if one doest accept the trinity then what was jesus?

[jasoncran]

Like I said, the word Satan takes on the female gender. This is why Jesus said to Satan in Matt. 16:23 - "Get thou behind me Satan". The woman is to walk behind the man. So Jesus was putting her in her place. Spiritual speaking of course.

the woman is too walk behind a man? really, where that in the bible? that isnt really even mentioned where they are too walk.

that verse implies that lord was taking authority over satan, nothing more.

 

[shad]

For the most part, the whole Word of God is a masculine noun or pronoun. In Christ , there is neither male nor female - correct ? Yet, all those in Christ , are called sons of God.

This is childish argument. Jesus' followers are all sons of God male and female. All countries are addressed as "she". Does that mean there is no female on the earth?

You are losing your credibility as mature debater and Christian with this kind of comment.

BTW, are you a Christian? I have no idea who you are by your comments.

You sound like non-believer who comes in to Christian forum to debate just for amusement.
Isn't that why your username is mysteryman?

 

[Mysteryman]

Like I said, the word Satan takes on the female gender. This is why Jesus said to Satan in Matt. 16:23 - "Get thou behind me Satan". The woman is to walk behind the man. So Jesus was putting her in her place. Spiritual speaking of course.

This is just a gist .

You are making it up as well as many others.

take care.

Hi shad

No shad, the problem here, is that you just do not understand. Which means you are speaking from your ignorance (lack of knowledge).

 

[Mysteryman]

For the most part, the whole Word of God is a masculine noun or pronoun. In Christ , there is neither male nor female - correct ? Yet, all those in Christ , are called sons of God.

This is childish argument. Jesus' followers are all sons of God male and female. All countries are addressed as "she". Does that mean there is no female on the earth?

You are losing your credibility as mature debater and Christian with this kind of comment.

BTW, are you a Christian? I have no idea who you are by your comments.

You sound like non-believer who comes in to Christian forum to debate just for amusement.
Isn't that why your username is mysteryman?

Hi shad :

My user name is a reflection of my knowledge of the revealed Mystery, as well as the other mysteries that are within the Word of God.

Be careful with your questions and your comments.

 

[Mysteryman]

that is the system of religion set up by the antic-christ or satan. a false church.

Hi Jason:

Why is she (the whore) portrayed as a "she" ?

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Jason:

Why is she (the whore) portrayed as a "she" ?

As was already noted and perhaps you missed (maybe while you were patting yourself on the back on all that mystical knowledge you claim to have), nations or peoples are referred to as "she".

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Jason:

Why is she (the whore) portrayed as a "she" ?

As was already noted and perhaps you missed (maybe while you were patting yourself on the back on all that mystical knowledge you claim to have), nations or peoples are referred to as "she".

Hi Joe :

I do not think you fully understand the question. You don't have to add to my question , just so you can in some way avoid the question I posed to Jason. If you feel you can't answer the question, then why make any comment at all ?

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Jason:

Why is she (the whore) portrayed as a "she" ?

As was already noted and perhaps you missed (maybe while you were patting yourself on the back on all that mystical knowledge you claim to have), nations or peoples are referred to as "she".

Hi Joe :

I want you to know that I tire of your degrading superlatives. Could you please clean up your comment ?

 

[shad]

Hi shad :

My user name is a reflection of my knowledge of the revealed Mystery, as well as the other mysteries that are within the Word of God.

Be careful with your questions and your comments.

Are you a Christian or not?

I had a nagging doubt about this but gave you a benefit of the doubt because you were saying the right thing about the trinity issue.

It seems you are copying and pasting about many of your comments from non-trin posters.

 

[francisdesales]

As was already noted and perhaps you missed (maybe while you were patting yourself on the back on all that mystical knowledge you claim to have), nations or peoples are referred to as "she".

Hi Joe :

I want you to know that I tire of your degrading superlatives. Could you please clean up your comment ?

Are you denying that you are making self-aggrandizing comments??? Do you read your own posts?

I am half-expecting to see lighting bolts emit from your finger tips after this comment to your former supporter, Shad...

"My user name is a reflection of my knowledge of the revealed Mystery, as well as the other mysteries that are within the Word of God.

Be careful with your questions and your comments."

:o

dude, your "knowledge of the revealed mysteries" is based upon your own distorted interpretations of the bible, readily dispensed with upon further review by several here. The only thing "mysterious" is how you can pass that off as "reflection of my knowledge of the revealed Mystery". We see contradictions in your story. Blatant leaps of illogic. And to top it off, you come back with this comment about your "mysterious knowledge"? :gah

Look at your comments. Anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or carnal.

The case has already been made, you are wrong, if you only took time to stop patting yourself on the back and respond to some questions that throw the whole train off the tracks...

 

[Mysteryman]

As long as one keeps one's comments within a biblical perspective, it is not degrading.

However, ahhh forget it, I think I am talking to the wall anyways :yes

 

[Elijah674]

that is the system of religion set up by the antic-christ or satan. a false church.

It is a End Time Prophesy. Are we there yet? Surely most Protestants had most always known that the whore is the woman church of rome. They shy away from saying it in this last day because these ex/protest'ants' church denominations are the ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH DAUGHTERS.

And sure there are Christ's very own still ignorant ones in the yoked membership of these daughter churchs also who must be warned to leave! Rev. 18:4 But how can we be 'REAL' Christians while calling these church's Christian, while not changing one false doctrine for well past the Gen. 6:3's example of the Holy Spirits STRIVING for 120 years along beside faithful Noah's preaching? And there is a VAST DIFFERANCE! Rom. 8:14

And the Trinity doctrine is just one of only a few that is correct, and that is still being 'babbling' about by these ones of Rev. 17:1-5. And it surely IS the TOTAL DOCTRINE OF CHRIST AS IMMORTAL GOD + ALL OF HIS CONDITIONS for Salvation. 1 John 1:9 & 1 John 2:4

--Elijah

 

[stovebolts]

You seem to be getting closer. But you keep calling the first man who was created, man and woman, but God didn't create man and woman. God created man in the image of God, both male and female.

Hervey,

While I will admit that you have zeal for the scriptures, and I do see your passion, as well as the amount of time you have spent in them, I do fear that while in the process of "nailing" some lingering questions that many have discussed throughout the centuries, you've unfortunatly lost view of the over all picture.

If you look at 1:26, the text says, "Let us make man in our image". This making man in "our" image is a joint venture, thus, man is not only made in the image of God, but in "our image" is man made, and it is done jointly as defined by the "us".

Now Hervey, my agenda is not to convience you of the trinity by using 1:26 as a supporting text for the trinity. But it must be known that the text is clear when it speaks of "us" and "our".

When we overlay Genesis 1:26 with 2:7, we see that man is formed by God from the dust of the earth. At the very least, the "us" and the "our" would refer to God and earth.

Not only is this approach practical, reasonable and logical, but it doesn't require great feats of uncovering deep mysteries that end up contridicting themselves, or leaves more confusing unanswered questions as I've presented you.

In summary Hervey, good theology stems from a good exegesis of Scripture. When I exegete a portion of scripture, one of the first things I look at is how it would have been recieved in relevance to it's intended audience and I would try to understand it as they originally understood it. From there, we unfold the mysteries that are locked inside. But to simply look for the mystery without first being grounded, well... it ends up with some pretty shakey theology.

I do not say this to make light of what you have written, but rather that you would pause for a moment and consider the house your building.

 

[Mysteryman]

You seem to be getting closer. But you keep calling the first man who was created, man and woman, but God didn't create man and woman. God created man in the image of God, both male and female.

Hervey,

While I will admit that you have zeal for the scriptures, and I do see your passion, as well as the amount of time you have spent in them, I do fear that while in the process of "nailing" some lingering questions that many have discussed throughout the centuries, you've unfortunatly lost view of the over all picture.

If you look at 1:26, the text says, "Let us make man in our image". This making man in "our" image is a joint venture, thus, man is not only made in the image of God, but in "our image" is man made, and it is done jointly as defined by the "us".

Now Hervey, my agenda is not to convience you of the trinity by using 1:26 as a supporting text for the trinity. But it must be known that the text is clear when it speaks of "us" and "our".

When we overlay Genesis 1:26 with 2:7, we see that man is formed by God from the dust of the earth. At the very least, the "us" and the "our" would refer to God and earth.

Not only is this approach practical, reasonable and logical, but it doesn't require great feats of uncovering deep mysteries that end up contridicting themselves, or leaves more confusing unanswered questions as I've presented you.

In summary Hervey, good theology stems from a good exegesis of Scripture. When I exegete a portion of scripture, one of the first things I look at is how it would have been recieved in relevance to it's intended audience and I would try to understand it as they originally understood it. From there, we unfold the mysteries that are locked inside. But to simply look for the mystery without first being grounded, well... it ends up with some pretty shakey theology.

I do not say this to make light of what you have written, but rather that you would pause for a moment and consider the house your building.

---------------
Hi Jeff:

Thanks for your comments. But as soon as one looks at Gen. 1:26 with a preconceived view, then verse 26 becomes distorted. And as I don't want you to think that I am at this point just trying to be offensive, as that is not my purpose. Everything we discuss here on these boards, needs to be put up against the whole of the Word of God and its context. Not portions, and bits and pieces. But the whole Word of God.

As I am sure this will not be the last trinity thread that will come up on this board. For the most part, I believe that discussing the trinity only brings about envy and strife. Some believe in it and some do not. I for one , of course, do not.

There is no doubt that Gen. 1:26 speaks in the plural, this is why the words "us" and "our" are used. But what does "us" and "our" pertain too ? Do we just take a stab in the dark and see what comes up ? What profit will become of this type of reasoning ? From my view, none.

Gen. 1:26 and Gen. 1:27 is different, from the point of view, that Gen. 1:27 is talking about God alone. This vere deals with the image of God - one - male and female. Because there is only one God.

Gen. 1:26 is not dealing with just God alone. So there is a different image we are looking at there.
God is Spirit. There is a huge difference between the word "make" in Gen. 1:26 and the word "created" in Gen. 1:27 - huge difference. When God uses the word "make" it is in relationship to that which already exists. Angels are spirit beings. God did not have to create angels, because God himself is a Spirit being, and God made angels spirit beings.

Gen. 1:26 is talking about God and the angels (spirit beings - plural) , thus the words - "us" and "our". This is where mankind is going to be given the spirit of man. The image here is plural and remains in the plural. Each individual who has ever been born has the spirit of man in them. That is until they die, then the spirit of man goes back to the giver. Also read John 1:9

Now, as far as the mysteries of God are concerned. Trust me when I say, that I use them, because they give the proper and correct perspective of all scripture. However, I almost never mention them individually. And maybe I should more often, but have felt compelled not to at this time. It is like feeling out the water, to see if anyone might be capable of walking on water with me.

I know that God is a God of two of everything. I don't guess, and I do not speculate. I know.

This does not mean that others will be able to follow along, and I undertand this. This is where only God can open up the eyes of their understanding.

I carefully and constructively walked you through the days and the events of chapter one and two of Genesis. Pointing out when, how and why. That is the best I can do at this time. Of course, I could get real high minded and take you all over the scriptures from Gen. to Rev., but most christians are not capable of following me there. Does it sound like I am boasting ? Well, not really. I am just speaking my mind and explaining this at a level that most should be able to follow.

I would like to say, that you do conduct yourself in an admirable way on these boards, and it is always a pleasure to converse with you.

God Bless, in Christ's name - Hervey

 

[stovebolts]

Hervey,

I do thank you for walking your thoughts through, but what I would like you to take into consideration would be how it would have been recieved when it was given. This is a study I did some time ago, check it out and let me know what you think.

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=34818

This is a study on Gen 1, 2 and 3 that I also did around that same time.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=39535

When one does theology, it's alsways good have a broad base, and having a historical base is always a sure bet. What I've attempted to do is take into consideration the culture which permeated the Ancient Near East, and when you do this, you'll find that Genesis 1 and 2 are very apologetic in nature. In other words, they directly take on the other Ancient Near Eastern ideologies in a very direct, systematic aproach.

To intepret Genesis 1 and 2 in the manner you have done negates one of it's primary agenda's when taking into consideration the Ancient Near Eastern gods and their creation accounts.

 

[shad]

MM,

You have been avoiding this simple question.

Are you a Christian or not?

 

[Elijah674]

Gen.1
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ...' (Who is meant to be the other person later on? One who has Immortality as the Godhead, or material as in the earth or created non/immortal beings such as angels or creatures of other worlds as spoken of twice in the book of Heb.?)

[2] 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. (Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost without an Image)

[3] And God said, ...' [4] And God saw ..' [5] And God ,,,' [6] And God said ...' [7] And God made ...' [8] And God called ..' [9] And God said, ..' [10] And God called ...' [11] And God said, ..'
....
[14] And God said, ...' [16] And God made...' [17] And God set ..' [20] And God said, ...'
[21] And God created ...' [22] And God blessed them, saying, ...' [24] And God said, ...' [25] And God made..'

[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...'

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

OK: Again, God is talking with an EQUAL IMMORTAL PART OF THE UNIFIED GODHEAD. Anything ealse sounds outside of the TRUTH just posted in part above to me. God the Holy Spirit INSPIRES Himself as Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. And two of the Godhead have an IMAGE when desired and are speaking to only one as themselves.. IMMORTAL!1 Tim. 1:15-17 + 1 Tim. 6:16 See Moses in the mount & God with a hand , FACE & hindparts.

Also we are able as man + wife to pro/create as a 'type' of creater only. And how any could find our image created in the likeness of angels as ministering 'spirits' comes close to the devils first lie in Gen. 3.

NO. The same Immortal [US] is also seen in Gen. 11:7 as only God could change the verse ibid 1..
'And the [whole EARTH WAS OF ONE LANGUAGE, AND ONE SPEECH.'] (which brings into much other Tower of Babel BABBLINGS seen today!)

And is this an IMPORTANT DOCTRINE?? Try comprehending the Doctrine Of An Eternal Christ of 2 John 1:9 any other way!

--Elijah

 

[francisdesales]

I carefully and constructively walked you through the days and the events of chapter one and two of Genesis. Pointing out when, how and why. That is the best I can do at this time. Of course, I could get real high minded and take you all over the scriptures from Gen. to Rev., but most christians are not capable of following me there.

which is why you tend to ignore the obvious disconnect between your interpretations and logical discussion.

Such as "how is man, made male and female, in God's image?

Or

In what ways is a numerically diverse creature in God's image?" What hints does the bible tell us in the immediate context?

Or

"where do you get anything going on during the 8th day from Genesis 2"?

Or

"How can you say God created inanimate creatures and called them "very good" and had completed creation at that time, only to restart creation again a few days later". "Oops, I forgot something"?

Or

"How is it that man was made, male and female, on day six, only to be "made again" by a different process two days later by extracting the female out of the man?"

Or

"two persons become one WHAT" in marriage?

Or your various comments about male and female gender in the spiritual world...

Ah, forget it, the more I ask, the crazier the story gets...

Does it sound like I am boasting ? Well, not really.

Uh, yea, really...

 

[Sinthesis]

• Pro 26:12 - Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? [there is] more hope of a fool than of him.
  
  1Cr 3:18 - Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Why would any rational Christian believe he/she has all the answers?

 

[Mysteryman]

Seek and you shall find.

Ask, and it shall be given.

Go looking anywhere else, and ................