ijawkid:
Who will they rule over??

The angels??

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
1 Co 6:3

Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.
Pro 25:8

truthislight:
pls, can you explain further or shade more light?

Who will "every true christian" rule over then?
Thanks.

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rev 5:9-10

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:17

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:6

If you 'd just spent a few minutes digesting the article rather than just hastening to cut-and-paste as is your wont. . .you would probably realize that the writer has an agenda and several of the claims he makes are actually unfounded and simplistic. Can't you ever form an independent opinion of yours?

But a self-righteous Pharisee like you wouldn't see that.

OLAADEGBU:
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." -- Job 19:25-26

The book of Job has many verses that testify that the coming Redeemer is God Himself!

ijawkid:
If u had read my earlier statements u would have seen what I wrote...

The 144000 are those who are chosen to rule alongside with Christ....they are also co-priests....

Every true believer is chosen to rule alongside Christ. . .as it is written: (Rev 1:6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Does this verse allude to a set of 144,000 specific individuals?

The book of Revelations is rich in metaphor, allegory prophetic language and eschatological imagery and a careful reading of the verses in context will show that the number 144,000 is allegory i.e (12 x 12 x 1000): the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 apostles and 1000 - signifying completion. Also it clear that the 144,000 in chapter 14 is the same as that in chapter 7 where the names of their tribes are given.

[b](Rev 14:1 [KJV])
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

(Rev 7:4-9 [KJV])
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;[/b]

As we see from chapter 7; this list of the 12 tribes given in Revelation 7 does not correspond to the natural 12 tribes of Israel. . .thus tipping us off that this is not a listing of the physical descendants of Jacob who will go to heaven.


Moreover notice the sequence of events:

1. "And I heard the number of them which were sealed:" As already pointed out:

144,000 = 12 x 12 x 1000, signifying the fullness and perfection of God's redemptive plan: Physical Israel & the Gentiles adopted in Christ into Spiritual Israel. What tips us off that the 144,000 is an allusion to Spiritual Israel is that the listing of tribes is wrong from the natural standpoint, both in terms of order of tribes and in terms of the names.

2. After hearing, John then sees: "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands"

So this great innumerable company stands before the throne and before the Lamb. Where is the throne? In heaven, isn't it?

The 144,000 is actually a great multitude which no man can number. . .the 144,000 being symbolic of the perfection of God's plan in their lives.

There is a message in Revelation 7 hidden in plain sight in the names of the sons of Jacob as written there.
In the order listed these are the names:
Judah,
Reuben,
Gad,
Asher,
Napthali,
Manasseh,
Simeon,
Levi,
Issachar,
Zebulon,
Joseph,
Benjamin.

Not only do we find that the names are not listed in order of birth or prominence but we find that Dan and the half-tribe of Ephraim is not listed.

Biblical Hebrew names are not accidental and usually convey a message and are the message is given to us in the meanings of the names in Revelation 7. This is the message:

1. Judah = "I will praise the Lord"
2. Reuben = "He has looked on me"
3. Gad = "Granted good fortune"
4. Asher = "Happy am I"
5. Naphtali = "My wrestling" or "struggle"
6. Manasseh = "Making me to forget"
7. Simeon = "God hears me"
8. Levi = "Joined to me"
9. Issachar = "Purchased Me"
10. Zebulun = "Dwelling"
11. Joseph = "God will add to me"
12. Benjamin = "Son of His right hand"

And so. . .notice what happens when the meaning of the names are combined, in the same order, into a paragraph:
"I will praise the Lord for He has looked on me and granted good fortune. Happy am I because my struggle is forgotten. God hears me and is joined to me. He has purchased me a dwelling. God will add to me the Son of His right hand." (The words in italics are supplied to complete each thought.)

@OP:
You have to understand that Ahmadinejad presents a view of Islamic eschatology. The Muslims have a highly involved eschatological worldview which involves 3 personages:
1. The Mahdi (to Shiites such as Ahmadinejad, that would be the 12th imam, Abu'l-Qasim Muhammad).
2. Jesus.
3. The Antichrist - Masih ad-Dajjal.

In their eschatology the Mahdi will come (or return), then Jesus will return as his second-in-command so to speak. The Mahdi will lead the armies of Islam to global victory, while Jesus will make all Christians convert to Islam, kill all pigs and destroy Masih ad-Dajjal, after which he (Jesus) will rule and all shall converted to Islam.

There is nothing the Persian president would have said that is not consistent with what he believes.

frosbel:
Which is why I have done an extensive, investigative and honest research into the whole Pagan doctrine which you hold on to as an idol and found out that it is a farce , a concoction and the invention of a church that was polluted with platonic philosophy.

^^
So you have "done an extensive, investigative and honest research" into the matter. Really? Why have we not seen evidence of such then. . .instead what is seen are the common sort of debating tricks. You deceive yourself for nothing in the multiplicity of threads that you generate suggests a well thought out and reasoned thesis.

I remind you of this quote once again:

A fanatic is a man who, when he's lost sight of his purpose, redoubles his effort.

Ihedinobi:

I most certainly wouldn't have done it this well. Learned a great deal up there.

To God be the Glory. He Alone is Worthy.

truthislight:
Imagine! You that dont want people to be deceived have quoted a language that they cant read!
How deceitful you are!

Those that are expert in the greek language have gone through that scripture over and over and did come to the conclussion that the kjv is in error and decided what is right, but it is those that cant cant speak greek that u have brought it to again.
Do they speak Greek or they speak 1. English, 2. Hausa, 3. Igbo, 4. Yoruba.

Still the old same deceit.

The KJV is in error based on what evidence?

The text I quoted; was it the KJV or was it the TR Greek text?

Your New World Translation that you use was written originally in English, right?

Are you challenged in some way? What do those numbers I appended after the Greek words mean? Those are the dictionary entries for the words themselves in order that anyone and I mean anyone who is sincere about verifying what I wrote can look up the meanings for themselves.

Clearly you are mentally lazy. . .which is why you prefer cut-and-paste jobs. I repeat: take time off and engage in disciplined Bible study.

frosbel:
A copy and paste Job with the intention of appearing a step above the rest intellectually

Hehehe. Clearly the "cut-and-paste" jibes are getting to you. In any case, if you weren't so lazy mentally you could easily verify all that I had written in respect of the Textus Receptus Greek text and your Roman Catholic Church favored Westcort-Hott versions. My what a hypocrite you are! It turns out that the Bible translations you prefer are based off of manuscripts sponsored by Constantine and kept by the Roman Catholic Church.

I challenge you to show that everything I wrote in that post is a cut-and-paste job or be shown to be a liar.

frosbel:
Can your humble self kindly provide us dullards with the right interpretation of the following scripture verses.
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High - Psalm 82:6

" Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?" - John 10:34

"A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:" - Psalm 82:1

^^^
Of course you would go there seeing as to you Jesus is "a mighty god" not the Almighty.

From this old thread (seeing as certain themes tend to recur on NL):

aletheia: At topic:
#1. I noticed a lot of cavilling about god and God: But the original Hebrew does not make any distinction between god and God. The upper-case is an English(and Greek) convention to distinguish between the True God and other pretenders.

#2. The word play in Ps 82:1 becomes evident when we consider the Hebrew:
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he judgeth among the gods(KJV)

82:1 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex[size=16pt]
מִזְמֹ֗ור לְאָ֫סָ֥ף אֱ‍ֽלֹהִ֗ים נִצָּ֥ב בַּעֲדַת־אֵ֑ל בְּקֶ֖רֶב אֱלֹהִ֣ים יִשְׁפֹּֽט׃[/size]

An analysis of the words:

אֱ‍ֽלֹהִ֗ים - elohim  - God
נִצָּ֥ב   - nitzav  - takes
בַּעֲדַת־ - baadat  - congregation
אֵ֑ל    - el      - God
בְּקֶ֖רֶב  - bekerev - the midst
אֱלֹהִ֣ים - elohim  - gods
יִשְׁפֹּֽט׃ - yishpot - judges

YLT does renders the literal sense of the verse.
YLT: Psalms 82:1.A Psalm of Asaph. God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge.

Consulting the dictionary shows us the 4 meanings of the word elohim:
430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels
So context determines what elohim means. Unfortunately the various nuances of this word are lost in translation.

What the 82th Psalm is therefore saying is clearly shown by the YLT: Moreover that the gods (elohim) being judged are men (magistrates) is clear when we consider the verses that follow. It is not a justification to say that men are gods (as it is rendered in English).

#3. The incident in John 10:

KJV: John 10:33-36. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

What proponents of the I am god mantra fail to see is that[i] Ps 82 is not about them but about Jesus[/i]---it is a Messianic Psalm that shows that Jesus is God in much the same way as Ps 2 and 45;
Station themselves do kings of the earth, And princes have been united together, Against Jehovah, and against His Messiah: Let us draw off Their cords, And cast from us Their thick bands.' He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, The Lord doth mock at them. Then doth He speak unto them in His anger, And in His wrath He doth trouble them: And I--I have anointed My King, Upon Zion--My holy hill.' I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, `My Son Thou art , I to-day have brought thee forth. Ask of Me and I give nations--thy inheritance, And thy possession--the ends of earth. Thou dost rule them with a sceptre of iron, As a vessel of a potter Thou dost crush them.' And now, O kings, act wisely, Be instructed, O judges of earth (YLT)

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

In fact Ps 82 closely parallels Ps 2.

The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy because He said, I am the Son of God; so he directed them to the scripture in Ps 82 that spoke of Him; God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge (YLT).

It says "In the midst God doth judge", and yet this is written:
Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

It is also interesting to note the form of words used in Ps 82:1 is actually:
Gods (elohim) hath stood in the company of God (El), In the midst Gods (Elohim) doth judge.

Elohim is plural while El is singular.

The concluding verse of Psalm 82 says "Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations". Thou shalt inherit the nations is directed at God. Again harking to Psalm 2:7-8 -
Psa 2:7-8
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Which all ties in with:
Heb 1:8
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

And so we conclude: Ps 82 is about Jesus---it is a Messianic Psalm that shows that Jesus is God in much the same way as Ps 2 and 45.

truthislight:
No, you are the one that is rash here, the title Alpha and Omega is an exclusive of Yahweh. No?

No, it belongs to truthislight. Are you happy now?

frosbel:
Firstly , before I commence, can I call you a LIAR and what a shame it is that you try to make me say we are not redeemed through the blood of Jesus , when I have never made such an outrageous claim. You do know who the father of lies is , right ?

^
Story. What I wrote is clear enough. Read again the highlighted line below. . .but of course you are like the old woman who starts fidgeting when dry bones are mentioned. Your trajectory is clear to me and will become apparent in due course.

aletheia:
That we are redeemed through his blood is central to the bible's message from Genesis to Revelation (but of course views such as yours demand that his blood was not necessary for atonement, [u[so I won't be surprised if in time you open threads saying so)[/u].

Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37, or "through His blood," in Col. 1:14, evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript. This corruption can be traced to Origen in 200 A.D. He is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. However evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus certain so-called original MSS. are corrupt and it is evidently from this source the translations you are fond of have come. Origen taught the "LOGOS" is "KTISMA," meaning the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being (evidently you and he are in concord on this). Thus, he could easily omit Acts 8:37 and other texts which testify to Christ's deity. . .and it is therefore not surprising that you gravitate to translations that affirm your own views rather than translations that remain faithful to the original Greek MSS.

Here is the history of your Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. . .your supposed earliest MSS.
1. 331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an "ecumenical Bible" be written that would be acceptable to every stripe of Christian that was under his jurisdiction. A man by the name of Eusebius was assigned to direct this undertaking. Eusebius was a follower of Origen who rejected the deity of Christ.

2. 1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This is a corrupted manuscript which repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done be Eusebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the "ecumenical Bible" of Constantine.

3. 1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimises the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. It is safe to suggest that these two manuscripts were two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.

You make claims about so-called earliest MSS. etc, whereas the evidence shows where the origins of these MSS lie - with Constantine and the very same RCC that you rail against. Aren't you just the hypocrite?

frosbel:
This Greek New Testament was dated to the mid 4th century AD. [size=13pt] Another discovery, the Codex Vaticanus, is a volume of 757 vellum sheets containing most of the works of the Bible, and it dates to the early 4th century AD.[/size] Other papyri fragments have been discovered that date to the early 2nd century AD! In fact, literally thousands of pieces of the Bible have been discovered dating earlier than the Byzantine texts that were the foundation of the Textus Receptus.

These earlier texts formed the foundation for many of the modern translations in use today, including the NIV and the NASB. Thinking back to the game of Telephone, wouldn’t you consider someone who was twice or three times removed from the original messenger a more reliable source than someone who was ten or twelve times removed? If we can’t get to the original autographs, we would want to at least get to the earliest manuscripts available. The purpose behind many of the modern translations was the same as the purpose behind the 1611 KJV translation – to provide an accurate rendition of the Bible in the common language of the day. [size=14pt]A benefit the NIV and NASB translators had that the KJV translators did not have was access to earlier manuscripts.[/size]

Source

Another cut-and-paste job. Firstly to dispel your insinuation that one is a KJV-only proponent. I am not. Secondly, you are only reiterating what I wrote using albeit a different form of words and from your anti-KJV bias.

For clarity, I reiterate, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, while your preferred translations are based on the Westcort-Hott text which is a compilation of Roman Catholic texts (what irony for frosbel the crusading anti-RCC). Or don't you understand what Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus imply?

And your last sentence is untrue: the sources of the Textus Receptus are as old, if not older than the sources used by the NIV and NASB.

Now we come to the acid tests which we will apply to your preferred translations:
A. The omission of Acts 8:37
New International Version - omits Acts 8:37
New Living Translation - omits Acts 8:37
English Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
New American Standard Bible - sort of omits Acts 8:37
International Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
GOD'S WORD Translation - omits Acts 8:37
American Standard Version - keeps Acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Of course we see just how bereft the verses are when verse 37 is taken out. The message is lost!

B. The omission of the words "through His blood" in Col 1:14.
New International Version - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New Living Translation - who purchased our freedom and forgave our sins.
English Standard Version - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New American Standard Bible - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
International Standard Version - through whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
GOD'S WORD Translation - His Son paid the price to free us, which means that our sins are forgiven.
American Standard Version - in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

That we are redeemed through his blood is central to the bible's message from Genesis to Revelation (but of course views such as yours demand that his blood was not necessary for atonement, so I won't be surprised if in time you open threads saying so).

Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37, or "through His blood," in Col. 1:14, evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript. This corruption can be traced to Origen in 200 A.D. He is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. However evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus certain so-called original MSS. are corrupt and it is evidently from this source the translations you are fond of have come. Origen taught the "LOGOS" is "KTISMA," meaning the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being (evidently you and he are in concord on this). Thus, he could easily omit Acts 8:37 and other texts which testify to Christ's deity. . .and it is therefore not surprising that you gravitate to translations that affirm your own views rather than translations that remain faithful to the original Greek MSS.

Here is the history of your Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. . .your supposed earliest MSS.
1. 331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an "ecumenical Bible" be written that would be acceptable to every stripe of Christian that was under his jurisdiction. A man by the name of Eusebius was assigned to direct this undertaking. Eusebius was a follower of Origen who rejected the deity of Christ.

2. 1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This is a corrupted manuscript which repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done be Eusebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the "ecumenical Bible" of Constantine.

3. 1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimises the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. It is safe to suggest that these two manuscripts were two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.

frosbel:
A load of hogwash !!!

So says frosbel. . .who's good at only cutting and pasting and cannot respond to anything that directly undermines his claims.

This is another typical shallow emotional outburst from you. My challenge still stands.

aletheia:
What I have written is easily verifiable by anyone consulting the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript and historical works pertaining to Westcort and Hort.

frosbel:
You left out the Lord GOD and made it appear as LORD only with that Catholic cultic KJV bible.

Let us look at what some other bible versions say , not that heavily biased KJV cultic Trinitarian bible you seem to be running around with.

New International Version (©1984)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

New Living Translation (©2007)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One."

English Standard Version (©2001)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

International Standard Version (©2008)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," declares the Lord God, "the one who is, who was, and who is coming, the Almighty."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
I am The Alap and The Tau, says THE LORD JEHOVAH God, he who is and has been and is coming, The Almighty.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"I am the A and the Z," says the Lord God, the one who is, the one who was, and the one who is coming, the Almighty.
American Standard Version
I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

In order that the brethren might not be deceived by your shenanigans. . .and misplaced labeling. If sure of what you claim, is there any need to appeal to multiple poor bible translations - that is often a tactic to confuse the weak-minded. For example, does the letter Z occur anywhere in the Greek NT? Do the words Alap and Tau occur as well?

Call the KJV whatever name you wish. . .it is however clearly established that the reliable English NT are translated from the received Greek manuscripts. So we shall go to the Textus Receptus to see what is actually written in the Greek manuscript in Rev 1:8:
Rev 1:8 εγω ειμι το α και το ω αρχη και τελος λεγει ο κυριος ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος ο παντοκρατωρ
Transliterated it reads as follows:

egō (G1473) eimi (G1510) ho (G3588) A (G1) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) Ō (G5598) archē (G746) kai (G2532) telos (G5056) 
I           am           the        Alpha  and         the       Omega     beginning    and         end           
legō (G3004) ho (G3588) kurios (G2962)    
says         the        Lord
ho (G3588) eimi (G1510) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) eimi (G1510) kai (G2532) ho (G3588) erchomai (G2064) ho (G3588) pantokratōr (G3841)
                                                                                                               the Almighty          

It is instructive to note that the word θεός (theos): God is not in the Greek Textus Receptus manuscript. . .It would therefore appear that contrary to what you would have us believe, the KJV translation of Rev 1:8 is the one which remains faithful to the received Greek text while the multiplicity of versions which you posted added a word, probably based on their dependence on the Westcort-Hott Greek text. For one such as you who has railed so much against the Roman Catholic Church, this is ironic given that:

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity."

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost histor-ians and philosophers!

It turns out that it is the versions which you hold up above that turn out to be "Catholic cultic" with their reliance on the Westcort-Hort text, rather than the KJV!

What I have written is easily verifiable by anyone consulting the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript and historical works pertaining to Westcort and Hort.

frosbel: I throw open a challenge to all Nairaland Trinitarians .

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus Christ is referred to as ALMIGHTY ?

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Rev 1:8]

Rash and impulsive as ever. . .

frosbel:
But it is true , no ?

After reading the weird theory promulgated by the great Calvinist Theologian Dr.Aletheia, I just SMH.

Honestly

^^
1. It is noteworthy that you have not put forward your "comprehensive rebuttal".
Do you think those bible verses will go away if you just ignore them:
I repeat:

aletheia:
True word. . .indeed Jesus makes actual theophanies and also appears in prophecy, similitudes and types in the OT.
. . .

In fact another beautiful example that reveals God's plan is seen in Genesis 5: the genealogy of Noah.

There are ten names in that genealogy. Ten signifies the perfection of Divine order. When you consider the meanings of the ten names; something startling emerges.

Names Meaning
Adam comes from adomah, and means "man."
Seth appointed: (Gen 4:25) When he was born Eve said, "For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."
Enosh "mortal," "frail," or "miserable." It is from the root anash: to be incurable; used of a wound, grief, woe, sickness, or wickedness.
Kenan "sorrow," dirge," or "elegy."
Mahalalel from mahalal, which means "blessed" or "praise"; and El, the name for God. Thus, Mahalalel means "the Blessed God."
Jared from the verb yaradh, meaning "shall come down."
Enoch means "teaching," or "commencement."
Methuselah comes from two roots: muth, a root that means "death" ; and from shalach, which means "to bring," or "to send forth." Thus, the name
Methuselah signifies, "his death shall bring."
Lamech "despairing."
Noah derived from nacham , "to bring relief" or "comfort,"

Now let's put it all together:

Hebrew          English

Adam                   Man
Seth                   Appointed
Enosh                  Mortal
Kenan                  Sorrow
Mahalalel              The Blessed God
Jared                  Shall come down
Enoch                  Teaching
Methuselah             His death shall bring
Lamech                 The despairing
Noah                   Rest, or comfort

^^
Do you see it?

Man (Adam) [is] Appointed (Seth) [to] Mortal (Enosh) Sorrow (Kenan). The Blessed God (Mahalalel). . .Shall come down (Jared). . .Teaching (Enoch). . .His death shall bring (Methuselah). . .The despairing (Lamech). . .Rest, or comfort (Noah).

Man [is] Appointed [to] Mortal Sorrow The Blessed God. . .Shall come down. . .Teaching. . .His death shall bring. . .The despairing. . .Rest, or comfort.

aletheia:
1. Your post is disjointed. What equations?
2. Is this the "comprehensive" rebuttal?
3. Are the names given in that order in the Bible or not?
4. Are those not the meanings of those names or not?
5. What I have written concerning the genealogy of Noah is verifiable from the bible. . .but you don't really read the bible.

While you are it, go and consider the meanings of the names of the sons of Jacob, and contemplate the order in which they are presented in the book of Revelation. . .and why Dan is omitted.

You have a penchant for discombobulated ramblings without having taken time to digest what you read. Not surprising seeing as most of what you post are second-hand articles by others. It is long past time for you to do proper bible study instead of pasting articles from such as Jews for Judaism etc or rehashing well worn Islamic arguments.

And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.[Exo 24:10-11]

The language here is clear. It is not allegorical.

2. It is indeed noteworthy that while we have put forward bible scriptures for the fact that Jesus is God, and pre-existent before His Incarnation in the flesh, you must needs go outside the bible appealing to human reasoning or else ignoring the scriptures that plainly show who Jesus is.

I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
--- Martin Luther

frosbel:
You have now moved on to another level of scripture twisting. I settled down to read your latest post with the intention of responding point by point until I saw the above.

Has explaining God now been reduced to the deduction of equations

Since scripture no longer supports the Pagan Trinity , must you start making things up as you go along ?

Admit it, if the Trinity were true you would not have stooped this low to make a point that in all honesty is pointless because it cannot be substantiated by facts.

1. Your post is disjointed. What equations?
2. Is this the "comprehensive" rebuttal?
3. Are the names given in that order in the Bible or not?
4. Are those not the meanings of those names or not?
5. What I have written concerning the genealogy of Noah is verifiable from the bible. . .but you don't really read the bible.

While you are it, go and consider the meanings of the names of the sons of Jacob, and contemplate the order in which they are presented in the book of Revelation. . .and why Dan is omitted.

You have a penchant for discombobulated ramblings without having taken time to digest what you read. Not surprising seeing as most of what you post are second-hand articles by others. It is long past time for you to do proper bible study instead of pasting articles from such as Jews for Judaism etc or rehashing well worn Islamic arguments.

And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.[Exo 24:10-11]

The language here is clear. It is not allegorical.

Ihedinobi:
Let me assure you though that Jesus was very much evident in the OT as well as the Holy Spirit was. It's just that He didn't go by the Name Jesus then.

True word. . .indeed Jesus makes actual theophanies and also appears in prophecy, similitudes and types in the OT.

From an old thread

---

There is much richness and treasure in the Holy Scriptures: which careful meditation on them will yield.

God knows the beginning from the end.

Isaiah 46:9-10. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Since God is All-knowing; He knew even before He created Adam that Man would sin. You may argue that God could have created Man in such a way that Adam would not sin; but that would render the man an automaton, devoid of free will. Yet you need to remember that "Man is created in the image of God". . .to render him incapable of free will is to render him incapable of love and God is Love.

So knowing that Man would sin; God still went ahead and created Man with the free will and the ability to choose out of Love, but at the same time He set in place a plan to redeem Man and bring him back to God. God's character is that of Perfect Love; so creating Man in any way less than capable of exercising free will and choice would fall short of the perfection of love; and God cannot act out of character. And God's Love is further revealed by His fashioning out a plan of redemption even before creating the world.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5: 6-.

A common misunderstanding by a lot of people, even some Christians is to suppose that Jesus' death was accidental. No, it wasn't---it was a deliberate plan of God. God already planned for Jesus to die even before creating the world!

Concerning Jesus; this is written in Matthew.
Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Romans 16:25-26. Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

2 Timothy 1:9-10. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Titus 1:2-3 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The full details of God's plan of salvation were kept largely hidden until the fullness of time when it was gloriously revealed in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Yet even though partly hidden; the pages of scripture from Genesis 1:1 onwards are replete with parables, prophecies, types and similitudes that foreshadowed God's redemptive plan.

That this is so is plainly revealed in Hosea: "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets" (12:10). And further elucidated by Jesus Himself: "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24: 25-27).

God's wisdom and foreknowledge is demonstrated for us to see in the scriptures right from the get-go, for even in Genesis Chapter 1, we begin to see foreshadowings of His plan. Consider for example:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:4-5)

Of course you know that light and darkness are spiritual metaphors as well. Light then is a representative principle for God, while darkness itself represents sin and anything abhorrent to God. From the verse in Genesis, we see that quite early on God divides the light from the darkness, thus showing us that the light and darkness cannot abide together; showing us by way of metaphor and similitude that He is Holy and does not abide the presence of sin; showing us that sin separates us from the light of His presence.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?(2 Cor 6:14).

In fact one could go back to the very first verse to demonstrate this principle.

Gen 1:2-3 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Remember Jesus said: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Verse 1 does say God created the heaven and the earth and then goes on to describe the state of the earth as without form and void and covered in darkness. One could read this as a metaphor for the universally spiritually void condition of men without God. There is an allusion to this in 2 Cor 4:6: For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore; we could consider the cycles of the day as recorded in Genesis. "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This shows darkness preceding light. This once again hinting at the darkness falling upon the earth as a result of Adam's sin before the glorious light of Christ dawning upon the sons of Adam. To put it succinctly, the fall of Adam brought evening and darkness, while the triumph of Jesus Christ (the Last Adam) brought the light of day. It is no surprise then that Christ rose from the grave on the first day of the week at dawn:

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Now consider this: God could have created the earth without night or darkness; but he choose to do it this way. I believe He did it to show us his foreknowledge of what was going to happen and to provide hints to us of his redemptive purpose in history. For we see this in the Book of Revelation in the new heaven and earth:

Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Why is there no night in the new heaven and earth? Simple. There is no darkness of sin.

There are other foreshadowings and similitudes concerning Christ and God's purpose in Genesis; when we consider Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac & so on. . .but time and space constraints will not permit me to go into them now, but you can take out time to study them. The whole point of my discourse was to show that God did not make a mistake in creating Man. . .rather that He created Man because God is Love, knowing that Man would rebel against Him and because God is Love made a way even before creating Man for Man to be reconciled to Him.

Back to Genesis 6. If God had decided to destroy all of mankind then He wouldn't have saved Noah. Like I pointed out earlier the nuances of Hebrew words and most especially Hebrew names are lost in translation. As I said in my earlier post the same word for grieved is also the same word for comfort; and this dual meaning hints at the nature of God's redemptive plan while pointing at Noah, a similitude or type of Christ: While it grieved God that He had created Man, at the same time there was comfort because of Noah, that is to say the grief of Man's sin balanced against the comfort of Christ redemption. The first two bolded words are the same in Hebrew, while the third Noah is derived from them.

In fact another beautiful example that reveals God's plan is seen in Genesis 5: the genealogy of Noah.

There are ten names in that genealogy. Ten signifies the perfection of Divine order. When you consider the meanings of the ten names; something startling emerges.

Names          Meaning
Adam                  comes from adomah, and means "man."

Seth                  appointed: (Gen 4:25) When he was born Eve said, "For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."

Enosh                "mortal," "frail," or "miserable." It is from the root anash: to be incurable; used of a wound, grief, woe, sickness, or wickedness.

Kenan                "sorrow," dirge," or "elegy."

Mahalalel             from mahalal, which means "blessed" or "praise"; and El, the name for God. Thus, Mahalalel means "the Blessed God."

Jared                 from the verb yaradh, meaning "shall come down."

Enoch                 means "teaching," or "commencement."

Methuselah            comes from two roots: muth, a root that means "death" ; and from shalach, which means "to bring," or "to send forth." Thus, the name      
                      Methuselah signifies, "his death shall bring."

Lamech               "despairing."
Noah                 derived from nacham , "to bring relief" or "comfort,"

Now let's put it all together:

Hebrew          English

Adam                   Man
Seth                   Appointed
Enosh                  Mortal
Kenan                  Sorrow
Mahalalel              The Blessed God
Jared                  Shall come down
Enoch                  Teaching
Methuselah             His death shall bring
Lamech                 The despairing
Noah                   Rest, or comfort

^^
Do you see it?

Man (Adam) [is] Appointed (Seth) [to] Mortal (Enosh) Sorrow (Kenan). The Blessed God (Mahalalel). . .Shall come down (Jared). . .Teaching (Enoch). . .His death shall bring (Methuselah). . .The despairing (Lamech). . .Rest, or comfort (Noah).

Man [is] Appointed [to] Mortal Sorrow The Blessed God. . .Shall come down. . .Teaching. . .His death shall bring. . .The despairing. . .Rest, or comfort.

frosbel: The Trinity, which denies Jesus Christ came in the flesh, is not a Biblical teaching. It is a manufactured imagination and is the basis of THE SPIRIT OF ANTI-CHRIST.

Because the Trinity teaching is not in the Bible, it is not a "DOCTRINE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION", as some Churches claim when they make it compulsory for their flocks to accept it as 'truth'.

In confirmation of this blatant deceit taught to millions, the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA once commented.. "The propositions constituent of the dogma of the trinity were not drawn directly from the New Testament and could not be expressed in New Testament terms...they were products of REASON, SPECULATING on a revelation to faith...they were only formed through centuries of effort, only elaborated by the aid of conceptions formulated in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics.."

On the back of this nonsense we have other false doctrines such as immortal soul, eternal torment , tithing ( those charlatans ) and a host of others.

It is interesting to note how you are always appealing to extra-biblical writings. That says a lot. The spirit of antichrist is clearly described in the bible. It is not the wrong things you wrote above.
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. [1Jn 4:3]

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.[2Jn 1:7]

There is nothing new in what you claim, it is a repetition of old falsehoods. . .so I repost something from 2 years back.

aletheia:
In view of the forgoing then:

John heard a voice. What did the voice say? I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: But who else is declared in the bible as the First and the Last, even before the book of revelation was written?

Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Logic: Only One can be First; Two can not be First. Only One can be Last; Two cannot be Last. The One Who is First is also the One Who is Last.

This is what is brought out by this verse:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So John heard a voice and turned to see who was speaking. Who did John see? And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man,

Who is the Son of Man? Your challenge is this: "What someone says about himself is more important than what people say about the person."
Who calls Himself the Son of Man? I know you know the answer, but in order to help those who may have forgotten or who don't know. . .

Mark 2:10-11. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

The verses from Mark are particularly revealing of the Deity of Christ, for as the Pharisees rightly asked: ". . .who can forgive sins but God only?" They were not wrong to ask this as the scriptures themselves show.

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
Psa 130:3-4. If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

Where they missed it was to wilfully, deliberately reject the Scriptures that spoke of God Himself walking with them:
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

As the object lesson in Mark shows; that Jesus did heal the man showed that he had the power to forgive sins.

That this is Jesus Himself speaking is further revealed by the words: "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

All the scriptures testify that it is Jesus who died and indeed rose from the grave, triumphant: Death swallowed up in victory!

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Summing up: Jesus Himself as we see by His very own words declares "I am the first and last" And even in Revelation 1:8 directly declares that He is God as He does in several other places in the Bible.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

. . .The Almighty

From the First Book of the Bible:
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
From the Last Book of the Bible:
Rev 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.

Edited to add: There can not be two different Almighty for then neither would be Almighty since there would exist another of equal potency, therefore either Jesus was lying in the Book of Revelation (impossible) or He is who He is.

. . .

And have you read this as well in Revelation:

Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Have you compared it to this other scriptures?

Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

The scriptures are clear as to who Jesus is. It would do you good to accept their testimony rather than the reasonings of men. Just as in Jesus' day, men have found it difficult to accept His claims. Did they not ask themselves questions like: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Isa 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

May God's peace be yours.

For the nonce this is my last post on this thread.

Ihedinobi:

I had to break off at a point to just weep and worship the Lord while reading this thread. Thank you very much, sir. The Lord bless you

The Lord bless you too.

frosbel: To suggest that a second person of a supposed trinity resided in the womb of Mary for 9 months, was born and weaned for a number of years before developing into a a youth and then an adult , is quite comic if you ask me.

Is this a point raised in favour of your Arianism, or an emotional response? Clearly an emotional response. What does the Bible say?
1. The Word was God.
2. The Word became flesh
So clearly the Word who was God resided in Mary's womb for 9 months! The Bible said it and that settles it!
At the annunciation: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. [Luk 1:35]

frosbel: You are unknowingly propagating an anti-Christ doctrine in the form of re-incarnation.

Did I not say your points are semantic contortions. You know what reincarnation claims to be and you know what the incarnation is. Stop this dishonest word substitution.

re·in·car·na·tion/ˌrē-inkärˈnāSHən/
Noun:
The rebirth of a soul in a new body.
A person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.

in·car·na·tion/ˌinkärˈnāSHən/
Noun:
A person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality.
(in Christian theology) The embodiment of God the Son in human flesh as Jesus Christ.

frosbel: And you still do not understand what Image means, no ? Maybe image123 can help you with this one !

Obviously you have not understood these scriptures:
1. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [Col 2:9]
2. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [Php 2:6]
3. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[Col 1:15-16]
4. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; [Heb 1:3]
You think of the word image in limited human terms and thus you stumble. The image of God is much more than that. It says God is light, "dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see". God is the source of light and you can only perceive that source by the emanations of light that proceed therefrom. Are the rays of light that come forth from the source of light different from the source of light? Thus you see why John 1:1 talks of the Logos of God in such terms as this. . .In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That is why the scriptures uses such words as "being in the form of God"; "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person".

Consider and meditate on what Ezekiel wrote:
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.[Eze 1:26-28]

Who did Ezekiel see here? Hint: not an angel.

frosbel: The personification of Wisdom is similar to the personification of God's word , no difference.
Wisdom here is not a being but obviously God's wisdom and so is his WORD both seperate from but an integral part of him.
This same Word was personified in Christ when God formed him in the womb of Mary through his Spirit.

Wrong again! The personification of wisdom that you allude to in proverbs is a literary device that goes by the term personification ( ). It is most definitely not the same as the Incarnation of the Word of God. If it were, you would have to show us where the wisdom took on flesh. It is probable that you want to argue that the Word of God is the same as the Wisdom alluded to in Proverbs. Before going down that route do not fail to note that the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is always female. Is the Word of God female?
The personification of Wisdom in proverbs is a literary device no different from that of the leech in the same Proverbs. . .The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. And yes the book of Proverbs does refer to God the Father and His Son: 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? [Pro 30:4]

His Son's Name is Jesus of Nazareth who in heaven is the Word of God.

frosbel:
The Trinity is not a doctrine of Jesus but a doctrine with a Pagan origin.

The word "Trinity" does not occur anywhere in the bible. And I doubt you will find the word used in any Christian creed, so stop putting words in my mouth; I said "the doctrine of Jesus".

frosbel:
I will respond to this when you address the two previous comments I made , one yesterday and another today.

It has always been evident that you don't actually read others' posts. Slow down and read through this thread again and it will be apparent that I have responded in one way or other to the posts you directed at me. In any case I am not now interested in your response.

frosbel:
But you won't , you just cannot see the fallaciousness of your position , darting about the whole place is not the way to argue your point, let us address our points one by one.

Argue? You flatter yourself. I am not interested in "arguing".

frosbel:
You keep spewing out the same points you made , which have been explained previously without a response from you. Not sure why , or maybe you keep shifting the goal post.

Very funny. Show us what you have written on this thread that you have not repeated in one form or the other elsewhere on NL or even on this thread. The Bible is constant. Others reading this thread can judge between you and I who has been shifting goal posts.

frosbel:
It's almost as if you are intoxicated with this Trinity dogma with no willingness to slow down and reassess.

"Reassess". . .so said the serpent to the woman. . ."Has God said. . .?" There is nothing to reassess. The scripture speaks plainly. All genuine Bible translations have it so. . .
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [Joh 1:1-4]
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[Joh 1:14]

The only points you raise in support of your arian beliefs are emotional arguments, tepid arithmetic and semantic contortions. I have shown you severally bible verses that directly show that Jesus is God come in the flesh. Have you responded to any of these?

And what exactly would be the point of this poll? The doctrine of Jesus is not subject to a popularity contest.

frosbel:
Jesus Christ was the anointed of GOD , not God in the flesh.

On this point do Jews, Muslims and Frosbel stumble.

a. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(Mat 4:10)
b. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. (Joh 9:38)
c. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (Joh 20:28)
d. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Mat 28:17)
Of course the staggering import of Thomas' words to Jesus escapes you!
Even some who beheld Him in the flesh doubted so not surprising if you several generations removed will doubt.

To those who doubted like Thomas. . .Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (Joh 20:29)

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the flesh.

This is a true saying affirmed and upheld by scripture:
(1Ti 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The words written in 1 Timothy God was manifest in the flesh stand in stark relief and are opposite to your Jesus was . . .not God in the flesh

ijawkid:
People saw Jesus.....that is enough evidence to show Jesus wasn't God but a representative of God

What a bundle of contradictions you lot are. You have earlier insisted that Jesus is the express image of God. What does that suggest to you? To see the image of God is to see God. When you look in a mirror and perceive yourself, is it not by means of the image in the mirror? Or do you say that the image you see is that of another?
To Philip, Jesus said: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? [b]he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? [Joh 14:9][/b]
Jesus words he that hath seen me hath seen the Father stand in stark relief and opposite to your People saw Jesus.....that is enough evidence to show Jesus wasn't God but a representative of God

When men behold Jesus, they see God in the flesh. Enough of this neo-gnostic denials.

The NT presents an intimate portrait of Jesus of Nazareth as God manifest in the flesh.

In Isaiah it is written: Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. [Isa 44:6]

In the Revelation of Jesus, it is written: And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. [Rev 1:17-18]

The witness of scripture is clear. In Revelation, the Heavenly Man uses the same words as the Lord of hosts in Isaiah to describe Himself. Indeed the words I am the first, and I am the last announce deity. Moreover logic shows that there cannot be 2 firsts, there is only one first &c ergo Jesus is the One who declared in Isaiah I am the first, and I am the last: Jesus is God.

. . . and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh

Lot's of calm wise words here.

ijawkid:
The word ""I am"" denotes ones existence....

It shows ones exclusive person or existence....

aletheia:
(Joh 8:58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, [size=16pt]I am[/size].

"Verily, verily". . .prefaced by a double Amen - the strongest oath - our Lord claims the name of the Divine Being. The Jews recognize His meaning and are angry enough to want to stone Him. An unbiased exegesis of this verses must recognize in it a declaration of the pre-existence of Christ. From the old Testament, we know that "I am" refers to the name of God Himself, Yahweh.
(Exo 3:14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

[size=16pt]In one single statement the supreme truth about the supreme Man is made known - His pre-existence, His absolute existence.[/size]

What are you? I doubt if you understand even the meaning of your own words. . .it seems to me you are only regurgitating that which you learned by rote.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the flesh.

3. I AM

(Joh 8:58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

"Verily, verily". . .prefaced by a double Amen - the strongest oath - our Lord claims the name of the Divine Being. The Jews recognize His meaning and are angry enough to want to stone Him. An unbiased exegesis of this verses must recognize in it a declaration of the pre-existence of Christ. From the old Testament, we know that "I am" refers to the name of God Himself, Yahweh.
(Exo 3:14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
The Jews were quite familiar with the idea that Yahweh is the eternally existent One. What was new to them was the identification of this designation with Jesus. From the reactions of the surrounding Jews we have proof that they understood His reference as a claim to absolute deity.

In one single statement the supreme truth about the supreme Man is made known - His pre-existence, His absolute existence.

That the expression "I am" (ego eimi) is intended to declare the full deity of Christ is clear from the fact that Jesus did not attempt an explanation. He did not try to convince the Jews that they had misunderstood Him, but rather He repeated the statement on various occasions.

Compare these two verses:
(Deu 32:39) See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

(Joh 8:23-24) And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

In the original Greek John 8:23-24 does not have the words I am he but rather it is I am that appears there. The translators added he. . .so the verses should properly read:
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

What I have written here is easily verifiable by checking an interlinear Greek NT.

A clear demonstration of divine name of Jesus is seen in:
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. (Joh 18:6)

frosbel:
You are now here promulgating your pagan false doctrine of the Trinity

may God open your eyes !

Go and read the first post on this thread. Are you now trying to censor me? How very like the Calvin you rail against you are. . .

frosbel:
I explained something for you in my own words in response to your question, it was so complex for you to counteract , you left that one and went to comment on a response I made to Enigma


Let me leave you to keep pondering on your path to the truth.

Night , Night !!!

Your response was incoherent since it was not a cut-and-paste job (perhaps you should stick to that). . .so what could be more physical than sharing a meal or wrestling? Indeed as far back as Genesis. . .(Gen 3: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
So in what form was God walking in the garden? Who was the likeness of the son of man that Ezekiel saw above the likeness of the throne?

Reasoning from the scriptures, it is clear that the Word of God has a Pre-Incarnate existence in Heaven. It is clear that the Pre-Incarnate Word of God became manifest in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth. It is clear that in Heaven Jesus of Nazareth is the Word of God.

You reduce the Word of God who is the Son of Man in Heaven to a plan. The "Trinity" concept is a Greek philosophical construct which men fashioned as they tried to formulate in intellectual terms the nature of God. While correct in some aspects, it nonetheless introduces a potential for erroneous understanding that has constituted a stumbling block to many like you. But the sad irony in your case is that you disregard the Greek underpinnings of what you now profess. Your ideas are not new: they bear the imprint of Heraclitus and the Neoplatonists.

Perhaps a part of your misapprehension arises from your thinking that the translation of logos as word does justice to the full range of meaning of the word logos. In English what we think of as logos is more often in the Greek lexis. When you consider the full Greek semantic range and connotations of Logos; it becomes apparent the consistency that Jesus of Nazareth is the Word of God and the Image of God.

Indeed in writing. . .and the Word was God, the basis for neoplatonic interpretations such as yours are done away with.

frosbel:
That you went looking for comments I made many months ago, exposes you for what you are, need I say more.

Are you such an insecure child? This is a public forum where words are written down. It is perfectly within my right to quote words you wrote months back. . .as I may perhaps in future quote some of the words you write today when I wish to show your inconsistency and how you turn like a weather-vane with every wind of doctrine that appeals to your carnal mind. . .for it is nearly certain that come a year from today, you would have shifted ground to another doctrine or quite possibly Islam.