain your answer What is the Holy Cherub of God Job 32:8 But there is a cherub in man: Pro 20:27 The cherub of man is the candle of the LORD, Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the cherub shall return unto God who gave it. Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Cherub is cherub.ROB" Psalms 104 answers some of your queries: Ps 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; Here the messengers are made "ruwach" as a medium. What is a medium? A function where something is carried by something. In this case the messages of the Father, are carried by the cherubims and this function is termed a "medium". Question: Does this verse imply the messengers are medium? As Dave implies in his post? My answer is no. First the term "medium" is not something that exists as a "being or person" it's a function. Ps 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath "medium", they die, and return to their dust. Can "medium" be translated as "breath". Breath is the air carried by the human in and out as breathing, a sort of physical medium function. Character is also something carried by God into the human, under their free will to choose, and this process also functions as a medium. Notice when the medium functions (from God) are shut down the human dies and returns to dust (not some etheral spirit spark as Dave claims). Ps 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit "ruwach" "medium", they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. I am not sure of the purpose of adding this verse here, it seems to imply the "medium" is created by GOD, and this is OK, as the medium is created by GOD. One problem from Dave, is a medium is the function of two media, where something is carried by something. How can the Father create Himself, with creatures, and than create his power flow to flow through himself, into the creature, without killing the creature should the creature choose to sin. A question for Dave, why are you swapping cherub for ruwach? These are different words, with different word meanings? Dave" You demand as FACT - God CANNOT create spirit / ruwach So answer - who created itRob" You say the weirdest things? I just gave you Ps 104 Cherubs are made as mediums. Hence carry the Father's messages to humans across time and space, and hence function as a medium. Ps 104 also say GOD creates ruwach, so this implies the MEDIUM, is a functional created concept, not created being, not a created person, a created function. Who does the work of the function of a medium? The Shadday does, also referenced by laymen as the HS. Dave" NONE of them are in heaven opposing GodRob" I have never said the fallen angels are currently opposing GOD in heaven, but they sure oppose GOD on the earth. I don't get you, if sinning angels are helping humans to sin, they are by logic also opposing God. If God saved Israel from Egypt, why it is only 2 out of 3 million were saved to walk into the promised land? Joshua annd Caleb? All the others died, because of unbelief. Some repented and GOD saved them, like Moses for instance. But most of them were not saved for the kingdom of heaven, because they failed to have faith. Who took their faith away from them, even within such a short time as 40 days? And you say these false elohiym powers are not opposing God? Yeah right? Dave" ALL of them are opposing man on earthROB" Funny last time I read Scripture the sinning angels were kicked out of heaven, unto the earth. So yes they tempt humans to sin. Why do they do evil to humans? Because they are spiteful? This means they hate GOD and thus oppose God by destroying his creation. Why do you think the earth was void, formless and in darkness? Did God purposely leave them to sin alone, or it this the result of their sinning over time? Have a look at what man is doing living on the earth? Animals becoming extinct, climate change, nuclear bombs, etc. Torah says Jesus comes when mean is destroying the earth, ie earth becomes void, formless and darkness once more. Most of mankind is a false elohiym power who also opposes GOD. Dave" First you say – satan rebels, hates, and opposes God (as a good Catholic) Then you say – God uses satan to facilitate God Will (as a Jew or Gnostic) Which doctrine is yours?ROB" I am going to throw a new theory your way, thanks to reading some Jewish commentary. They say darkness came first. They say darkness is a simile of sin. When GOD created creation over earth a second time, notice Ge 1:5 ...And the evening and the morning were a day unit. I disagree with Gerald Schroeder, this is some evolutionary ploy about day one. Darkness is a reference to the sinning angels domain/ Lightness is a reference to the sinless domain of GOD Here GOD combines the two into a unit. How is this possible? No idea. Normally things on the same side are combined into a unit, not things that are opposites. I think this verse is alluding to creating both good and bad as a "Great Controversy". We term this idea a unit. Isaiah 45 tells us GOD creates RA , yes, but when and why? Obviously once only during a sinning problem. Dave" How does this prove your satan god is face to Face in heaven waring, rebeling, hating, and opposing God's right to rule the universe ROB" DO you suppose the Opposer can make a lightning bolt strike into the palm of the Father with a billion volts of power, destroying the Father's hand? Are you OK Dave? Can a creature whose power comes from the Father in the first place, be able to achieve this? Come on. NO a creature can never opposer a Creator in this way. But we do see evidence of a sinning creature opposing the Father in other ways? How? What right has the sinning angel to become arum and twisting, to lie and make falsehoods of the Father, getting other sinless angels to begin joining the sinning angels side? No right at all. I would consider this act as directly opposing the Father. All the creatures are the apple of the Father's eye, the Father would not want to single cherub to sin, and thus fall. Dave" WOW – You could not be more wrong and you are proud of your own ignorance. ROB I check out Hebrew bible hub biblehub.com/text/psalms/82-1.htmYou are right, 7130 [e] בְּקֶ֖רֶב bə-qe-reḇ among Prep-b | N-msc Masculine singular construct I read some author on my wifes Ipad, and he spoke of this word as plural, so much for trusting human authors. Dave" If you include Gordon majestic PluralsRob" I will come to these soon Dave" I asked you if you understood the expression in the midst of God But you didn’t bother to answer my questionRob" NO I didn't understand. Dave" Elohiyn should always be plural - or always singular - not both in the same contextROb" I thought elohiym is always a plural word, sometimes is can become a double plural? "elohiym's" Dave" This verse says - God of all of God's creation - judges from within His creationROB" Hmm? Ps 82:1 a) God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; Ps 82:1 b) he judgeth among the gods. Is this verse not a parallel couplet as in a poem? Both a and b are similes of each other Elohiym "standeth" - Jews have taught me when God stands, he judges, so it's saying God judges Elohiym "judges" among the "strong authorities" The Hebrew word for "el" is "strong authority" The second couplet says the same thing Elohiym judgeth among the elohiym's. Question: Who are these "strong authorities"? Ps 82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Verse 2, 3, 4 tell you these "Strong Authorities" are humans who do wickness and sin. The fact GOD judges them is because they are opposing God's standards for the earth, ie other humans. I also showed you cherubs can be strong authorities too, but you ignore my sentences when you wish to ignore them. Dave" This verse says - God of all of God's creation - judges from within His creationROB" Where do you get that idea? not a single mention of creation.... ? Dave" Where do you get this from? You are adding words to the verse- this verse does not say this at all.ROb" From reading the verse duh? Elohiym "judges" among the "strong authorities" Ps 82 couplet a. =================== I note sadly you did not comment on the questions I asked you. ==================== Dave" Why do you post this ? You deny this? You cannot deny this loudly enough. God created a tov world – that was God’s only design / Plan Then it all changed – corrupted – now it is flawed Psa 19:2 The heavens show the handiwork of God you claim the only thing science can uncover is the handiwork of satan and sin Which contradiction do you believeROB" Can't you get a different reading from this verse? Ro 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 that they are without excuse: The verse is saying we understand the Father's godhead by investigating His creation. Question: why did the Father create animal kinds into two different personalities of loving, IF the Father is not something like this? Dave" You add words to the verse to deliberately corrupt its meaningRob" I add nothing to the verse, it says the word "yalad" meaning to be "born", all verses with use "yalad" refer to two parents, not two expressions pretending to be two parents as in your theology.
DAVE" The Jews do not believe in multiple gods working together to form a unit No one does – except you and other pagan false religionsROB" How come you have a spirit spark coming into a biological body, as a unit? The two become one soul? How is this possible? Does the spirit spark even require a body ? No, so why this arrangement of yours? SO do we assume the mind that thinks is not biological thinking processes, but some unit between the spirit spark and the biological brain? Really Dave, you have a pantheism of entities inside a human.... Dave" The Jews do not believe in multiple godsROb" Jewish quote please? Does this mean multiple strong authorities or multiple elohiym powers? Or is this a word game for the same thing? How can a Jew explain a marriage than, without invoking pagan notions of multiple beings? Dave: " The Jews do not believe in multiple gods working together to form a unit No one does – except youROB" I see. Explain what a unit means than? I define a unit as the process of many uniting into oneness. DAVE" Jews have always seen God as a duality – male/femaleROB" Jewish quote for this idea. Sorry I need Jewish proof. Question: A gender male can show both ahab and ahabuh love within himself, as a duality – male/female A gender female can show both ahab and ahabuh love within herself, as a duality – male/female Nothing unusual about this, except gender males show mostly provider love and gender females mostly show responding love. God created the flow of these different forms of love as completely clear distinctions. Dave" God is not within creation – God is larger / greater than creation But God holds creation in His HandsROB" Nice Dave" (Ellen White - and her Great Controversy - contradict scripture)ROB" ELlen White is a prophetess, and wrote as God told her, so not her writings at all. If you wish to attack God's messages to us in the last times, that is to your own peril. ========Things Dave didn't do =========== ROB" Jews see echad meaning "cardinally one" The verse actually says the "Adonai echad " "The LORD is a unit" DO you choose to support Jeff Benner meaning of echad like Robert does, or do you choose to deny Jeff Benner and support the Jewish view of echad, meaning "cardinally one"? Please reply, and find some Jewish quotes on echad. ================ Please define your heavenly Father clearly so we can falsify your hypthosis using Bible verses. My theory is Elohiym is a unit. Your theory is Elohiym is a Father. Why does Genesis 3 falsify your hypothesis? When Eve and Adam sinned, the word "adam" is also a "unit" Hence the word "elohiym" is also a "unit" Ge 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man "adam" is become as one of us, to know good and evil: Hence the concept of "plurality" exists in the term "eloihym" as well as the term "adam", the "two become a unit" the torah says. You deny this teaching. Why? ------- In Luke 1:35 the word "yalad" is used to born the Son of Man inside Mary's womb. If the Father is only elohiym, than why are two members of Elohiym used here, HS and power of Most HIgh (Father) And strangely HS as feminine, and the Father as masculine? heavenly parents? If you theory was true it would mention the Most High only came over Mary. It would not mention overshadow either. --------- De 32:10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. 11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: 12 So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. 13 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock; If YHWH was all alone, why the mention of the HS as a bird, and the two rocks, cela rock and tsuwr rock? --------- (1) How can a Father in solitary existence from eternity, show relational love, all the Father can show is self love, which is not true love and it from our understanding of sin, selfish love. (2) How can the Father show love that is shared? He can't. (3) How can the Father show love that can be sacrificed? He can't. (4) Explain the two death's if the Father is all there is? You might say the spark leaves the body on the first death and the spark is removed as you in the second death. SO why does the spark continue to be alive in the first death? To get your mind to pardoned or cleansed by fire? What purpose does the biology provide? Nothing I see. Why couldn't an angel spark die for man's sin? why did it have to be the Father only? Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 15, 2023 8:44:47 GMT -5
Dave" This is exactly why everyone knows you have no answers You claim = God CANNOT create spirits – impossible you say : So I ask who created them Where is you answer? Rob", you are asking does the Father create evil creatures? NOT THE QUESTION! Repeat - You claim = God CANNOT create spirits – impossible you say : So I ask who created them?Ps 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; Here the messengers are made "ruwach" as a medium. OH – now you say God created the spirits Which contradiction do you believe? Do you accept scripture – or reject it in favor of Ellen White?Question: Does this verse imply the messengers are medium? As Dave implies in his post? My answer is no. First the term "medium" is not something that exists as a "being or person" it's a function. Now you say that spirit does not exist Can you possibly make one straight forward answer? Why are you deliberately contradicting yourselfPs 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit "ruwach" "medium", they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. I am not sure of the purpose of adding this verse here, it seems to imply the "medium" is created by GOD, and this is OK, as the medium is created by GOD.DUH – OH COURSE GOD CREATED SPIRIT – WHO ELSE?One problem from Dave, is a medium is the function of two media, where something is carried by something. How can the Father create Himself, WOW – What an intelligent question?You deny that spirit can exist as a seperate entityYou teach all angels are just the HS - all evil spirit are just the HS that turned evil - and that all men are just animals driven around by the HS You deny all spiritual creatures - according to you cherubs are just the HS - or the HS is an angelYour denial of scripture just creates a giant contradiction for you------------------------------------- A question for Dave, why are you swapping cherub for ruwach? These are different words, with different word meanings?It was your answer to my question – who created spiritYou said God made Cherubs Cherubs are made as mediums. You just said God cannot create two mediums – now you say God created millionsPlease present a consistant theology!Your denial of scripture just creates a giant contradiction for you---------------------------- Dave" NONE of them are in heaven opposing God Rob" I have never said the fallen angels are currently opposing GOD in heaven, Ellen White – there is a cosmic struggle between two gods fighting over Gods right to rule the universe?Dave" ALL of them are opposing man on earth ROB" Funny last time I read Scripture the sinning angels were kicked out of heaven, unto the earth Ellen White – there is a cosmic struggle between two gods fighting over Gods right to rule the universe?Dave" First you say – satan rebels, hates, and opposes God (as a good Catholic) Then you say – God uses satan to facilitate God Will (as a Jew or Gnostic) Which doctrine is yours?Robert has no answerROB" I am going to throw a new theory your way, thanks to reading some Jewish commentary. Why don’t you just answer the question They say darkness came first. Yes Gen 1:2 comes before Gen 1:3 – anyone reading scripture knows thisThey say darkness is a simile of sin. They equate darkness with ignorance of the LordWhen GOD created creation over earth a second time, notice Only one creation – God did not make a mistake then have to correct itI disagree with Gerald Schroeder, Of course you do – he does not support your 6-24/hr days – as you claim He also supports Gen 2:7 s a Jew – which you failed to even realizeIsaiah 45 tells us GOD creates RA , yes, but when and why? Isa 45: … I am Jehovah, doing all these things.' Dave" How does this prove your satan god is face to Face in heaven waring, rebelling, hating, and opposing God's right to rule the universe Can a creature whose power comes from the Father in the first place, be able to achieve this? Come on. NO a creature can never opposer a Creator in this way.Thank you for being HONEST You have just contradicted Ellen White’s entire premiseDave" (Ellen White - and her Great Controversy - contradict scripture) ROB" ELlen White is a prophetess, and wrote as God told her, so not her writings at all. If you wish to attack God's messages to us in the last times, that is to your own peril. Then why does she contradict the Word of God and why do you reject Judeo-ChristianityThe Great Controversy and God's Love for HumanityAdventist.org - www.adventist.org › the-great-controversy All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe.There is NO controversy about God’s character Adonai is a great God and a great King above all gods.There is NO controversy about God’s right to rule the universe Adonai is a great God and a great King above all gods.-------------------------------- Dave" WOW – You could not be more wrong and you are proud of your own ignorance. ROB I check out Hebrew bible hub You are right, Learn to translate instead of playing word gamesDave" If you include Gordon majestic Plurals Rob" I will come to these soon Dave" I asked you if you understood the expression in the midst of God But you didn’t bother to answer my question Rob" NO I didn't understand. I explained it to you – now do you understand?==================== Dave" Why do you post this ? You deny this? You cannot deny this loudly enough. God created a tov world – that was God’s only design / Plan Then it all changed – corrupted – now it is flawed Psa 19:2 The heavens show the handiwork of God you claim the only thing science can uncover is the handiwork of satan and sin Which contradiction do you believe ROB" Can't you get a different reading from this verse?
Answer the question – Did God create this world as is to be rediscovered – or is all of God’s original creation corrupted by your satan and sin?Question: why did the Father create animal kinds into two different personalities of loving, IF the Father is not something like this? Yep – Judaism has always seen the father as a duality – male/femaleDAVE" The Jews do not believe in multiple gods working together to form a unit No one does – except you and other pagan false religions ROB" How come you have a spirit spark coming into a biological body, as a unit? The two become one soul? Nope – the soul is just the spirit – there is nothing biological about the soul / spiritHow is this possible? Does the spirit spark even require a body ? The spirit body = ethereal not corporealNo, so why this arrangement of yours? SO do we assume the mind that thinks is not biological thinking processes, but some unit between the spirit spark and the biological brain? Nope – brain = brain – just biology – salvation of the soul does not depend on worldly educationReally Dave, you have a pathethism of entities inside a human.... Nope – just the inner man – just spirit of manDave: " The Jews do not believe in multiple gods working together to form a unit No one does – except you ROB" I see. Explain what a unit means than? unit 1. an individual thing or person regarded as single and complete but which can also form an individual component of a larger or more complex whole. 2. a device that has a specified function, especially one forming part of a complex mechanism. DAVE" Jews have always seen God as a duality – male/female ROB" Jewish quote for this idea. Sorry I need Jewish proof. Please open any Jewish source and search: Shekinah – the feminine aspect of God that moves among the people(google) Shekhinah (Hebrew: שְׁכִינָה, Modern: Šeḵina, Tiberian: Šăḵīnɔ̄) is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning "dwelling" or "settling" and denotes the presence of God, as it were, in a place. This concept is found in Judaism. Jewish dualityGod + the presence of God God + God dwelling with the people God + God dwelling in a Tent God + God dwelling in a Temple Christian TrinityGod + God dwelling in you as the Comforter + God dwelling as a man (Jesus Christ – God incarnate) ========Things Dave didn't do =========== ROB" Jews see echad meaning "cardinally one" The verse actually says the "Adonai echad " "The LORD is a unit" DO you choose to support Jeff Benner meaning of echad like Robert does, or do you choose to deny Jeff Benner and support the Jewish view of echad, meaning "cardinally one"? ================ Please define your heavenly Father clearly so we can falsify your hypthosis ------- In Luke 1:35 - And strangely HS as feminine, and the Father as masculine? heavenly parents? 5 Every word of God is pure: 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. You add words to the verse to deliberately corrupt its meaningYou teach two gods came upon Mary = 3 parents Everyone else teaches – the POWER of God came upon Mary via the Holy Spirit Teaching two parents – Father God = Son of God – Mary as Mother – Son of manRobert has no answer--------- (1) How can a Father in solitary existence from eternity, show relational love, Robert has no answer============================ There is no point in continuing with Gordon's study You offered it as the PROOF you needed to prove yourself correct Are you afraid it does not support your view after all?First you say – satan rebels, hates, and opposes God (as a good Catholic) Then you say – God uses satan to facilitate God Will (as a Jew or Gnostic) Which doctrine is yours? Robert has no answer
Why won't you answer simple straightforward questions? Robert has no answerYou left this forum once before - BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS You promised to be more honest this time Robert has no answer
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 15, 2023 12:55:47 GMT -5
True – man exist as a duality Man is a beast – go forth be fruitful and multiply – self-preservation and the survival of the species (yester ra)
This is no different than a microbe, and ant, a cockroach, a cow, or a fish – all living by (yester ra) - self-preservation and the survival of the species
Man is special and is given an extra commandment – go forth be fruitful and multiply – self-preservation and the survival of the species – and SUBDUE (yester ra)
This makes man different that the beast – we are to be the alpha beast – the top of the food chain.
Truth – at the time of Adam and Eve there were up to 8 different humanoid species all living together in Prediluvian Planetoid Pangea
God selected adam – and Gen 2:7 breathed into adam the spirit of man – the inner man – the home of (yester tov) Adam stopped being a living creature and became a human being Humanoid (Homo sapiens) + (the spirit of Man – the inner Man) Humanoid creature + spirit being
Yes – man is a duality The animal still wants to live by – NEEDS to live by (yester ra) to survive To make a fire = ra To make a fire to bake bread for the sacraments = tov (animals do not do this)
To dig the stone out of the ground = ra To cut down the best trees = ra To use them to build a Temple to the Lord = tov (animals do not do this)
The desire to be a doctor / politician– to be rich and famous = ra (King of the Jungle) The desire to be a doctor – to help others in anonymity without pay = tov
Man cannot survive with (yester ra) Without it Jews says – man would not marry – or build a house – or plant a garden
Robert – pretends he cannot understand this Robert – denies that the conscious of man is INATE ----------------------------
Brain –vs- Spirit Brain is biology and biology is dominated by (yester ra) Biology NEEDS – things to survive Biology NEEDS – food / shelter / comfort Biology NEEDS – to reproduce – sex – lust – want – desire All 100% natural NEEDS of biology – all dominated by the brain (yester ra) programming / instinct
Spirit is INATE – a part of us – (inside) – the part of us that knows better It is up to us to awaken our spirit – to pray in the spirit – through the spirit
To recognize who we are – we are spiritual children of God We are not birth defects and damaged brains The inner Man = spirit/ soul – is a child of God -----------------------------
Sparks D sent me a video (not posted her) talking about Gnosticism saying – Sparks of God entered creation and the goal is reunification 100% absolute Bull Shit – this teaching is 100% Jewish Kabbalah
When the whole cracked open – sparks of God entered creation The sparks are in everything (E=mc2) E is in everything – the medium that sustains the ALL
Judaism, Christianity, Gnostic all teach God created angels – as spirit beings Angels are NOT God – or small fractions of God – they are created spirit beings Robert claims this is NOT POSSIBLE
Judaism, Christianity, Gnostic all teach God created man – as spirit beings Robert claims this is NOT POSSIBLE
Judaism teaches God as a male/female duality – God + the Spirit of God Robert claims this is NOT POSSIBLE
Judaism, Christianity, Gnostic all teach God does not leave His throne in heaven and yet Tabernacles with man in spirit – in a Tent – in a Temple Robert claims this is NOT POSSIBLE
Christianity, Gnostic all teach God does not leave His throne in heaven and yet Tabernacles with man in spirit – in a Tent – in a Temple – in Jesus (God incarnate) Robert claims this is NOT POSSIBLE
NT teaches that when Jesus the Son of Man died upon the Cross – the Spirit of Christ was poured out – released – let go to preach in the spirit world Robert claims this is NOT POSSIBLE
|
|
|
Post by rob on Nov 15, 2023 16:26:30 GMT -5
Greetings Dave Dave" Now you say that spirit does not exist Can you possibly make one straight forward answer? Why are you deliberately contradicting yourselfROB: THis is off topic. YOu are asking me if the Father can create a "spirit-spark" that is essentially you? The answer is NO, the Scriptures do not speak of this idea at all. Second you are asking if the Father can create an evil spirit? Not sure what you are asking here? Define your terms, talk to me, instead you write big words that say nothing. Dave" OH COURSE GOD CREATED SPIRIT – WHO ELSE?ROB you mean the function of a medium, yes. Prove to me a "medium" is a body that talks, walk and moves all by itself? This verse spoils your quest Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Its a poetry parallel ruwach parallel nashamah = both are mediums of a physical world only, coming from matter called media. el and Shadday are terms to describe an eternally uncaused cause. The shadday is a divine being, the feminine member of elohiym power. Thus the Father uses the Shadday to administrate the medium that is created. It is a passive arrangement so the flow of the Father can move into a domain that wishes to sin, hence the Father can sustain such a world without directly destroying it, because the Father cannot tolerate RA or SIN not for a split second. The Shadday who is equally powerful with divininity never controls the flow or makes a flow, the medium must be passive, and yet also be active, so the function can work. Also stop using the term "GOD" in your view, in your view the words "eloah, shadday, Yashua, and elohiym all refer to the Father only. What a strange twist you make on all these Hebrew word meanings. So stop using "GOD" which in my view is "elohiym power" a family divine term, called a unit. Use instead the term "Father" which is solitary and all alone as a cardially one divine being. Dave" You teach all angels are just the HS Rob" I did not say that. The PS 104 says the cherubs are medium. The messengers function as a medium. A medium carries the messages of the Father to humans through space. The defintion of a medium. Angels function as mediums. The HS is a term for medium also. The shadday functions as a medium. Stop twisting word meanings, because words cannot be used as you like. Dave " You deny all spiritual creatures Rob" Prove to me "spirits" exist as "spark-spirit entities" created by the Father? Dave" Your denial of scripture just creates a giant contradiction for youROb" yes you speak of yourself. Prove to me clearly using one scripture that the "spark-spirit entity" was created by the Father. Prove to me the Father is a "spirit"? Define your term "spirit" ? Dave" Cherubs are made as mediums.You just said God cannot create two mediums – now you say God created millionsRob" Do you understand what a function is? Obviously not. What is the difference between a function and a creature kind? A cherub is a creature kind. A malak is a messenger function. So according to Dave all cherubims are malak, and this idea is false. Only when the Father gives a message to a cherub does thre cherub function as a malak, and moves through space to earth to deliver this message does the malak also function as a medium. When the cherub returns to heaven, the medium function ends, and the malak function ends? Can't you understand functions? Dave" Please present a consistant theologyROb" I do, but you are not following. For example : a knife can function as a spade to dig with, a sharp edge to cut wood with, and a gentle tip to stab into skin with to cut the hole apart. A knife can function as a weapon too. SO according to Dave, knives are spades and weapons and gentle tips !! Dave" They equate darkness with ignorance of the Lord
Rabbi Isaac said, "The light created by God in the act of Creation flared from one end of the universe to the other and was hidden away, reserved for the righteous in the world that is coming, as it is written: "Light is sown for the righteous." (Psalm 97:11) Then the worlds will be fragrant, and all will be one. But until the world that is coming arrives, it is stored and hidden away.Rabbi Judah responded, ' If the light were completely hidden, the world would not exist for even a moment! Rather it is hidden and sown like a seed that gives birth to seeds and fruit. Thereby the world is sustained. Every single day a ray of that light shines into the world, keeping everything alive; with that ray God feeds the world. And everywhere that Torah is studied at night one thread-thin ray appears from that hidden light and flows down upon those absorbed in her. Since the first day, the light has never been fully revealed, but it is vital to the world, renewing each day the act of Creation." (Zohar, translated by Daniel Matt, The Essential Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism, page. 90. Zohar 1:31b-32a; 2:148b-149a) www.sefaria.org/sheets/1103.9?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=enWe are all of us afraid of the dark. At night, anxieties suppressed or repressed come swimming to the surface of consciousness: am I safe? Am I loved? Am I needed? Is there meaning in the world, or is it all, ultimately, just a swirl of chaos? For some of us much of the time, and for all of us some of the time, darkness suggests peril and instability, the sense that life is fleeting, tenuous, random and senseless. Physical darkness threatens, at least at moments, to conjure existential darkness: It is dark, and I am alone and afraid. The Talmud reports that when Adam and Eve first saw the sun go down, they were panic-stricken, thinking that the setting of the sun was a consequence of their sin, and that this new, intense darkness would spell their death. They spent that entire first night weeping, until dawn broke, and they realized, to their immense relief, that this was simply the way of the world -- day followed by night, and night followed by day (Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 8a). Now, we who come after the first couple are all aware that night is not permanent and that morning, too, will inevitably come. And our fears are usually less that night is an outgrowth of our failures and more of what it suggests, of the feelings and concerns that night has the power to elicit. But if we think of night in metaphorical terms, who among us has never had a foreboding akin to Adam's: What if night never ends? What if meaningless and loneliness are simply all there is? We are also aware of profound links between physical darkness and existential darkness: As the days grow shorter and the nights grow longer, moods often shift, worries often mount and hope often wanes.
Judaism does not ask us to ignore this darkness and the sense of doom it might educe in us. On the contrary, it asks us to face them squarely, and then, ultimately, to defy them. ------------ Ramban asks; why could the Egyptians not move just becauseit was dark? This darkness was not just thatthere was no sunlight. It was more than a nighttime darkness. It was “thickdarkness” meaning that a very thick midst came down from the sky. This is whyHashem said to Moshe “Stretch forth your hand to the heavens” - Moshe had to bring down this darkness. Seforno comments on these words. This will remove the normal darkness called “night”. The r ason this was necessary was that the night consists of air ready and capable to absorb light in the morning. The darkness that would occur now was something unable to interact with light at all. The reason for this inability to interact with light was the density of the texture of this darkness. As a result of this totally different kind of darkness even a lit up flare would not be able to make a “dent” in the darkness.--------------- Prophecy" takes this a step further. Sin is not only a harmful deed — it is the ultimately harmful deed. Prophecy (which represents the apogee of man's endeavor to commune with G‑d) defines "life" as connection with G‑d. Sin—man's turning away from G‑d—is a disruption of this connection. Hence, sin is death.
Torah agrees that sin is a harmful deed. It also agrees that it's a disruption of the flow of life from Creator to creation.www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2830/jewish/What-Is-Sin.htmAnd what does G‑d say? G‑d, of course, invented the laws of nature (both physical and spiritual) and the Wisdom that recognizes how they operate. G‑d is the source of life, and it is He who decreed that it should flow to the human soul via a channel constructed (or disrupted) by the deeds of man.Rob" The channel constructed is called the medium, HS. When sin disrupts this channel, the flow becomes dysfunctional, hence "evil medium". Dave" Only one creation – God did not make a mistake then have to correct itRob" you don't understand what sinning does to creation, do you? Dave" Thank you for being HONEST You have just contradicted Ellen White’s entire premiseROB" I have ? how? Dave" Then why does she contradict the Word of God and why do you reject Judeo-ChristianityROb" What contradictions? Jews do not see echad meaning a unit. Of course I reject even this idea from their word meaning. A unit unites many into a single oneness. Hence the term can be seen as "one" but not seen as "Cardinally the number one", Hebrew words have meanings, not change the meanings as Jews do to "echad". DO you support Jeff Benner with echad? meaning unit? Or do you support Jews, who say echad means "cardinally one" ? Dave "Ps 95:3 For the LORD <Y@hovah> is a great <gadowl> "God" "strong Authority" <'el>, and a great <gadowl> King <melek> above all gods <'elohiym>. SO who are these other elohiym powers here Dave? Dave" The Great Controversy and God's Love for Humanity Adventist.org - www.adventist.org › the-great-controversy All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe.
There is NO controversy about God’s character Adonai is a great God and a great King above all gods.ROB" SO you focus is on the word meaning of " above". Are you saying other elohiym powers exist, hence are lower than the true elohiym power in heaven? And that the true elohiym power is above these lower powers? I can agree to this idea. You can still have a controversy Dave. When you daughter who might rebel against you, does not bring your kingdom down does it? You are above her rebellion. Her sinning is lower than you. But this does not stop the relationship from ending, and hateful feeling to come does it? Dave" I explained it to you – now do you understand?ROb" No, you explained what exactly? Dave" Psa 19:2 The heavens show the handiwork of God you claim the only thing science can uncover is the handiwork of satan and sin Which contradiction do you believeROB" Why is spoiling creation, a contradiction? Dave" Answer the question – Did God create this world as is to be rediscovered – or is all of God’s original creation corrupted by your satan and sin?ROb" Spoilers spoil creation, but some / many principles of perfection remain, like colours in flowers, and music in birds. Dave" Yep – Judaism has always seen the father as a duality – male/femaleROb" are you dull? NOT on the one animal kind, but on two animals of the one kind? Have you not noticed this? Unless you are saying the Father is a earthworm, having both male and female parts within himself? And man was made in the image of the earthworm? Come on Dave, start looking at Creation. Mankind is a unit? DO you deny this number of many? Two is not one, but than a marriage is when the two become one. WHy do you deny simple scripture principles? Dave" Nope – the soul is just the spirit – there is nothing biological about the soul / spiritROb" I got news for you, the soul is all about the biological. Where do you think brain processing of reasoning come from? Dave" The spirit body = ethereal not corporealROb" ANswer my question- Does the spirit spark even require a body ? Dave" Nope – brain = brain – just biology – salvation of the soul does not depend on worldly educationROB" OK where does the thinking come from than, if you have no biology? OH are you saying the thinking come from the spark-spirit? OH so we have brain processing machine inside this spark-spirit thing? SO why the need for biology than? Dave" Nope – just the inner man – just spirit of manROb" more details please Really Dave, you have a pathethism of entities inside a human In my view I don't, I just have biology and the HS functioning as a medium so the Father empowers me to live and talk and take up his qualities of love as I choose freely. I also have a pathethism of entities inside a human. But my entities are all known. Explain why the Father would create a spark-spirit in the first place, when a medium could do the same thing better. Dave" unit 1. an individual thing or person regarded as single and complete but which can also form an individual component of a larger or more complex whole. 2. a device that has a specified function, especially one forming part of a complex mechanism.ROB" OK so is elohiym a word meaning that means a unit? DAVE" Jews have always seen God as a duality – male/femaleROB" SO you words "male/female" as "duality " is "component of a larger or more complex whole" hence you just admitted that elohiym is a unit. Dave" God + God dwelling in you as the Comforter + God dwelling as a man (Jesus Christ – God incarnate)ROB" "component of a larger or more complex whole" hence you just admitted that elohiym is a unit.Why are you denying your own words? Dave" You argue this is a pantheon of 3 different godsROb" but you argue a pantheon of 3 expressions of gods, from the same Father. Are you playing word games here? We both have elohiym as a unit? Dave" You teach two gods came upon Mary = 3 parents Everyone else teaches – the POWER of God came upon Mary via the Holy SpiritROB" So we play the word game "via" The Holy <hagios> Ghost <pneuma> shall come <eperchomai> upon <epi> thee <se>, and <kai> the power <dunamis> of the Highest <hupsistos> shall overshadow <episkiazo> thee <soi>: Your a Greek scholar, the word "kai" means "via" does it? I thought it means "and" Overshadow tells you two objects are required, one as a light source, the other blocks the light. TWO objects. NOT one as you claim. Mary was not a part of the divine getting wrapped in humanity, by two divine parents. Mary was more a surrogate in the process. Dave" I, most Christians, and Gnostics say both - (man)+(God) - Nicean Creed and you argue against this teaching Robert has no answerROB" Big words - I suggest you read Jewish comments on imrah. Faith requires two divine persons, one personifying the other's words. But in your Father only view, no faith would exist. John 3:16, the Father so loved the world the Father gave himself.... Not what Scripture teaches.Your Father cannot love, He cannot give, He cannot show faith Your Father cannot share. Yet you admit duality, the complex parts of a whole, your defintion of a unit, yet you deny the Father is a unit? =========== I ask you a question and you refuse to answer, but instead ask me a question? Jeff Benner defines grace as the beauty of God, the beauty of the home, all thing things in the home that are nice. Can the Father have a home? NO, such a thing implies many. Come on Dave, start reading what your theory is asking of you. Your Father has no home, only a house. No sharing No faith No loving ------------ Dave" Then you say – God uses satan to facilitate God Will (as a Jew or Gnostic) Which doctrine is yours?ROb" Yes GOD can use RA to facilitate God's will. But this only adds to your confusion. Dave" You left this forum once before - BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONSROb" I never left, I was deleted by you remember? Dave" True – man exist as a dualityROb" OK man can function as a unit. Dave" This makes man different that the beast – we are to be the alpha beast – the top of the food chain.Rob" Is that all man is to you? I thought making man in a Father's image is all about loving and being loved? Dave" Truth – at the time of Adam and Eve there were up to 8 different humanoid species all living together in Prediluvian Planetoid PangeaROb" bogus idea. Dave" God selected adam – and Gen 2:7 breathed into adam the spirit of man – the inner man – the home of (yester tov) Adam stopped being a living creature and became a human being Humanoid (Homo sapiens) + (the spirit of Man – the inner Man) Humanoid creature + spirit beingROb" SO a humanoid creature lived for a while and than God made the homeo sapian into a special creature. Bogus idea. You require evolution as a part of creation? Dave" All 100% natural NEEDS of biology – all dominated by the brain (yester ra) programming / instinct Spirit is INATE – a part of us – (inside) – the part of us that knows betterROB" How is this theory any different to mine? Except your "spark-spirit" is eternal, my HS is eternal. Your spark -spirit knows better, my HS teaches us in our conscious. You play word games and twist torah. You teach we are just spark-spirits inside biology. How is this any different to biology administrated by GOD, via the HS? No different, just word game playing on your part. Dave" It is up to us to awaken our spirit – to pray in the spirit – through the spiritROB" NO different to my theory, we are to realize the relationship of GOD already in us and awaken to this relationship. Start talking to it and listening to it. Dave" To recognize who we are – we are spiritual children of GodRob" NO different to my theory, start listening to the relationship already inside of us, we are children of GOD Dave" We are not birth defects and damaged brainsRob" NO different to my theory, the relationship is always perfet when we are born, GOD never sins, only humans do. Accept the relationship and listen to the still small voice living already inside of you. Dave" Sparks of God entered creation and the goal is reunification100% absolute Bull Shit – this teaching is 100% Jewish KabbalahROb" How is this any different to the "breath of life" as "sparks of GOD" living inside of us? DO you continue with your word games? Dave" Judaism, Christianity, Gnostic all teach God created angels – as spirit beingsROB" NO, you twist Scripture. God created cherub as ruwach. meaning as the function of mediums. A medium is never a being. Show me any science example of this. The reason why the cherubs vanish and reappear on earth, is because they can function as mediums. They play on your mind, with hypnotism and such things. A cherub is a being. A medium is a function. Dave" Angels are NOT God – or small fractions of God – they are created spirit beingsROb" SHow me your Bible proof text please? Make sure it has the word "bara" and "cherub" AND the word "ruwach" Eze 28:15 Thou (cherub) wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, ( no ruwach here) 1Ki 22:22 ...I (a sinning cherub) will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. Ruwach here, but the cherub functions as a lying medium, not is a lying medium. ( no created here) Funny Dave teaches man is a small fraction of the Father, spark-spirit??? How can the Father give us a "spark-spirit" of Himself? SO we can express selfish love? The only loving the Father can provide humans? Dave" Judaism, Christianity, Gnostic all teach God does not leave His throne in heaven and yet Tabernacles with man in spirit – in a Tent – in a Temple Robert claims this is NOT POSSIBLEROB" The word Father is a "tent peg" meaning "secure" so yes, does not leave heaven. Hence the reason for "many" and "unit". Correct a solitary Father cannot be both active and secure, doing both of these things. You split your Father into expressions, is a bogus idea. On earth humans learn we cannot do two things at exactly the same time in two different places. Woman can multitask somewhat, but men cannot. Dave" Then why does she contradict the Word of GodRob" Post a single word meaning used by her that differs from Hebrew word meanings? spiritualsprings.org/ss-1061.htmTHis link also investigates beauty or grace. Dave" Adonai is a great God and a great King above all gods.Rob" correct Implies the false elohiym powers are below. As Jews say upper and lower worlds. Shalom ,
|
|