₦airaland Forum

Nachmonides:
So, in Matthew 4, Jesus refuses to worship the devil and says one is to worship only the Lord God


And then God commands his angels to worship Jesus.

What I see is:
Both of them pointing to each other for direction of worship.

What do you see?



Deuteronomy 6:13-15:

"Fear the LORD your God, serve Him only and take your oaths in His name. Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God."

- He is commanding exclusive worship to himself only

Isaiah 42:8:

"I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another or My praise to idols."

- He says he will not yield his glory, yet he commands angels to worship Jesus.


Exodus 20:3-5:

"You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God."

- He is forbidding any other worship, only he is to be worshipped.



Either God changes his ways or he has lied in commanding his angels to worship Jesus.

Even if you are taught would you still not fail? If you listened would you not learn.

Your heart is stubborn so can it be helped?


Even when you read they worshipped God as God
And they worshipped the Lamb for who is he and the sacrifice he paid, which was permitted by God.

If you were in Abraham's place you would kill Isaac because God said take Isaac and sacrifice to me.

God forbids us from worshipping another other god because even Jesus the son is not God. God cannot contradict Himself.

But who claim Jesus is God suggest that God contradicts Himself by commanding Jesus be worshipped as another God.


So your teaching proclaims God a liar even when God never lied.

Nachmonides:
Understood, fail-safe mechanism.

If you understood it likely a lie you understood isn't?
if you lie doesn't mean other dont try to say the truth 😁

If you understood the truth of God's word, even your mind would be sanctified by it and your thoughts as well 🙏

Nachmonides:
How does the holy spirit teach you, don't be unwise.

He will use a man, that's why you have teachers.
Even Jesus taught his disciples so they could teach the world.
He even instructed them to go and teach others. Mark 16:15-17, Matthew 28:18-20

He should have said the holy spirit will teach others, don't go and teach and preach.

Don't be unwise, the holy spirit teaching will be through man, signifying that the indwelling of the spirit in a man. Ephesians 1:13 clearly says after you believe, you are sealed with the holy spirit of promise.

Don't be unwise, God will always use a man.
Jesus had to teach his disciples. Jesus our great example showed us how the holy spirit will teach us. Through our teachers.

Luke.12.12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you what needs to be said even as you are standing there."

John.14.26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

1John.2.27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ.

But you are wise, right?

True teachers from God depend on the Holy Spirit

1Tim.4.1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons.


You are wiser than Jesus, than John, you are so wise in your own eyes, like Job mocked, if you left wisdom would leave with you.

What you have said shows why you are in error. John said let him that has ears hear what the Spirit is saying, but you cannot hear because you are not of God like Jesus said.

Nachmonides:
You're being emotional again, please go and study scriptures well, honestly.

🤣 that is what I am doing and I do it for my life.

Steep:
So according to you Jesus christ is not God even though it is clearly written that Jesus is God?

You are the one that is rejecting the bible.
According to you God commanded angels to worship another being?

You are wallowing in deception, contradicting yourself all through.

you speak in error like your father the devil, because if you had known the truth of God's word who the lamb of God is, even without my quoting them merely reading revelations would answer your question.

But being blind isn't a reason for you to be proud and look down on others, after all let him that boast, boast that he knows the Lord. But for you to be both blind and deaf, is a shame

Did I not say God who is worshipped commanded them to worship Jesus, who is the lamb of God as revealed in the revelations of Jesus.

But you refuse to listen, no, why because you have been fed lies all your life but also because you are not a sheep of his pasture, if you were you would have known that what I have said is from from myself but from the Holy Spirit who testifies of Jesus the son of God who came in the flesh and rose in his body and is at the right hand of God who exalted him and crowned him with glory and power.


Yet you read and no life comes into you because you do not believe, so the death at work in doesn't leave you, it remains because you choose to believe a lie rather than the truth God revealed.

For God sent his son that those who believe may have life.

Even if I contradict myself by God's grace I will never contradict God nor His Son.

Nachmonides:
I understand you.
Since you're a JW (you have not dismissed my assumption), I'd advise you always consult the Hebrew when reading the O.T, the Greek when reading the N.T and do proper study on the words therein.


Bible theology simply means the proper explanation of the Bible contextually; culture, grammar, location, e.t.c

Not the tradition of men.
It's more like reading a book and coming to a conclusion that this is what the author is saying.

If you do not rid yourself of the spirit of assumptions and false accusations it would destroy you.

Here you claim without proof, that "since you are JW" yet admitting it was nothing but your assumption do you seek to justify your nonsense and wrong conclusion.

Only the blind cannot see their own errors in the presence of light. Like Jesus would say, in Matt.7.5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

You are to tell me about bible theology, if I were to speak like Paul who called himself Pharisee of Pharisees, would you understand some were even lecturers of the said nonsense you believe because they read the books of men and taught them while neglecting the word of God.

When you lack and don't listen to the Holy Spirit it is normal to believe and proclaim a lie.

Nachmonides:
You’re emphasizing that divine authority and representation doesn’t necessarily imply independent divinity, drawing on the example of the angel of God in Exodus.

In both cases (the Holy Spirit and the angel of God), the authority comes from God, but the Holy Spirit is understood in Christian theology as fully divine in a way the angel in Exodus is not. Therefore, the unforgivable nature of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit still holds true, even if we understand the Holy Spirit's role as being distinct but not separate from God the Father and Son.

you keep mentioning theology like the Holy Spirit isnt the one who teaches us who God is and who the son of God is.

I don't believe in Christian theology, I believe in God's word and in God Himself.

Assumptions are dangerous ask Eve, even Jesus didn't listen to the devil's assumptions on the application of Psalm 91.

Is the Holy Spirit taught ANYONE IN THE BIBLE to be God? No

Does the Holy Spirit even testify of himself? No
None does he reveal himself to be God


If we can't accept what Jesus has revealed and what God has said, the devil will help us and add sugar, spice and poison

DaddyCoool:
But same you also wrote:

Jesus was never worshipped

I hope this is not some sort of mental issue.

Anyway just define God for us and on what basis you arrived at that definition

a fool says in her heart there no God (but gods), for she doesn't understand nor does she seek God.

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake.

For Instead of believing what is the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies...

Nachmonides:
I have talked about the Hebrew word ECHAD; one, unity.

Other words like YACHID means; only, unique




Like I said, always refer to the originals

you are talking about Achad not ECHAD, Achad unify same spelling with echad unite and unity when looking at a whole. Echad could be said to mean whole

Now yachid that you mentioned doesn't just mean only as in solitary is also means united from it's root word yachad to unite, to join, to be. And it used for a child

While ECHAD shows position as first, as one as above all, it is used and explains not that God is alone but that He alone is God and is above all.

Echad is mainly used in scripture to mean ONE
even when used in Genesis 2:24 it is used with as well as the word dabaq to signify becoming one. But God doesn't become for He is, so we cannot say God becomes whole but that God is whole.


You shouldn't be teaching others Hebrew when you understand Elohim to mean many gods, should you?

Nachmonides:
You have not asked any question here.

You have simply made statements.

you have looking for questions when you haven't answered the others.

Just listen and understand what is written

DaddyCoool:
Maybe it's me so I'm inviting others to take a look.
Aren't these two statements contradictory?

Have you not read that he commanded his angels to worship him. Have you not read revelations where the lamb of God was worshipped.

And

Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God

How can anyone read worshiped as the lamb of God and never worshipped as God, and find a contradiction if what is in such a person is not contradictory?

My prayer that it is not, but a mistake and that you need to read it again and see what exactly I WROTE

Nachmonides:
In Genesis.

Genesis 1:1
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth—



The word for God there is Plural, not singular.

We see another hint of this plurality in V.26 when it says, "Let us make man..."

"The word for God there is Plural, not singular." This again shows you need to listen and learn what is true

Now because the seas or the ocean is plural does it mean it is a countable term?

I asked you to show what isn't there and you couldn't but showed your wrong understanding of Genesis 1:1 then how can you even understand Genesis 1:26 that you added

Now how does "naaseh" meaning let us mean there are three gods?
First of the term is used to form an agreement which agrees with oneness and unity of the Father, the word and the Spirit

Now who was God speaking to, well to the Spirit of God who moved upon the waters in Genesis 1:2, do not assume that naaseh is a request to His Spirit, but it shows that His Spirit that came from Him in the beginning plays a role in making us in God's Image

And this we see that Lord Jesus Christ who seats at the right hand of the Father is both the image and the likeness of God, in whom we were created and are now been made and established by the Holy Spirit he sent to us.

DaddyCoool:
What EXACTLY is your position on this topic? Just state it clearly without throwing in a bunch of Bible verses.
Because, honestly (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) it is not clear what your position is

When I told you before did you understand?

I will repeat it JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD he is not God the Son or God.

If you can't accept what is revealed as the truth then you accept what is a lie.

Anyone who doesn't understand what I say is because they do not understand God's word, a bunch of bible verses you say, did you read them and study them. Did you invest your time and pray for the Holy Spirit to teach them to you.

The words Jesus gave they are spirit and they are life. Jesus said in John.8.31 - Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings.
John.8.32 - And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."


If you reject what Jesus said, you are not his disciples and if you are not his disciples then you do not know the truth and if whatever you know is a lie how can you be set free?

Nachmonides:
My goal is to align with God's revelation in scripture, not impose human philosophy on it.



Please, instead of being emotional, dismissing it immediately, provide evidences against the argument.
I am willing to review ideas and consider them former if/when I see the truth.

You want to deny that I have not from the Bible shown you ALL I have said or that I have not explained it carefully piece by piece?

You claim to be willing but are you?

This is a question not an emotional response
by who's standard?

Was what I asked you

You offered clarity by reversing priority, what and who should be your priority in making your explanation, your wisdom of God's?


When what you say contradicts the very word of God, how does it align?

I asked you before about the gnostics, and you also did not answer.

Now at least answer HAVE I NOT PROVIDED FROM THE BIBLE EVIDENCES USING THE VERSES YOU QUOTED

Nachmonides:
The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

I have several translations play Greek and Hebrew

This is what NLT syas

John.1.1 - In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.
John.1.2 - He was in the beginning with God.
John.1.3 - He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn't make.
John.1.4 - Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone.
John.1.5 - The light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Not because I agree with all of NLTs translations but I do agree that He being with God in the beginning is Jesus and the He mentioned in verse 3 is God.

Jesus was in the beginning with God and God created everything, now in God was life, why WAS and not IS

Why WAS that life the light of men, why WAS

Because Jesus said in John.9.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (NKJV)

And it is this light that John the Baptist testifies of, did John come to testify about God or about the Messiah?

John.1.6 - God sent John the Baptist
John.1.7 - to tell everyone about the light so that everyone might believe because of his testimony.
John.1.8 - John himself was not the light; he was only a witness to the light.
John.1.9 - The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was going to come into the world.

For the world was made through Jesus.


So in WHO was the life, in God and that life was Jesus who came from God and became flesh, and not become an incarnation!


When did God call forth light
Gen.1.3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

The very first word God spoke in the beginning

Nachmonides:
Hebrews 1:6 states: “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.'”


Angels don't know everything, as we will find out in scriptures. The declaration of worship is tied to his incarnation. Not a general declaration.

Also, The command for angels to worship Jesus affirmed His divine nature and position as the Son of God, as well as the importance of His mission.

The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity.

my post wasn't about whether or not angels knew everything, don't be cunny

Is that your attempt to answer or rebuff what I said here
"if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God."

The declaration of worship is NOT tied to any silly incarnation logic of yours but a command from God. Whether you choose to undermines it as, "a general declaration or not a general declaration" is a reflection of you continuous rejection of what is written as it regards what your opinion is.

Stop sprouting your personal nonsense we decided to go scripture, so what is this, "The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity."

While I continue to use even the very verses you quote you ignore them later blatantly

Nachmonides be patient and hear God's word, insisting on your own wisdom while refusing it will not save you

John 14:16-17: Jesus speaks of sending another Advocate, the Spirit of truth, who will dwell with believers forever. Jesus’ words in this context imply that the Holy Spirit is the continuation of God's presence in the world after His departure.

Jesus and the Apostles Never Called the Three Persons 'Gods'

The word “God” is used in scripture, especially in the Old Testament, to emphasize the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, in the New Testament, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clear, and all are ascribed divine attributes."

When you quote Deut.6.4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. (NLT)
Deut.6.4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! (NKJV)




The Hebrew word ECHAD DOES NOT MEAN UNITY.

John 1:1 refers to Jesus as God (the Word was God).

Acts 5:3-4 equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God.

Matthew 28:19 places the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and Son in the context of baptism, signifying the shared divinity of all three persons.

If your argument is that they didn't explicitly mention it, that's a fallacy.

my argument isn't that they don't just mention it, THEY DONT EVEN INFER IT NOR REFER TO IT, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION except in the imaginations of men who twist scripture to cause confusion

Nachmonides do listen, you wrote again
"The Holy Spirit's Role (Not Listed for Worship)

The argument that the Holy Spirit is not listed for worship in the same way Jesus is is understandable but misses the point. In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead. While Jesus, as the Son, receives direct worship (Matthew 28:17, John 20:28), the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole. The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored, but rather that the Spirit’s role in the world is often to glorify the Father and the Son (John 16:14). This does not exclude worship, as the Spirit is integral to the divine action in the world and salvation."

Who ever you copied this logic from that, "In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead." Why not state in the Bible? What the heck is biblical theology, is sounds more like the teachings and traditions of men taking precedent against God's word, for Jesus corrected their many erroneous assumptions which contradicted God's word just like this one saying, "the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole." You leave out that he is sent to fellowship with us, to aid us to worship and speak to God.
"The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored" and neither does it stay that we honor him by worshipping him, even when you state his role is to glorify the Father and the son, you still deny his role by suggesting that he is equal to God. Even though Jesus says another comforter, of which he was our comforter while with us before ascension, yet in revelation what we hear of the Spirit is, the Spirit and the bride says come. When you ignore God's word for human imagination you end up in error.

"Jesus Never Revealed the Holy Spirit as God

The argument that Jesus never explicitly referred to the Holy Spirit as God is based on a misunderstanding of biblical revelation. While Jesus did not always explicitly say, "The Holy Spirit is God," He did reveal the Holy Spirit's divine role in many ways:

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission, where Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, places the Holy Spirit in the same position as the Father and the Son, implying full equality."

The name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one name that the three of them witness to, the name of Jesus, it is not about position nor title. Is the name of the Holy Spirit Jesus? But we baptize in the name of Jesus because that's the name revealed by the Father through works, the name beared by the son who died for us, and the name the Holy Spirit testifies of


Do you understand?

Nachmonides do please listen
"Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10)

Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is described as an unforgivable sin. The fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable signifies that the Holy Spirit is of divine importance and has the same authority as God. This would be nonsensical if the Holy Spirit were not considered God, as blasphemy against a mere created being wouldn't hold such weight."

My response: why should it be nonsensical, but becomes sensible when one imposes that the spirit of God is God. Then does God who forgives become unforgiving when he dwells with us as the Holy Spirit. Do you not the see the implications of trying to impose what is not true so as to accept an instruction from Jesus.

If you knew the scripture should you not also know that it is written
Exod.23.20 - "See, I am sending my angel before you to lead you safely to the land I have prepared for you.
Exod.23.21 - Pay attention to him, and obey all of his instructions. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your sins. He is my representative--he bears my name.


Do we then call the angel of God God as well seeing as it should make sense that one who is from God and who wouldn't forgive us would be nonsensical if he wasn't God.

Nachmonides:
Acts 5:3-4 (Lying to the Holy Spirit)

In Acts 5:3-4, Peter says that Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and then equates that with lying to God:
“You have not lied to men but to God.”

This statement directly connects the Holy Spirit to God. The refusal to recognize the Holy Spirit as God here contradicts the clear scriptural teaching that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, as seen in passages like Acts 5:3-4, and also in 1 Corinthians 3:16 where Paul says that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit were not divine, such a declaration would be misleading.

You have lied to the Holy Spirit, yet it was Peter that they lied to? Wasn't it. Or is Peter the Holy Spirit? Of course not. So why would Peter say such a thing, it is because Jesus taught them that
Matt.10.40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

Another translation
Matt.10.40 "Anyone who welcomes you is welcoming me, and anyone who welcomes me is welcoming the Father who sent me.

Genesis 39:9 Joseph said how can he do such and sin against God? What he was going to do was to a human but he considered it a sin against God, was he saying that Potiphar is God? Obviously not.

To lie to a man of God is to lie both to the Spirit that is with him and to God who sent him. Especially in the issue relating with ananais and his wife's offense which wasn't just because of money.

1Cor.3.16 Don't you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you?

Is it God that dwells in us? No, but the Spirit of God, did Paul not also write
1Cor.6.19 Or don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself,

That our body is the temple the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit

But does God not dwell with us, He does, He dwells with us not in us
2Cor.6.16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." (NKJV)

For Jesus said in John.14.23 Jesus replied, "All those who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and live with them.

So do you understand that we all are like Paul and Peter said

Eph.2.21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
1Pet.2.5 And now God is building you, as living stones, into his spiritual temple. What's more, you are God's holy priests, who offer the spiritual sacrifices that please him because of Jesus Christ.

Nachmonides:
I started by saying

There are many passages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God.

Why would the Son of God be worshipped if God is the only one deserving of worship according to scriptures; the old testament especially.

Even in scripture the son is to be worshipped but was NEVER referred to as God.

You are trying to do maths with God, because God is worshipped and the son is worshipped is therefore means the son is God.

Yet do you understand what worship is?

The son is worshipped as the one who obeyed God and redeemed us

Rev.5.12 saying with a loud voice: "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!"

In this verse 12, this is why Jesus is worshipped

Rev.5.13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"

Nachmonides:
Later in John 1:14, the Word becomes flesh, pointing to the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ.


What do you have to say about it?

the word becoming flesh, points to the word Apostle John was writing about of which John the Baptist bears witness to.

Scripture says, God sends forth his word, HIS word not he himself, the word of God was never called God, it was treated as Holy as Jesus is the Holy one of God and the term or idea of God's incarnation isn't even scriptural it's down right gnostics

Nachmonides:
I'd like to tackle this statement.

There are many passages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God. For example:

Matthew 14:33 – After Jesus calms the storm, the disciples worship Him: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly, You are the Son of God.’"

how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

John 20:28 – Thomas addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" after seeing His resurrection. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas, which implies acceptance of this worship.

you quote an exclamation of Thomas written by John who went unto to conclude in that very chapter John.20.31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.

There's a reason new living translation puts it
John.20.28 "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.

Even if you do not understand verse 28 understand verse 31 of what you are expected to believe.

Hebrews 1:6 – God commands that the angels worship Jesus: "Let all God’s angels worship Him." This is significant because only God is to be worshiped.

if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God.

John 1:1 – "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:58 – Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am," which is a reference to God’s self-identification in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14), indicating His eternal existence and divinity.




Even in Genesis 1:1, we see the concept of the Trinity, the very first verse of the Bible


Please explain these without being sensual.

John 1:1 is the word was God's or the word is from God, I have written the explanation previously about the difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.

And I have also spoke on John 8:58, where I explained the term eimi, used in Greek doesn't mean God either in that verse nor in the context of the conversation in that chapter, even explaining the difference between what was here and what was said in Exodus 3:14 which is who God is and how it relates to the name of God revealed in Exodus 6:3.

Did Jesus exist before Abraham yes he did
God reveals himself as the one who causes things to exist, who is self existing

Is Jesus self existing? No, did he come from God? Yes


Why don't you show us the trinity in Genesis 1:1
Which is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Nachmonides:
My goal is to align with God's revelation in scripture, not impose human philosophy on it.



Please, instead of being emotional, dismissing it immediately, provide evidences against the argument.
I am willing to review ideas and consider them former if/when I see the truth.

If that is so then let us start only with what is written in the Bible

Are you ready

Nachmonides:
I understand that you may feel strongly about the doctrine of the Trinity, but I believe the doctrine is firmly rooted in scripture and is an attempt to describe God as He has revealed Himself. The Bible teaches that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet we see that Jesus is fully God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is fully God (Acts 5:3-4). The doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence. It is for our own good that we approach these deep theological matters with an open heart, seeking to understand God’s word and how He has revealed Himself to us.

Because you do not understand what is written doesn't make it the fault of the writer.
But I do blame those who in their academic but spiritual ignorance interpreted the Greek in their own error or possible motive.

Now there's a difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.


So it is more correct to say John 1:1 and the word was God's... that is the word was from God.

And for Acts 5:3-4 lying to the Holy Spirit or even as Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Luke 12:10 doesn't make the Holy Spirit God.

If open heart is what you define as like a woman with open legs, then no. What we need is a pure heart to see God, a renewed mind to understand His word and will.

Saying that, "the doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence." Is deceptive because there is only one way, Jesus Christ and Jesus never called nor revealed that the Holy Spirit is God. When Jesus listed the assignment of the Holy Spirit he did not list worship, to be worshipped, so neither in name nor in assignment did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as God.

You call it an understanding but from where did this understanding come from. There's nothing true about that teaching, if it is deep it is hell deep.

When the three are mentioned they are NEVER mentioned as gods nor did any of the apostles teach anyone to accept or call them God.

DaddyCoool:
Thanks 4 your response.
Maybe you missed the crux of the question. Here it is again:
Don’t you think it is only God that could have restored a Person from all that (He was literally DEAD!) to a position of being worshipped as God, and that it would never have been possible if God had not approved of it, and definitely would not have lasted these thousands of years?

See, if this were 50 AD, we could be saying let's wait and see. And remember, nothing provokes the wrath of YHWH like trying to worship another alongside Him. Don't you think that for Him to resurrect a dead Person and allow His being worshipped as God for thousands of years says something about where He stands on the issue?

You speak of allowance as if it was not God that commanded, do you even know the scripture or the gospel? Have you not read that he commanded his angels to worship him. Have you not read revelations where the lamb of God was worshipped.

You sound like as if God was allowing money or Satan to be worshipped, so does that mean because it can be worshipped it is god, should we also say well God left people to worship false gods so they are probably other gods as well.

Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God, he is our Lord and husband crowned with eternal glory and majesty by God YHVh his and our Father.

Nachmonides:
The phrase “no intrinsic connection” is a standard way of describing what it means for two things to be separate in a relational sense. It’s not a manipulation of the term but a precise way to explain that separate entities are distinct and do not share an inherent, essential bond. My explanation was valid, and there’s no "cunning" involved in offering clarity.

by who's standard?

You offered clarity by reversing priority, what and who should be your priority in making your explanation, your wisdom of God's?

It is cunny because your logic seems sound but your conclusion deviates from God's own word

Nachmonides:
You’re right that things can be separate but still connected in certain ways. The Trinity is a good example of this idea: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (separate), but they are connected in essence (the same divine nature). However, this is different from saying that things are not separate in the first place. The connection doesn’t negate the separation of the persons in terms of their roles.


Let me further explain:

In the context of the Trinity:

1. Separate but Connected:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons—they have unique roles and identities.

For example, the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter. These roles are distinct, meaning they are separate in function and personhood.

However, they are connected in essence—all three share the same divine nature or essence. In other words, each of them is fully God, and they are not separate gods; they are united in their divinity.



2. Distinction vs. Separation:

Saying they are separate means that the persons are not the same person (e.g., the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit).

But saying they are connected means that while each person is distinct, they all share the same core essence of being God. They are not independent from one another in nature, even though they are distinct in personhood.

The distinction between them (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does not mean they are independent or separate in nature. They remain one in essence, but three in persons.

Adding poison to the truth would still not make it acceptable, saying their roles like they are in a drama yet mixing up their identity by saying they are God.

God is not a nature, God is not an essence, God is YHVH a being who created the heavens and the earth and life.


Saying because a person or being has God's nature makes them God is an error, it's like saying because I have God's nature in me I am God, I don't even care to be considered partly God when the truth is I am a child of God.


Saying they are one in essence and believing essence is God, is where you are wrong.

God is Father and no one else is. This is who Jesus revealed and taught about.

Nachmonides:
The concept of Trinity teaches that there is separation (in terms of personhood) but no separation in essence (they are all fully and equally God).

God doesn't care about our nonsense concept that goes against his word. Or no He does care because He will judge such nonsense.


You outrightly reject God's word for the traditions of men

Nachmonides:
In John 10:30, the Lord Jesus was stating his oneness (essence) with the Father. "I and the father are one"


In John 17: 21 -22, the Lord Jesus was praying (not making a satisfied/fulfilled/definitive statement; rather he was desirous of them) to the Father that his disciples be one (united) just as he (Jesus) and the Father are one (in essence).

How?

In V.14, he tells us 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world just as I am not of the world.

14 - He has given them the Father's word


In V.15, he tells us 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you protect them from the evil one.


15 - The protection from the evil one is tied to the word he says he has given them as mentioned in V.14

In VV.16-19

16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth—your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 [/b]And for them I sanctify myself, so that they themselves also may be sanctified in the truth.

16 - How are they not of the world? Don't forget V.14

17 - To Sanctify means to make Holy; to separate, set apart. He asks the Father to Sanctify them in the truth and he says the Father's word (the one he says he gave them in V.14) is truth.

18 - He gives them his word and sends them to the word.

19 - He Sanctifies, or sets himself apart, separate, with the word of the Father, so his disciples may be Sanctified as well.


Then VV.20-22

[b]20 “And I do not ask on behalf of these only, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, just as we are one

20 - He doesn't pray (ask) for only the disciples but also for all those who will believe through their word (which is the Father's word he says he gave them in V.14 and the one he says is truth in V.17)

21 - With the previous texts in mind, how would they be one? - Obviously it will have to do with the word he has been talking about.

22 - This now hits the nail in the coffin, he switches from the Father's word to the Father's glory. He says he has given them the glory, is he talking of a different thing? — No, he had already said he gave them the Father's word in V.14.

So we see Word in V.14, Glory in V.22.
And he says, that's how they will be one.

What exactly did some men at Nicaea in 325, or 381 AD do?

Having the same nature or essence as you put it with his Father doesn't make him his father, it makes him the son of God and not God. Now when Jesus says he and his father are one, it means they are united

Just as he said in John.17.21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.


John quoted this and used it to explain the oneness, the unity of the Father and son. Expect you wish to say that then receiving the word of God and the nature of God makes them god as well or makes them all become the same but distinct as you put it. Yet we know they didn't become the same, Paul was different from Peter as was John different from the rest.

The only nail is the one you are hitting

Here is in your words
"To Sanctify means to make Holy; to separate, set apart.


So the HOLY Spirit is not separate yet holiness is separation? Yes holiness is separation into God because though there is separation there is also connection.


You know many words but poor usage and understanding of them.

Nachmonides:
Essence refers to the fundamental nature or substance of something—what it is at its core.

Separate means existing independently or apart from something else, with no intrinsic connection.

Distinct means being uniquely identifiable and having individual characteristics or roles while remaining connected.

I didn't ask for a lecture in English, I do have a dictionary but it's funny to see how you cunningly added to your definition of separation- no intrinsic connection

It's pathetic that you do not understand that though we are in separate worlds we are still connected. Connection would not be needed if things were not separated.

It is because a thing is separate that it is distinct having it's own characteristics has you put it. Now because you things or being have or share the same nature it doesn't mean they are the same.

It's like one being myopic and see all Chinese people or blacks as the same in their eyes, even though each person is different only connected by race but God is not a race, if you say Spirit that may be manageable but God is just one person, one being YHVH. You can't make him two becomes you want to.


If there was another god besides God it means God lied and if God lied, then... do you now see the agenda of the devil to make you believe that there are three or more gods

SIRTee15:
I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

But the work of atonement by God is a self sacrifice from him to safe humanity. It doesn't involve another being.

Self sacrifice is different from human sacrifice.

Jesus who is God in flesh sacrificed himself for us.

It's not like the Father created a fully separate human being and send him to the world to die for our sins.
That would depicts the pagan practice of sacrificing humans to appease their deity.

Jesus is human with fullness of father's divinity in him. He's not a separate being from the Father.

this your teaching is from your own imagination.

The work of atonement is not a self sacrifice from God. What is God atoning for, do you even understand what atonement means?


If Jesus is God it automatically disqualifies him from being or even performing an atonement.

Is it because your understanding of the the basic scripture especially the Torah is poor that you say such things, even if you didn't understand, didn't you read the book of Hebrews and other books in the new testament, if what you have said it not from your imagination then it is probably from a false teacher or false being.