|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jun 27, 2005 12:58:22 GMT -5
I didn't say it hasn't changed, i said it hasn't ended. Well, Jesus said to ask for things in his name. Next you said do i pray to God and Jesus. Jesus is God so there's no difference. But we are to ask for things in Jesus' name.
No, there's one God. If God is in two places at once or functioning in two positions at once, that does not = 2 Gods. Remember this is God, not man we're talking about.
The disagreement is that God (nor any other biblical writer) never claimed that God was more than ONE. Absolutely ONE. Now God can reveal or show himself in different ways, because He's God and he can do that, but that doesn't make him more than one personage. And yes I'm hoping one them does start a thread. Eventually maybe.
Like i was saying, role is just a word used to describe Jesus functioning as a Fully Human Person.
Exactly, there can't be two Gods. I completely agree. Now you said do i believe in a seperation. I believe in a seperation between Divinity and Humanity. That's the only seperation that the Bible speaks of. Quick recap: Divine titles attributed to Jesus make him God; Begotten has to do with Jesus' be being born as human. Jesus being 100% God and 100% Human put him in a position to function in both natures.
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jun 27, 2005 13:05:46 GMT -5
We are so lost naturally and so far gone that God himself is the only one that could save us!!! A created being couldn't cut it. Abraham gave birth to a great nation whose vocation was to lead the nations to God...to reconcile the world to Jehova...see Deut and Psalms. But Israel failed. They couldn't carry out such a monumentous task. Jesus Christ, Son of God, creator of the universe, God in flesh is the only one who could save humanity and creation. DoX I'll agree with you there tho. |
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jun 27, 2005 13:30:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ludawg on Jun 27, 2005 14:23:36 GMT -5
Give me an example from scripture so i can see what you're talking about. Concerning Jesus with thrones and posistions of power are not his to give, but the Fathers. Matthew 20:20 - And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. 22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. 23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father....and concerning Jesus does not know everything... Mark 13:32 - But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.John proves this statement Jesus made in Revelation... read Rev. 1:1... Jesus proved it as well, cause he's the one that told John to write all that is in Revelation. Revelation 1:1 - The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: ...he didn't know what was to come, God told him, so he can tell his servents what were shortly to come. I can point out other things... but this one can not be answered. The only logical answer would be that Jesus is the son of God, and God our Father is God (the all knowing). Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, the son of the Father, in truth and love. Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Jun 27, 2005 15:49:04 GMT -5
HHH-
I am not really wanting to debate whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is orthodox. It is obvious and I didn't at all argue this in my last post...only stated it. If you want to say its not the orthodox christian view of God...burden of proof is all yours. Start a new thread I will join you. But this thread is all about goin to the scripts....you did not at all answer my post HHH or ludawg.
It is your misunderstanding about the nature of Christ that leads to both of your conclusions. Of course I have more beef with Lu because he denies the diety of Christ...HHH, we can agree on the fact that that view is unorthodox...right? ;D
HHH-
Please listen to the lecture by N.T. Wright I linked...it is dope. In the lecture, as well as his book, Jesus and the Victory of God, he shows how the second temple jews looked for the Father to vindicate the Messiah in an extraordinary way. Some rabbis even believed that there would be two thrones in heaven, one for the Yahweh and one for Messiah! Trinitarian thought has come about from orthodox judaism.
The second temple jews already had an idea of incarnation, LU. The TEMPLE and TORAH! It was believed, and for good reason, (peep the Exodus story!) that God's presence was actually in the temple, shakkinah. And later on it was also believed that the prescence of God was actually in Torah. This belief was really pushed by the Pharisees in order to account for the dispersion of the jews all over the world who could not make it to the temple to worship and be in the presence of God there. "Wherever one is meditating on Torah, shakkinah is with him".
With that background, the scripts are clear that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. "He believed that he was to do and be for Israel and the world what only Yahweh could be and do for the world."
DoX
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Jun 27, 2005 15:56:15 GMT -5
Ludawg-
Do you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, or Savior of Israel promised in the OT?
DoX
|
|
|
|
Post by ludawg on Jun 27, 2005 19:16:33 GMT -5
Ludawg- Do you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, or Savior of Israel promised in the OT? DoX Sure do |
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jun 27, 2005 19:17:21 GMT -5
lol. of course you don't. no one wants to argue it. I've come to that conclusion from past debates. However you are mistaken about the burden proof. The burden of proof is on you due to the fact that your doctrine makes a claim that isn't found plainly in scripture. I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jun 27, 2005 22:56:31 GMT -5
Actually if you keep reading down to the 27 verse, the purpose of the convo was to show that the desire of wanting a nice seat of authority in God's kingdom was not the purpose of being Christlike, but rather to be a servant as JESUS should us through his life's example.
Remember what i said about Jesus functioning in both of his natures?! Notice it says. NO MAN KNOWS. Was Jesus a man?
Well in Hebrews 1:2 it says that God decided to deliver his message through his SON. So, just because GOD decided to do it that way, doesn't dimish anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by ludawg on Jun 28, 2005 2:51:48 GMT -5
HHH - still doesn't explain why Jesus still didn't know what was to come, God had to tell him. It's cool though... I just tried to give some questions and points, and receive some knowledge as well. I'm not going to go way out and say "I have the truth... believe me... believe me." lol But it seems I'll always be stuck with questions that can't be truelly answered by both parties. Best thing for any of us to do is fast and pray about everything  I'm personally going to be fasting and praying about all this soon. I want to ask some questions from both parties, and I'll just try to keep my fingers from typing things concerning on what I believe  ... I just want some help on certain scriptures or questions that I'll be posting throughout the coming days. Trinty: How do you interpret...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. If he's called mighty God, and everlasting Father there... then isn't he the Father as well? John 14:8 - Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?Oneness: How do you interpret...Matthew 12:32 - And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.Mark 12:36 - For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Says there are indeed three?... which are all one. |
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Jun 28, 2005 11:12:26 GMT -5
lol. of course you don't. no one wants to argue it. I've come to that conclusion from past debates. However you are mistaken about the burden proof. The burden of proof is on you due to the fact that your doctrine makes a claim that isn't found plainly in scripture. I don't. HHH- I actually have been debating this issue for months now. I am weary of hearing the same arguements over and over. Bottom line is that Christ has promised to sanctify his Church and has done so thus far. The doctrine of the nature of God is too important to allow his church to err. With all that said, you still have yet to answer my post in which I demonstrated two major theological problems your view has, A God that loves less and a humanity thats not totally depraved...peace DoX |
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Jun 28, 2005 11:45:52 GMT -5
Ludawg- Do you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, or Savior of Israel promised in the OT? DoX Sure do Amen...I agree with you. I do not believe however that you are being consistent with your claim that Jesus is not divine. If Christ is the Messiah and Savior he must be God. "I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no Savior." - Isaiah 43:11 If we look into the Old Testament and into the writings of the second temple period, we will find that the coming of the Messiah was seen to be a coming of Yahweh himself to visit his people and deliver them from exile. Virtually all of Jesus' actions and parables point to him being this "Visitor". He replaced the temple, forgave sins, accepted worship, resurrected the dead, was vindicated by the Father, ect. He was and did what ONLY Yahweh could be and do! The definition of God IS Jesus. You dont do this directly man...but by denying that Jesus is Yahweh, you are denying that he was Israel's hoped for Messiah as described and anticipated in the Old Testament and other Jewish literature. You gotta think more Jewish. Jesus isn't a Eupropean philosopher in the Enlightment declaring to be this absolute superior being. He wasn't walking around remembering better days of eating and laughing with the other two members of the Trinity. He did however have a deep sense of his vocation, which he grew into over time. He came to the understanding that he was to take on the task of Israel's exile. He was not only to act out the story, but to actully become it. In Christ, Yahweh came to Israel, his disobedient people and he judged them. He put an end to the Old Temple cult and system and replaced it with the better covenant, the "table" system. Instead of having sinful men mediate between his people and himself, he became High Priest. Instead of having men rule over his people, he became active King. Ludawg, if Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the World, it is only because he is God. God took on a human face, pain did embrace- what a price to prove such love and grace. Solas Christus! DoX |
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Jun 28, 2005 12:12:08 GMT -5
HHH- You are a blessed man!! ;D You know why? Because you my friend are getting a sneak preview into my latest article before its even published!! YAY...Aren't you EXCITED . anyways...seriously now, here is the opening paragraph of my new article, 'Tale of Two Premises: A Biblical Response to Hyper-Preterism', I believe it is relevent here in order to explain the difference between orthodoxy and truth. Or rather how we come to conclusions concerning orthodoxy and how we come to conclusions concerning truth. Here it goes! "In most debates between orthodoxy and heresy there are two main questions worthy of consideration. One question to ask of the doctrine in question is, is this view an orthodox one? The other is, is this doctrine true? For the first, one goes to the brilliant history of the Church, to her creeds and confessions in order to see how the Bride of Christ has interpreted the Love Letter of her Lord. For the second, one goes to the authority of even these treasured and faithful documents of the Church, they go to the holy and inspired perfect revelation of God, the Holy Bible."DoX |
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jun 28, 2005 13:13:20 GMT -5
Amen. I agree that God has sanctified His church. Problem is, beliefs not backed by scriptured are incorrect no matter who's creed it was written it.
first i didn't know that question was directed towards. next i don't know WHY that question would be directed towards me. lol. please explain. thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jun 28, 2005 13:33:53 GMT -5
Easy fam. "Son of Man" gives reference to HUMANITY. Prophets in the old testament were reference as such. (Ezekiel 2:1). Holy Ghost or Spirit is in reference to God.
It has to do with sonship. (I Cor 15:24-26
Well, if you ask most educated trinitarians they will tell you that this verse isn't found in earlier manuscripts. However, if you look at the previous verse (1 John 5:6) it's interesting that The Spirit is called the TRUTH. Who else is called the TRUTH? (John 14:6)
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jul 1, 2005 13:19:55 GMT -5
1 Timothy 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."
AMEN
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Jul 8, 2005 17:13:11 GMT -5
From carm.org
Oneness and the word "person"
Oneness theology denies the Trinity doctrine and claims that there is one person in the Godhead who has manifested himself in three different forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These "forms" are not three separate persons, but one person who occupied consecutive modes. The Trinity, on the other hand, is the teaching that there is one God who exists in three separate, simultaneous, persons. Please note, though, this is not saying there are three gods.
In defending the doctrine of the Trinity and in examining the Oneness doctrine regarding the Godhead, it is first necessary to define the terms that are used. Since the Trinity doctrine states there are three persons in one God, and Oneness Pentecostal theology states there is only one person, we first need to know what a "person" is before we try to discover whether or not God is three persons or one. Therefore, what qualifies someone as having "personhood"?
I offer the following analysis as an attempt to adequately define personhood. After the outline, I will attempt to show that the definition and/or characteristics of personhood can be applied to both the Father and the Son in a context that shows they both existed as persons at the same time, thereby proving Oneness theology is incorrect.
What are the qualities and attributes of being a person?
A person exists and has identity.
A person is aware of his own existence and identity.
This precludes the condition of being unconscious.
A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc.
A person can recognize the existence of other persons.
This is true provided there were other persons around him or her.
Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc.
A person possesses a will.
A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose.
A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject.
Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment.
Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons.
A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions.
Persons do not need to have bodies.
God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels.
Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).
God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will.
The question now becomes whether or not there are more than one "persons" in the Godhead.
"Let this cup pass from Me."
"And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done'" (Luke 22:42).
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'" (Matt. 26:39).
In both Luke 22:42 and Matt. 26:39 (which are parallel passages), the context is Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, right before His betrayal. He was praying to the Father about the ordeal He was about to undergo. Several points are worth bringing out here.
First, in this passage, Jesus addresses the Father. He says, "Oh my Father..." Note that Jesus says "my" and "Father." These two words designate a "me and you" relationship.
Second, "If it be possible" is Jesus expressing a desire, a hope. What is that hope or desire? It is that "this cup pass from me." The cup Jesus is speaking of is the immanent ordeal of betrayal, scourging, and crucifixion. Jesus did not want to go through this. He was expressing His desire. It was His will not to undergo the severe ordeal ahead of Him. If this was not so, He would not have expressed the desire to have the cup pass from Him.
Third, in Matt. 26:39, Jesus says, "Nevertheless., not my will, but thine, be done." In Luke 22:42 he says, "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." With this, Jesus is expressing His will and contrasting it to the will of the Father. Yet, He is stating that even though He does not want to undergo what lay ahead, "Nevertheless," He would submit to the will of the Father.
This shows that the person of Jesus had a separate and different will than the Father. Since we have two separate simultaneous wills, we have two separate and simultaneous persons and Oneness Pentecostal theology is incorrect.
Questions to ask the Oneness person:
Is Jesus His own Father?
If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical (in an attempt to demonstrate that there is only one will), then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father?
Was Jesus praying to Himself at this point?
Was Jesus saying, "Not My will, but My will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jul 14, 2005 12:27:04 GMT -5
ahhhh, a reply. thought you guys had fallen off.  Ok, first to roldan. Bro, no offense but you gotta come with your own material. This carm.org guy is not your best effort at rebuttal. But here's what I'm going to do. and it's going to be my last time doing so. I'll answer your questions at the end of your post, and the next time any trinitarian posts in here it should be an answer to one my questions throughout this thread. thanks ;D "Is Jesus His own Father?" Accoring to Isaiah 9:6, Malachi 2:10, and Eph. 4:6, Yes. "If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical (in an attempt to demonstrate that there is only one will), then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father?" Because no flesh seeks death, yet you'll notice that Jesus (who is God in the flesh) put his flesh under subjection to GOD's will just like we should. "Was Jesus praying to Himself at this point?" As a man he prayed to God, as all men should do. "Was Jesus saying, "Not My will, but My will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved?" Answered this earlier in this post. |
|
Cdero
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Cdero on Jul 28, 2005 23:13:21 GMT -5
The following is taken from a series of posts from you. I chosed to not respond to all of them because it will take forever. Please respond and lets build from there. i don't think you specifically asked, but if you frequented the HHZ theology boards i gave an explination in almost every oneness thread. because people kept asking me. A sign to John the Baptist. (John 1:32-34) Amen Amen Amen. A Dove has always been the sign of the holy spirit. John 1:33-34... A sign to John the Baptist, not a lesson on Godhead. GOD can do/work in any way he pleases, but that doesn't make him 3 persons. That is not exactly answering the question. The passage clearly shows three distinct persons. To write it off by saying God can do anything He pleases is another way of saying you don't have an answer. But peep it, lets look at that. Are you saying that God can multiply into three distinct persons in the same moment? So is it safe to say that even though you reject the doctrine of the Trinity that you hold to the doctrine being true in that moment of John 1:33-34? John 1:33-34... A sign to John the Baptist, not a lesson on Godhead. GOD can do/work in any way he pleases, but that doesn't make him 3 persons.So, then what is God doing here? They are distinct !! The Father is NOT the Son. The Son is NOT the Spirit. So I ask u what exactly is going on here AND why is my explaination not satisfactory to u to explain what is happening? Even tho it is not a "lesson on the Godhead" The godhead is there. So how does he revel Himself? As I see it, 3 distinct persons, which is clearly seen and u agree to it. 1 According to you they're distinct, but that's an assumption. Not a scripturally backed fact. Now, you said "the godhead is there." Do you know what the word "godhead" means? Thats a pretty good assumption would'nt you say? I mean if you recieved a call from the answer while I was at your crib helping your mom clean the dishes, I think that no one would nock you for assuming that what you have is three distinct persons, you hearing the answer's voice over the phone, me being at your crib helping your mom clean the dishes. However, to assume that the answer and I and your mom are not three distinct persons would be a poor assumption. Next, I don't see a revelation of 3 distinct persons. I do however see three ways he revealed himself with in the jewish cultural revelance and revelance of salvation. No, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three different "ways" shown by one person, rapping, preaching, and simply talking are three different ways, three different ways that one can communicate the gospel. However, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three different ways but three distinct persons. In John 17:5, we read, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had with with you before the world began?" As sure enough rapping can't talk back to singing, a "way" of God can not talk back to God. Tell me HHH, when did a "way" of God ever have the same glory that the Father has? Since when did the Father's ways start to talk back to Him? Previously you said that in John 1, God speaking to Jesus from heaven while Jesus was on earth being baptized and the Spirit of God decending on Him was an example of God being able to do anything. Did God do the same thing, multiply Himself into more than one person before the world began? Father Speaking From the Sky = Jewish Cultural revelance for John the Baptist. Father/GOD is in Heaven.Jesus Christ the Son on Earth = Salvation/redeemption for mankind. Also, Jewish cultural relevance of GOD making his Tabernacle with man (Feast of the Tabernacle) Dove = More Jewish cultural relevance denoting the Holy Spirit. Proof of God's annointing on Jesus. All three things significant, but no scriptuural reason for me to denote distinct personage to each. So in other words, it shows three distint somethings but not persons? Is this the only place that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is mentioned? If not, what other places are they mentioned? And, in those other places, what are they doing? Let me ask you a question. is the Holy Spirit a Spirit? Yes! In terms of not being physical in nature, yes. So is the Father, and the Son ( prier to taking on a physical being). Gotta go to bible study..so this will be quick How is it an assumption that they are distinct? Also, u have yet to explain what is goin on in this passage, If the father is God and the son and the spirit, yet God is only 1 person ( I think this is your view, correct me if im wrong). Then how/why is God revealing himself like this? Yes the holy Spirit is a Spirit 1 It's an assumption because it's not something stated in scripture. Well, I mean upon reading Genesis 11 where is shows God confusing the languages, I think it is prettty safe to assume that God has control over languages even though the text does'nt state that. I think that upon reading about the plagues that God brought Egypt shows that God is much more powerful than the so called gods of Egypt even though the passage does not state that. In other words, in order to believe something about God, such as God being maraculous, the text does not have to explicitly state because the text can also show it. In fact, the best way that scripture teaches us about God is by showing what God has done. The Gospels are narratives and therefore teaches us about God through stories. Based on your reasoning, I guess one can't watch or read Spider man and conclude that Spider has super powers since the movie does not state that spider has super powers. I guess actions are not louder than words after all. Therefore, even though John 1 shows three distincted persons, we can't assume that God is not three persons because the text does not state it in that fashion? Next, Just for a better explination, I believe that JESUS Is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; because Jesus is God by himself. (I guess orthodox would call that my creed.. lol). So, Jesus is His own ways? You said before that the voice of the Father about Jesus, Jesus on earth being baptized, and the Holy Spirit decending on Jesus, are all three different ways that God has revealed Himself. Now you are saying that the voice of the Father about Jesus, Jesus on earth being baptized, and the Holy Spirit decending on Jesus IS Jesus. So would you say that the Father's voice was the voice of Jesus asserting that the humanity of Christ ( I am ssuming that you view the humanity of Christ as being the Son) was His Son? Voice from Heaven: Old testament is RIDDLED with referrences of God speaking to his people. Where did he speak from?! From Heaven. (Exodus 20:22, 2 Sam. 22:14, Neh. 9:13, Dan. 4:31) This shows pattern from old to new of God speaking to his prophets and people.Jesus on earth as Son: Emmanuel, God on earth with men (Jewish Feast of the Tabernacle).Holy Spirit in form of a Dove: Dove is the scriptural symbol for the Holy Spirit. (yes i'm repeating myself. lol) Indeed God in the OT has spoken to man from heaven but God has also spoken to man from things on earth such as the burning bush. God also spoke through Angels and animals like Balaam's donkey. I really don't see the connection of where God speaks from with the baptism of Christ except that the Father spoke again from heaven. You are kind of explaining your little theory a bit roughly. Also, there is something signifacent in the Father speaking in John 1 from the heavens and that is the claim that is being made in that Jesus is His son ( all of Jesus). Ok, you said "Yes the holy Spirit is a Spirit". Cool. Well, i have no reason (from scripture) to think or believe that The Holy Spirit is a PERSON within God, because God is a SPIRIT (John 4:24).So, if John 4:24 is true (and it is) and Holy Spirit is a Spirit. Then Holy Spirit can only be another way to refer to GOD himself, and not a PERSON within GOD. That is if we go by scripture. I really don't see the point in what you said there. The fact that the Holy Spirit is a spirit does not nullify that the Holy Spirit is a person that co-exist with the other two persons within the Trinity. I am a spirit yet I am also a person. HHH- Are not you "assuming" that God is not Trinitarian and that in this passage he is just revealing himself in three different ways? Where in this passage does it say "God revealed himself in these three ways, but he is not a trinity"? I must have missed that.  DoX God always revealed himself in different "WAYS" in the old testament (jehovah rophi, nissi, jireh, etc). Yeah but you will never find Johovah Rophi having a coverstation with Jehovah-Nissi unless of course they were distinct persons. |
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Jul 29, 2005 10:22:44 GMT -5
ahhhh, mr. cruz. back for another bout i see. but here's what's up, i mentioned in my last post that the next response from a trinitarian should be ANSWERS to my questions. I thought that's what this was, but after reading it i see response to a few questions, and comments to ANSWERS i made that are replied to out of their original context. i'm sure i'll respond anyway though, since it would only take a minute. i'll be back.
btw: cruz, how's that article about oneness pentecostals believing in 2 Gods going? :-D
|
|
I'm personally going to be fasting and praying about all this soon.
... I just want some help on certain scriptures or questions that I'll be posting throughout the coming days.
