"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Kellie said>"To be so stubborn where ambiguity lies is evidence of the fragility of the foundation of the doctrine you seek to enforce"
Frail ambiguous doctrine Kellie seeks to enforce
:
>"God speaks through prophets all the time(Heb1:1)and HE DIDN'T SPEAK THROUGH HIS SON PROPHETICALLY TILL THE LAST DAYS.(Heb1:2)"
Yet God said:
1Pe1:10-1"The Spirit of Christ was in them [prophets] and was telling them how Christ would suffer and would then be given great honor" 1Co10:4 "that Rock was Christ"
I wonder at what point it's supposed to be considered harrassing for someone to continually flood your inbox with the same points,thinking that if you don't swallow them that you deserve,well,more flooding and disciplining.I want peace.That's why I don't want certain people to engage me.Yet I'm demonized for that too.
1.Quoting someone out of context to try and prove they believe something blasphemous that they CLEARLY don't.(which Barb did repeatedly,even trying to convince me I meant what she wanted me to mean the whole time and suggesting that I repent of confusing her even though it could only be misunderstood out of context,which was her preference)
2.Telling someone they have a poisonous JW mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with Barb(which Brian did.)
@howdytheresir >"quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with Barb"
Kellie settle down. I said Barnes AGREE's with me. I ask you again: did you read all Barnes on Isa48:16?
Barnes splits v16 into two speakers, the first God, then Cyrus. Barnes said GOD SAID "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I" (then says Cyrus speaks = I disagree)
But YOU say this isn't God, cause Speaker uses the word "beginning".
@barbsinclair Of course it could be Cyrus proleptically speaking,but I think it's probably about Isaiah prophesying about Cyrus on behalf of God who sent him to do so.God speaks through prophets all the time(Heb 1:1)and he didn't speak through his son prophetically till the last days.(Heb 1:2)
@howdytheresir Isaiah 8:1 Then the Lord said to me, “Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, ‘Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz.’ 2 And I will get reliable witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, to attest for me.”3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
The speakers changing is perhaps identical to the construct in Isaiah 48
@howdytheresir >"God speaks through prophets all the time(Heb 1:1)and he didn't speak through his son prophetically till the last days.(Heb 1:2)"
Wrong.
Father spoke to man by His Son since the fall of man; not just in these last days (Heb1:2). Christ was God's voice and presence on the earth in OT, He appeared spake to men multiple times. God's Son, Christ the Lord is "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past..." (Heb1:1)
I keep saying "the speaker" didn't you notice that? Cyrus couldn't SPEAK yet, BECAUSE Cyrus was not born yet. Cyrus was born over 100 years AFTER Isa 48 was given to prophet Isaiah.
Kellie, how can Cyrus SPEAK, when he wasn't born yet? Kellie - WHO is THE SPEAKER in Isa 48:16 ?!?!? Its not Isaiah, he is giving prophesy.
@barbsinclair btw,I think the initial fulfillment is Isaiah as the prophet speaking,not Cyrus.I misspoke once I think hurriedly trying to answer.Ditziness.
@howdytheresir >"I think the initial fulfillment is Isaiah as the prophet speaking,not Cyrus"
Kellie, the LORD God is speaking to Isaiah in the whole of ch 48 & 49, the prophet Isaiah is recording word-for-word what God said to Him.
NOTE:
even if you deny it is the LORD God speaking every word in the whole chapters: the text history is = Isaiah never redeemed Jacob out of bondage of Babylon, nor had his arm on the Chaldeans (v14-16). Nor can it be Cyrus speaking v16, the man Cyrus wasn't born.
@barbsinclair the fact that sometimes God speaks through the prophet then sometimes the prophet speaks as himself refutes the whole point that a dogmatic assertion should be made.But if you admit that,then you can't make your dogmatic assertion,which is your persistent insistence.
@howdytheresir >'sometimes God speaks through the prophet then sometimes the prophet speaks as himself"
Yes, in Is6, Isaiah makes it very clear he's recording his own words while talking with Yahweh God; he wrote >"then said I" v5,8,11. (but in ch48 & 49, Isaiah only records God speaking).
In ch6, Yahweh God wanted us to KNOW Isaiah saw Him and spoke to Him. Apostle John testifies by inspiration: in ch6, Isaiah saw and spoke to Jesus Christ = the Son of God Jesus is Yahweh God Jn12:37-43. Amen
@barbsinclair To be so stubborn where ambiguity lies is evidence of the fragility of the foundation of the doctrine you seek to enforce.It's as if you didn't even consider translations like the RSV and parallel speaker change examples in places like Isaiah 8.Or that God spoke thorough Yahushua as prophet when?(Heb. 1:2)
@howdytheresir>"To be so stubborn where ambiguity lies is evidence of the fragility of the foundation of the doctrine you seek to enforce."
Yes, look in the mirror, and answer this question:
Read (Is48:12-22;49:1-26). This is what the speaker who was sent does: he does God's pleasure on Babylon, has his arm is on the Chaldeans, and makes his way prosperous (v14-15), redeeming Jacob (v20).
Kellie, are you 100% sure, you want to hold to the prophet Isaiah being the one sent to do all that?
@barbsinclair no you haven't been very attentive at all.I told you that first,it is probably Yahweh speaking.Then Isaiah says "And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit. "Then Yahweh speaks through him again.Just like the construct in Isaiah 8(please Barb read that to see a parallel).Not sure how you missed all that so that you could misrepresent me again,but you managed.I wasn't positive because of seeming ambiguity at first,but that's what seems to be the case.I had to study it better.
I agree Yahweh is speaking to Isaiah, and it certainly wasn't Holy Father speaking (Jn5:37) John testifies Jesus Christ is Yahweh God who Isaiah saw, spoke of and heard, he called Jesus Christ "the King Yahweh of hosts" Jh12:37-41 = Isa6:1,5.
Christ is Yahweh maker of heaven and earth Heb1, who personally appeared speaking to man on earth. In Exodus "they continually drank from the spiritual Rock that went with them, and that Rock was Christ"1Co10:4
@howdytheresir >"I told you that first,it is probably Yahweh speaking"
Yes, I agree its Yahweh speaking to Isaiah. And Jesus Christ said it certainly was NOT His Father (Jn5:37).
Ok, the Son of God Jesus Christ has ruled out the Father as speaking to Isaiah in Isa48. We have ruled out Cyrus speaking to Isaiah (because he was yet to be born).
So Kellie, WHO was speaking with Isaiah in ch48, who is Yahweh that spoke to Isaiah? Its not Holy Father.
@barbsinclair lol..using more ambiguous passages to prove your points.Read the commentaries on Jn. 5:37.And Barb please FOCUS.I am finished answering to you.My best advice..move on.:).Or keep flooding till you turn blue or red in the face.Either way,I'm done..Be well.
@howdytheresir >"lol..using more ambiguous passages to prove your points.Read the commentaries on Jn. 5:37."
See, you refuse to cleave and believe the Word of God and His Apostles testimony in Spirit of Truth teaching Christ the Lord was actively and personally appearing and speaking to fallen man on the earth.
Instead of dealing with God's Word as asked, you laugh and mock me, and then turn me away from the Word of God, to read men's commentaries.
@barbsinclair I'm sorry you see things that way Barb.I refer you to the commentaries not as inspired but for you to see that there are exegetical insights you may have missed..just in case.If you don't believe in looking at them,then that's fine.Be well.Btw,how my reading commentaries and recommending them *just for study* reveals a "JW org heart" is beyond me.if I believed all these labels,I'd go back to the KH.
@barbsinclair Hey Barb,do you think I should become a Jehovah's Witness again?I've been thinking a lot about it today because I was told that I have a poisonous Watchtower mentality and a Jehovah's Witness organization mind and heart by two people who pretty much know what they're talking about!;)Makes me wonder why I ever left.I notice the labels trinitarians give anyone who disagrees with them are much worse than anything a JW has offered me yet as an ex-JW.Such a good witness to your beliefs!
@barbsinclair in other words,I agree with the way the RSV has used it's quotations,determining a probable 2 diff speakers in verse 16 upon further examining,in parallel to Isaiah 8:1-3.
@howdytheresir >"God spoke thorough Yahushua as prophet when?(Heb. 1:2)"
Heb 1:2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds"
Father has spoken unto man by His Son since the fall of man; not only just in "these last days." Christ is God's voice and presence in OT, He appeared spake unto men multiple times, He is = Heb1:1 "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past..."
16 "Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there." And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit. 17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.
they recognize a change in speakers.From Yahweh to Isaiah to Yahweh.
Kellie, please read the context again, this passage is on the sent redeemer of Israel (Isa48:12-22; 49:1-26). This is what the speaker who was sent does: he does God's pleasure on Babylon, and has his arm is on the Chaldeans. Does Isaiah makes his way prosperous (v14-15), and redeem servant Jacob (v20)? Are you 100% sure, you want to hold to viewing Isaiah being sent to redeem Jacob from Babylon, did Isaiah do God's pleasure on Babylon?
@howdytheresir >"it's as if you neglected to actually pay attention to any single comment i have made."
I'm attentive to your comments. You view God speaking through Isaiah. It seems you have 3 individuals in view: God (v16a), a future Christ and Cyrus (v16b).
We know, no man heard the Father (Jn5:37), so Father never spoke to Isaiah. Yet God speaks to Isaiah v15 "I, even I, have spoken"
Do you still hold that Christ only pre-existed in the Father's mind in OT, or have you dropped that view?
Respectful debates shouldn't involve hounding and taunting,unwarranted labelling,public mental diagnoses,and endless futility.Those who engage in such(and I certainly have myself,sadly enough) aren't doing anything for the glory of God,just the glory of their own opinion and flesh.
@howdytheresir I agree. But if a person is going to get involved in such debates, they shouldn't take it as a personal insult when the opposing party says something that you don't agree with, or find difficult to disprove. Agree to disagree and move on.
@earnestlyseeking I don't take anything as a personal insult unless it IS a personal insult.But no,I shouldn't react.They expose themselves.I didn't find anything difficult to disprove.I found the misrepresentations and labels as red herrings to distract from the issue and tactics to prevent a respectful dialogue.Barb and Brian seem to be the ones insulted by opposing opinions.I was stupid enough to be insulted by labels and their imputing false motives.
I want everyone to take note of the demonization of me by Barb and Brian to try and distract from anything valid I may present.Brian tells everyone I have a poisonous JW mentality because I quote trinitarian commentaries that disagree with other trinitarians as if that's evil and corrupt.And Barb quotes me egregiously out of context 3 or 4 times to try and prove that I think Satan had no beginning.Amazing stuff,really.*Applause*
@howdytheresir >"I want everyone to take note of the demonization of me by Barb and Brian to try and distract from anything valid I may present."
Kellie, stop it NOW! That is a lie.
I agree with what earnestlyseeking said, this is true:
>"Kellie, go back and read Brians post again. He isn't saying you are poison. He saying the JW mentality is, and how you seem to be still hanging on to it. There is a difference. He's not "demonizing" you personally, but rather a concept, or a mentality. "
Using *Barb's* reasoning,we can conclude that since Satan was a sinner from the very beginning(1 Jn. 3:8) that
1.Satan is eternal,without beginning and
2.That there was never a time Satan was without sin
To be SO utterly dogmatic about ambiguous passages that probably do allude to a future Christ because he's the greater fulfillment of OT prophets and scream "trinity" just amazes me.
For the readers here: howdytheresir (kellie) and I were discussing Isa48:16. Because the word "beginning" occurs in English text, she is saying the one speaking in that text had a beginning, so cannot be God; thus she said of the speaker in Isa 48:16
>"just like Satan being a sinner from the beginning says nothing about his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning."
How is it, that Kellie has no problems using Satan as example to consider equal to the speaker in Isa 48:16?
@barbsinclair because you're misusing beginning in Isaiah,using it to prove eternality.It isn't with MY reasoning that Satan would then be eternal.That would be with yours.I wasn't comparing Satan with a prophet.I was VERY OBVIOUSLY going there to show how your reasoning fails with your misuse of beginning to prove eternality.To intentionally misrepresent my motives there is umm..just sad.I will not be answering anything else.
@howdytheresir>"It isn't with MY reasoning that Satan would then be eternal.That would be with yours"
Then why did you say of Satan >"HIS ETERNALITY,or the eternality of his sinning"?
That is not my reasoning, I have never thought or viewed Satan as holding eternality. Its you who said it, not me.
Definition of "eternality": being without beginning or end, existing outside of time, infinitely continuing perpetual. = that is God the maker of heavens and earth, the sea and all that in them be.
@barbsinclair what I said was this:"Nothing here about the eternality of the prophet,just like Satan being a sinner from the beginning says nothing about his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning."..I wasn't saying "Satan is eternal"..I was saying his sinning from the beginning DOESN'T mean that he is unless I use the same reasoning you use in Isaiah.In other words,beginning had a starting point,not an "eternality" at all!Hope that helps.
In the beginning after God finished creating all things, "it was very good" Gen1:31.
Satan that anointed cherub: when he was created, was "perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" Eze28:14-15. Satan that created angel had a beginning with iniquity.
The context of Isa48:1-22; SPEAKER use of "beginning" refers to the time HE being God spoke = Gen 1 "in the beginning...And God said". SPEAKER in v16 is God who spoke in the beginning.
@barbsinclair Please stop misrepresenting me.Thanks.I also never said you said Satan is eternal.I said if your reasoning were consistent,he would have to be by YOUR standards.I was demonstrating the inconsistency of your reasoning and the failure of your argument.
@howdytheresir >"I said if your reasoning were consistent"
We can't read another's mind to tell what their reasoning is. What we do is hear / read each others comments. I've read you admit you no longer believe the Saviour Christ the Lord is an angel.
There is only two categories of heavenly beings:
1. Lord (YHWH) God
2. all heavenly creatures the Lord (YHWH) God created / made.
But you don't believe Christ the creator maker of all things (Jn1:3;Ex20:11) is Lord (YHWH) God from heaven?
@barbsinclair It seems(and forgive me if I'm wrong) that you are *intentionally* misrepresenting me to distract from the points I made that refute your "from the beginning means eternal" assertion.If not,I apologize.If so,you seriously need to rethink your motives.That's not an ok thing to do Barb.I think you know very well that I know Satan had a beginning!
@barbsinclair interesting that notable bible commentaries not only say it's possible Cyrus is being spoken of here,but that it more than likely is.Of particular interest is that these commentaries are trinitarian as far as I could tell.I still agree with the 1st quote I pasted wholeheartedly.We shouldn't grasp where there is ANY ambiguity to form doctrines.It just makes our case look,well,fragile indeed.
Is48, sets up the servant who was SENT, to 49:5-8 "raise up the tribes of Jacob,and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles,that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth."
Utterly impossible the speaker who was sent (48:16) is Cyrus king of Persia,he never was light to the Gentiles,nor salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Context of 48:16: the speaker is ch49 the Holy One of Israel, the Saviour who was sent.
I did more research on Cyrus and prophet Isaiah. Isa45:1-4 is a clear prophesy of Cyrus written over 100yrs BEFORE he was born, before Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the temple then carrying God's people into Babylonian captivity. Cyrus became King of Persia about 150-175yrs AFTER Isa45:1-4 prophesy.
Google = "Isaiah 45 Cyrus prophecy"
Of course Cyrus isn't the SPEAKER 3 ch's later saying, 48:16 "Come near unto me, hear ye this..."
@howdytheresir >'I think you know very well that I know Satan had a beginning!"
Then why did you say of Satan >"his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning."
A being that holds eternality "his eternality", does not have a beginning.
Now if you want to take that back, ok. In future be very careful how you express your views. I don't misrepresent people, I take them at their own words. You said it, so I can only think you believe it. That is not misrepresenting you. I'm merely quoting you.
@barbsinclair seriously,Barb?Might wanna read my comments again.I hope anyone reading this doesn't buy what you're trying to sell here.I told you what I meant and the fact that you STILL do this is astounding.I don't need to take anything back because you're not quoting me ****in context**** and I explained what I meant to you 2 or 3 times.
@howdytheresir >"because you're misusing beginning in Isaiah, using it to prove eternality.
No, I'm using it showing the SPEAKER of Is48:16, cannot be prophet Isaiah, nor whom Barnes said (you quoted Barnes notes), namely Cyrus.
Full context of Is48:1-22 (all 22 verses): "beginning" (v16) = SPEAKER talks of the time:
"from the beginning from the time that it was" = when things came into existence, Gen1:1 "in the beginning" God spoke, He never spoke secretly but openly; "AND GOD SAID" = Gen ch1
@barbsinclair oh ok..thanks for clarifying.Yeah,God spoke in Genesis,but to connect that with this passage is just,well,unwarranted at best.Says another commentary about what I think you're misusing:
"From the time that the expedition of Cyrus was planned, there was God managing the whole by the economy of his providence."~Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Subject is Christian "faith" (v1,23) our service to the Master as His "servants" "slaves" (4,18), we "belong to Jesus Christ" (Rm1:5-6), "our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jd4); "the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith" (Heb12:2).
NWT Rm14:8 "we belong to Jehovah" = Jesus Christ is Jehovah God whom the faithful confess they belong to: Jesus is Jehovah NWT Rm14:4,6,8,10,11,12...
The Faithful confess: we belong to Jesus Christ our Lord Jehovah (YHWH) God
Acts 17:31:For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the *man*(Godman?) he has appointed.(why would God have to be appointed?) He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.
@howdytheresir So do you believe he will do the judging as a mere man? If you adhere to the strict interpretation of this verse, it would require that you do. Or could it be that what is being referred to was a man who is, and became much more, upon his resurrection from the grave?
@earnestlyseeking The text says he's a man.I don't have to imagine it.What must be imagined by trinity adherrents is "2nd person of God" and "Godman."I choose not to protest the plain language.He's not a man like us.He's an intensely glorified man(more glorified than we'll ever be if the glories will vary in the resurrection..1 Cor. 15:41) who God made Lord of all(acts 2:36) because God loves him and made him heir.Contemplate love.A father loved his Son and give freely to him.
""."I choose not to protest the plain language""" If that was true you would not deny that Jesus pre existed. All of the plain language of scripture says that he did such as "ALL thing being made by him and for him,"
As Far as Jesus being just a man? Impossible according to scripture. Psalm 47 states: "No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them— the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough" A human only Jesus cannot save. Be well Kellie
@21crosscheck21 Brian,to be honest,I do not wish to engage you anymore personally.So if you see me comment somewhere,out of respect for that I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to debate.I appreciate a respect for that(hopefully) ahead of time.
@howdytheresir Not trying to debate you Kellie. But as I see you teaching error and leading others astray I will provide answers to the false information you provide as I see fit. If that is a problem for you I suggest that you stop promoting your doctrine in public forums where people are free to comment. Public teachers and commenter's are all open to public correction. Why you feel you are somehow above that is beyond me.
@21crosscheck21 Expose me..do what you will..but you don't have to speak to me to do it.You can warn all those poor souls without speaking to me at all.I just don't have the slightest desire to engage anyone who causes me to stumble with ENDLESS pointless insulting debates that stumble all involved in that they've become not only futile,but cruel at times.So again,thanks ahead of time?
@howdytheresir As I said Kellie nor trying to argue about your perceived injuries or attempts to demonize me. However when you make a comment the best way for me to provide an answer that will be seen by the readers is to do it as a response to your statement as youtube list them in a specific order and my comment will make more sense because your comment will provide the context. If you don't want Christians responding to you I suggest you don't comment on Christian videos.
@howdytheresir Kellie, I think what CrossCheck just wants the same privileges you have. No one is speaking to anyone here dishonestly. EarnestlySeeking and CrossCheck are just as sincere in their beliefs as you are. As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is not as reliable as people assume it is. That's my belief. Sometimes I comment on other channels when disagreements arise, but I don't take my own opinions as absolute truth. Relax. Why take life so seriously? No one ever makes it out alive
@anzwertree Interesting viewpoint. Thanks for adding it. I agree that we should be able to disagree and still remain civil. Have a great memorial day!
@earnestlyseeking Thanks, this time of the year always brings back memories. Looking back, we can all see just how easy it is to be mistaken. Some people assume I'm dogmatic. My position couldn't be further from certainty. Dogmatism was why I left religion to begin with. Embracing my own ignorance was a liberating experience. I'm now free to speculate on all sorts of possibilities that were not available when I assumed I had the truth. This is why I don't look for absolutes, only likelihood
@anzwertree I agree that they have an equal opportunity to challenge & share.If you knew the history of what has happened with Brian and I,you might understand at least a little better.I only request certain ones to not engage me(and it is RARE indeed) if my past & *consistent* interactions with them have been highly offensive or stumbling.I can't imagine why any individual would WANT to engage someone who has requested respectfully to be left alone by that one.
@howdytheresir This isn't like high school, though. The only interacting is through Youtube. I think most people have good intentions, but their emotions can get in the way. I've had a lot of moments like thats too -- including CrossCheck and earnestlyseeking and many others here whom I've had interactions with. Religion is a hard subject to debate because so many emotions are associated with it. Our opinions standing in -- supposedly -- for the creator of the universe! That's a lot of pressure
@anzwertree I'm just trying to follow the scriptural principle to avoid what might make me stumble.And,well,personal insults and the like sometimes have and do.There have always been certain people in life that it's just better not to engage after interactions with them have proven to be futile and insulting time and again.It isn't that you dislike the person necessarily.It's that you learn what's best for you to maintain your own sanity and principles.
@howdytheresir Kellie I will restrict my responses to you to the scriptures and reasoning you employ. I have no desire to be dragged down the road you are trying to go down. It is false, you have written to me and apologized for taking it in the past and admitted it was untrue. I will leave that to others to decide... or expose for themselves. Be well
@howdytheresir If you have an answer for the verses I provided in Psalm 49 I'd be happy to hear them as they make a merely human Jesus impossible as he would be unable to redeem even one man.... much less the whole world vindicating the point of Dann's video series at least in part. Anything off the topic of the video I am not interested in.... I've moved on. :')
@howdytheresir besides,it's just the discarding of a "man nature" that redeemed trinitarians and not any death of God.So to say God had to redeem is mindboggling if only the "man nature" did.God redeemed me by sending his son in the likeness of men,who took on sin for me though he knew no sin.(like all other men do)
@howdytheresir You wrote: "I think the most important point is that a blemishless *life* had to redeem,as opposed to a 'nature' with no blemish."
But consider: from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Lk 6:45). So Jesus' blemishless life CAME FROM His blemishless nature. If His nature had been otherwise, sin would have manifested in His life. There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed (Lk 12:2).
@howdytheresir well hello there Kelly! I hope you are doing well. hey do you still have everyone blocked from commenting by not allowing any comments? lol......... oh don't take it personally Kellie, just funnin' with ya girl!
@howdytheresir >"a blemishless *life* had to redeem,as opposed to a "nature" with no blemish"
the *life* is GOD, He is that eternal life which was with the Father:
1Jn1:1-2 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,and our hands have handled,of THE WORD OF LIFE; (FOR THE LIFE WAS MANIFESTED, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you THAT ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and WAS MANIFESTED UNTO US)"
@howdytheresir I have followed you for a while with your disputes with several people ie..Snarky,Barb and Brian and not to make you mad.... But you have very thin skin when someone does not agree with you. You have thrown your fair share of insults out there too.The thing is you remove your comments for some reason not sure the reason. Then you tell Brian not to comment on a third persons video Kellie REALLY?????? His comment was not only directed to you it was made for all on youtube.........
@pande4509 I know I've been at fault too!Why do you think I'm saying snark and insults and the like sometimes make me stumble?You have NO idea what I've been through with any of them concerning misrepresentations,disrespect,insults,the like.I've erased comments because I regret engaging them at all,not because I said anything untrue.Since when was the concept that it's better to avoid what makes you stumble so reviling?
@howdytheresir I understand your position and your passion for what you believe.... Just remember that this a public forum. crosscheck did not say any thing that was insulting in this video response.... I am glad to see you and he have conversation.. I think there is a lot of passion for what one believes and that is OK! Kellie I do like hearing your view even if I don't agree.You have the same right as the rest on youtube..Have a great night and god bless!
@barbsinclair No Godhead today but we will be discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer and perhaps we'll touch in His person hood.
Text says He "is the second man is the Lord from heaven"1Co15:47 "who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" 1Pe1:20
The second man is Saviour Jah Jehovah from heaven become flesh:
Is12:2 "Behold,God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; HE ALSO IS BECOME MY SALVATION...6 for great is THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL IN THE MIDST OF THEE."
@earnestlyseeking If the bible indicated anywhere that Yahushua possessed everything he does without having to be given all of it,then a more sound case could be made for his being God.Otherwise,all you have is a God who had to be given everything.Or at least one of his people who did.
@howdytheresir The problem with most people who deny the deity of Christ, is that they think it has to make sense to them and that they have to be able to explain it perfectly and logically so that it makes sense and sounds reasonable to fellow humans. I know, I use to be of that crowd. But looking back I see now that at the same time I wanted the Trinity to make perfect sense to my lowly human mind, I also was willing to accept that it was OK that I didn't understand how God had always existed.
@earnestlyseeking I appreciate your sincerity,but my point isn't that it has to make sense to my peabrain.My point is that it has to be scriptural.I can listen to Yahushua without qualifying what he said everywhere to fit a trinity.His words are simple,and I don't want to be corrupted from that simplicity with any sophistry of men anymore.He's my truth.That's my standard.That's why I don't believe he's an angel anymore.That's why I never believed he was Godman.
@howdytheresir The words of Isaiah are simple when he said that he would be called "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father". But somehow, you and JWs and others seem to think that statement needs to be modified or amended to be read correctly. Both sides of the debate have to accept that all the passages can't be interpreted literally in every case. So it's left to the individual to decide where the bulk of the evidence lies, and I choose to believe that Jesus was much more than a Man or an Angel
Excellent news. Because Lord (YHWH) of the Sabbath day is NO angel Ex20:11;Jn1:1-4;Mt 12:8. He is "the Word of life; For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us" 1Jn1:1-2 = co-existed from eternity with Father. He is "the true light" Jn1:9, "the light of the world" Jn8:12. "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all"1Jn1:5
@howdytheresir >"If the bible indicated anywhere that Yahushua possessed everything he does without having to be given all of it"
Possessor is maker:
Jn1:3 "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made"
Ex20:11 "For in six days YHWH MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH, THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IN THEM IS,and rested the seventh day: wherefore YHWH blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" [Col 1]
Mt12:8 "For the Son of man [Jesus] is Lord [YHWH God] even of the SABBATH DAY"
This is in God's "LAW" and of God's "TESTIMONY", the Word of God Jesus Christ which His apostles and disciples declare about Him, God our Saviour. Volume of the book/s testify of Him. People in unbelief of the Gospel of God our Lord Jesus Christ, need to be told of His law, and be given His appointment testimony.
Isa8:20 "TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
@barbsinclair You've been hounding me for years with the exact same points over and over,especially the one about my "having no light in me."I'm not sure how scriptural it is to focus intensely on one subject(me..the heretic) with identical warnings for an extensive period.I think Yahushua would have moved on to those willing to embrace his viewpoint.Hounding people for years kind of sours them from even considering your message .Just an opinion though.Be well.
@howdytheresir >"You've been hounding me for years with the exact same points over and over"
No. Its multiple different textual points which over and over you refuse to address. As your doing now on the Redeemer Holy One of Israel texts; its not an "illusion of the Christ" as you said. You don't deal with the texts, you bash people for showing theres problems with your teachings. Do people who love God's Word in His light act this way? No.
I point these things out for readers of YT comments.
@barbsinclair Just know that when I don't answer to you it isn't because I'm stumped.It's because I understand the futility and sometimes attempt to adhere to scriptural principles that would prevent me from continuing in that futility.Be well.
@howdytheresir >"when I don't answer to you it isn't because I'm stumped.It's because I understand the futility and sometimes attempt to adhere to scriptural principles that would prevent me from continuing in that futility.Be well."
When you ask a question in comments, I shall reply with Words of God giving answers for readers, and shall continue to show readers that your teaching is not the truth of the doctrine of God our Saviour Jesus Christ and the blessed hope of His appearing Tts2:10-14
@barbsinclair When you come to realize that you can't forcefeed people YOUR interpretations of scripture and your personal understanding of the texts you paste,it is then you might be able to move on.I would understand maybe better if I had shown in all this time any indication that I accept the trinity as being possible,but I haven't.Reach out to others.Just some advice.
Isa48:16-17 "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now YHWH GOD, and his Spirit, HAS SENT ME. Thus saith YHWH, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am YHWH thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."
YHWH God the Redeemer was sent; but you reject YHWH God, the Holy One of Israel Jesus Christ.
@barbsinclair "But the evidence that this refers to the Messiah is too slight to lay the foundation for such an argument; and nothing is gained to the cause of truth by such forced interpretations."~Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Kellie, did you read Isa48 in context, and all Barnes on Is48:16? He says v16 refers to Cyrus:
16 "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was,there am I: and now YHWH GOD,and his Spirit,has sent me."
God speaks in v16, He said same in v5 "I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee" = v16
Cyrus NEVER spoke so man heard him from the beginning! Cyrus is not God.
@barbsinclair the beginning would be when he *began* to speak.Don't let your presupposition cloud your reason.Nothing here about the eternality of the prophet,just like Satan being a sinner from the beginning says nothing about his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning.It had a beginning point,just like a prophet's speech does.1 Jn 3:8
@howdytheresir >"beginning would be when he *began* to speak."
No.
The one sent spoke to mankind BEFORE being sent:
16 "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was,there am I: and now YHWH GOD,and his Spirit,has sent me."
Hes tells us to come near to Him, and HEAR Him. He says He's always been there, when He spoke it wasn't in secret: "from the time that it was, there am I" - commands us to hear Him.
Your word "eternality", the definition is: being without beginning or end, existing outside of time, infinitely continuing perpetual
Speaker in Is48:16 existed BEFORE time that it was, saying: "from the time that it was, there am I".
This can't be prophet Isaiah or any created being. Only true God exists from time that it was, from the beginning of time in eternality. God the creator and maker of time and all things (Gn1&2; Ex20:11; Jn1:3,10; Col1:16-17) was sent, became flesh.
Phrase "The Holy One of Israel" occurs in 37 OT texts. He's the eternal Son of God, the One Saviour Christ the Lord come in flesh, Jesus HaMoshiach (Isa 53). The Holy One of Israel (Jacob) is of tribe of Judah, stem of Jesse, Branch grew out of King David's roots; Son of David: Saviour and Redeemer YHWH who was sent (Isa48:16-17). In all 37 verses the Holy One of Israel is YHWH "God of the whole earth" (Isa54:5) "YHWH the Holy One IN Israel" Ez39:7
@barbsinclair Just trying to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling.Every prophet prefigures the ultimate one.(Heb. 1:2),so I'm sure there are allusions of the Christ to come,as opposed to the Christ that was there.Every time Christ is in the OT,it is in prophecy,prefiguring,typology..etc.
@howdytheresir >"Just trying to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...."
In 25yrs of study unto God [one Elohim (God) in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; these three are the one true Elohim YHWH, in the 66 books of Holy scriptures], not once have I met solid trinitarians who are disagreeable on proof texts. Even if I did, I'm not to show myself approved unto them: 2Tim 2:15
@barbsinclair This is a continued Watchtower mentality that all must agree on every detail for something to be true. It is a poison (not to mention a logical fallacy) that remains in many peoples minds. Commentaries and commentators are not inspired and Christians have never claimed that they are. They merely have the freedom to express their opinions. Many cherry pick these commentaries and and try to present what they like as fact while spitting out what does not tickle the ear.
@21crosscheck21 I never said that "all must agree on every detail" for something to be true.I am also sick of being demonized and lambasted for showing that trinitarians disagree on proof texts within their own community.it's a fact,and it's not a crime to know it and point it out.It doesn't mean I have a "JW mentality" and that I'm "poison."I also never said those commentaries are inspired.How ridiculous.
@howdytheresir Kellie, go back and read Brians post again. He isn't saying you are poison. He saying the JW mentality is, and how you seem to be still hanging on to it. There is a difference. He's not "demonizing" you personally, but rather a concept, or a mentality. The non trinitarians do the same thing, they don't all agree either, on all points, just that the trinity doesn't exist.
@earnestlyseeking Nothing he said is true though.It isn't a JW mentality that causes me to quote trinitarian commentaries that disagree with the trinitarians confronting me.Common sense causes me to do that.He invented a demonizing fallacy.Telling an ex-JW that they have a Watchtower mentality that's poisonous is MEANT to offend,while also being baseless.To give my mentality a demonizing label for quoting a commentary is seriously twisted.
@howdytheresir >"He invented a demonizing fallacy.Telling an ex-JW that they have a Watchtower mentality that's poisonous is MEANT to offend,while also being baseless."
No!
Honest ex-jws all admit the Watchtower mentality is poisonous and they all find it VERY difficult to remove the mental patterns installed by that mind controlling cult. The first step of getting away from WTS mental conditioning is admitting that: JW can get out of the WTS, but the WTS can't easily get out of the JW.
@barbsinclair And all this venom for my daring boldly to quote a trinitarian commentary that disagreed with an interpretation of yours.I'm so stupid for engaging your machine gun comment flood.it always leads to these kinds of lows.
@howdytheresir >"And all this venom for my daring boldly to quote a trinitarian commentary that disagreed with an interpretation of yours.'
After researching WT, I always fully read context of any partial quote given by anyone. So did you read all Barnes (1798–1870) on Isa 48 (& 49)? He quotes from other Christians in history that agree with me. Barnes is being honest, admitting others disagree with him, and then offers his view and why to consider it. Exactly as Brian said trinitarians are.
@barbsinclair The problem with all your disciplining Barb is that I NEVER SAID that anyone I quoted didn't acknowledge that others disagree.I simply acknowledged their personal opinions,which doesn't warrant either disciplining,rebuke,labelling,or public diagnoses.Thanks for your time.I'm moving on now.
@howdytheresir >"I NEVER SAID that anyone I quoted didn't acknowledge that others disagree.I simply acknowledged their personal opinions..."
I'm glad its no big deal to you now. I encourage you to keep reading the OT, wherein you shall see the eternal Son of God Christ really there appearing on the earth, and as an indwelling Spirit in OT prophets. Christ was NOT an allusion to come... He was true God personally there interacting with saints and coming against pagan nations in judgment =Heb13:8
Btw,Dann,just so everyone knows I admitted Isaiah 48 probably has allusions to the Christ to come(as opposed to the Christ that was already there) in a greater fulfillment.I'm sure that point got lost in all this.
@barbsinclair I know I was conditioned as a JW to think a certain way,but to diagnose & label me with a poisonous JW mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with you speaks more of the conditioning in your mentality than mine.
@howdytheresir>"but to diagnose & label me with a poisonous JW mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with you speaks more of the conditioning in your mentality than mine."
You said:
>"I admitted Isaiah48 probably has allusions to the Christ to come(as opposed to the Christ that was already there) in a greater fulfillment.I'm sure that point got lost in all this."
Read Is48:16 again: Speaker was SENT = Past Tense, was already there, He came. Same speaker speaks 49:1...
@barbsinclair Hebrew prolepsis.Plus there are two fulfillments,as Christ fulfills many of the OT revelations in greater applications.That's why some of the same texts are applied to him as those to God,David,and Solomon(etc.) because he was given God's prerogatives(as a separate being,sorry..Acts 3:13),David's prerogatives(on a greater scale),etc.
@21crosscheck21 saying that an ex-JW has a poisonous Watchtower mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagreed with your friend as if THAT's a psychologically troubling thing for her to do is just asinine.And I read it very carefully.
@howdytheresir I'm sorry you feel that way Kellie... but I once again suggest that you read comments more carefully before you read to far into them and react in inappropriate ways.
@earnestlyseeking I appreciate the respect afforded me from trinitarians like you and Rachel,but being continually misrepresented and hounded by people I had to block for a NUMBER of reasons will prevent me from even being able to engage those who I can respect FOR their respect.It's frustrating just trying to counter their ridiculous misrepresentations alone.
Kellie prove Brian wrong that you don't cherry pick commentaries to present what you like, spitting out the rest.
You said you quoted Barnes' >"to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling"
Read all Barnes' on Isa 48 & 49. Barnes says Redeemer Messiah is GOD come in the flesh saying Isa49:1 "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people"
@barbsinclair Barb,sorry.I didn't know I wasn't allowed to quote commentaries from trinitarians that disagree with other trinitarians.I thought it was clever.Guess I just have a poisonous mentality.;)
@barbsinclair God bless you Barb,but if you really think that how you're behaving and what you have to offer me(labels,misrepresentation,endless futile insulting debates) will lead to anything valuable or commendable,then you need some rest and prayer.Keep waiting,but just know that your hounding and what has gone on with a couple others as well has prevented me before from being able to engage respectful trinitarians peacefully,and there is nothing new here.
@barbsinclair And,Barb,my very first comments where I tried to nip this in the bud still stand.You cannot force people with hounding and repetition to swallow your opinion.There's a time to move on and it is unbiblical to engage one particular target "heretic" with labels and misrepresentation and the same points(yes,they're the same points over and over) thinking that that one will somehow then think your message is golden and embrace the kind of spirit that compels you to behave that way.
@barbsinclair btw,I never said there aren't any commentaries that exist that agree with you nor did I even imply it.What is with you all?I don't get it.Chill out and understand that I broke no rule.I did nothing wrong.Actually,what I did is what anyone with a brain should do.Looked at the opinions on the texts you hounded me with and noticed from my own reason your dogmatic stance is unwarranted,even according to a number of trinitarian commentaries.How.Dare.I.
I spend days reading theological articles, commentaries, arguments to understand various views; testing if it harmonizes with Bible truth. I first started with WT articles, then expanded from there. What I find is two camps:
a) those who aggressively deny the deity of the Saviour Christ Jesus the Lord who bought them, b) those who do not.
You said>"your dogmatic stance is unwarranted"
Say that to God the Saviour your maker and King when you try to see and enter His Kingdom.
@earnestlyseeking It would seem just from looking at what Barb and Brian have said that they think their views on the texts are inspired and that if anyone quotes someone within their own community who disagrees with those views that the person who uses that ammunition needs to be labelled and hounded for doing so.This has happened a number of times.Even had videos making fun of me and trying to say that I was implying trinitarians aren't trinitarian for doing so.Interesting.
@earnestlyseeking Thank you Dann for putting what I said in it's proper perspective. I was simply pointing out an erroneous line of reasoning commonly used by the WT. Regrettably Kellie would take offence if I asked what time it was. :>) I am used to it and I am used to her constant and unfounded attacks on my character. We all know that there is baggage for all who leave the WT. The WT is poison, not the people.
You quoted Barnes' to me>"to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling"
Brian said to me>"Many cherry pick these commentaries and try to present what they like as fact while spitting out what does not tickle the ear."
Kellie pls read all Barnes' on Isa ch's 48 & 49. Barnes says Redeemer Messiah speaks Isa49:1 "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people"
Kellie fails to see dialog among trinitarians is Holy Spirit working out issues as we discuss Bible. I have "Barnes' Notes on the Bible"; and Kellie states why she quoted one sentence from Is48:16:
>"Just trying to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling"
For me what is very telling: solid trinitarians can discuss texts remaining united on the doctrine of the Godhead.
Rev 22:1,3 say "throne of God and of the Lamb"... note that it is not the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb, nor is it "the thrones of God and of the Lamb". It is one throne that they both share.
@earnestlyseeking Robert Bowman has a whole chapter on this concept in his book "Putting Jesus in His Place:The Case for the Deity of Christ". I can highly recommend that book to you.
@rachelbinto Rev 3:21:To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
@howdytheresir Why did "God" have to overcome anything to sit on the throne of his own God?If "one throne" means "one being",wouldn't that same one throne that includes Christians who've conquered the world mean they are God too?Logic.
@howdytheresir >"Why did "God" have to overcome anything to sit on the throne of his own God?"
Father possesses His own God and Lord: His dear Son. The Father personally addresses His Son as "God" and "Lord YHWH" maker of heaven and earth (Heb 1).
Col 1:16 declares, all thrones were created by the Son, and for the Son. Thus, Holy Father sat down on the throne of His own God = The Father's God gave His own throne to Father.
Kellie, when did the Father's own God, give the Father His own throne?
@howdytheresir>"If "one throne" means "one being",wouldn't that same one throne that includes Christians who've conquered the world mean they are God too?"
Almighty God Jesus gives & takes away His thrones powers Rv2:26;3:21;20:4
"For BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, that are in heaven and that are in earth,visible and invisible,whether they be THRONES,or dominions,or principalities,or POWERS: ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM,AND FOR HIM: And HE IS BEFORE ALL THINGS,AND BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST"
@howdytheresir >"Rv3:21:To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne"
All thrones were created by the Father's dear Son for His Son:
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him..." Col1:16-17
This has been flagged as spam show
KJV John1:1-5,14
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
barbsinclair 9 months ago
Kellie said>"To be so stubborn where ambiguity lies is evidence of the fragility of the foundation of the doctrine you seek to enforce"
Frail ambiguous doctrine Kellie seeks to enforce
:
>"God speaks through prophets all the time(Heb1:1)and HE DIDN'T SPEAK THROUGH HIS SON PROPHETICALLY TILL THE LAST DAYS.(Heb1:2)"
Yet God said:
1Pe1:10-1"The Spirit of Christ was in them [prophets] and was telling them how Christ would suffer and would then be given great honor" 1Co10:4 "that Rock was Christ"
barbsinclair 9 months ago
I wonder at what point it's supposed to be considered harrassing for someone to continually flood your inbox with the same points,thinking that if you don't swallow them that you deserve,well,more flooding and disciplining.I want peace.That's why I don't want certain people to engage me.Yet I'm demonized for that too.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
Demonizing:
1.Quoting someone out of context to try and prove they believe something blasphemous that they CLEARLY don't.(which Barb did repeatedly,even trying to convince me I meant what she wanted me to mean the whole time and suggesting that I repent of confusing her even though it could only be misunderstood out of context,which was her preference)
2.Telling someone they have a poisonous JW mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with Barb(which Brian did.)
Uh huh.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with Barb"
Kellie settle down. I said Barnes AGREE's with me. I ask you again: did you read all Barnes on Isa48:16?
Barnes splits v16 into two speakers, the first God, then Cyrus. Barnes said GOD SAID "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I" (then says Cyrus speaks = I disagree)
But YOU say this isn't God, cause Speaker uses the word "beginning".
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Of course it could be Cyrus proleptically speaking,but I think it's probably about Isaiah prophesying about Cyrus on behalf of God who sent him to do so.God speaks through prophets all the time(Heb 1:1)and he didn't speak through his son prophetically till the last days.(Heb 1:2)
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir Isaiah 8:1 Then the Lord said to me, “Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, ‘Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz.’ 2 And I will get reliable witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, to attest for me.”3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
The speakers changing is perhaps identical to the construct in Isaiah 48
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"Isaiah 8:1 Then the Lord said to me, [...] The speakers changing is perhaps identical to the construct in Isaiah 48"
Who spoke to prophet Isaiah? Who is the Lord (YHWH God) who said these things to Isaiah?
Again I ask, WHO is SPEAKING to prophet Isaiah? It certainly was not, and never was Holy Father (Jn5:37).
That has always been my point, on "the Holy One of Israel...thy REDEEMER" = "Christ has REDEEMED us" Gal3:13
Isaiah records phrase "the Holy One Of Israel" 25 times.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"God speaks through prophets all the time(Heb 1:1)and he didn't speak through his son prophetically till the last days.(Heb 1:2)"
Wrong.
Father spoke to man by His Son since the fall of man; not just in these last days (Heb1:2). Christ was God's voice and presence on the earth in OT, He appeared spake to men multiple times. God's Son, Christ the Lord is "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past..." (Heb1:1)
In Exodus "that Rock WAS Christ" 1Co10:1-12
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
I keep saying "the speaker" didn't you notice that? Cyrus couldn't SPEAK yet, BECAUSE Cyrus was not born yet. Cyrus was born over 100 years AFTER Isa 48 was given to prophet Isaiah.
Kellie, how can Cyrus SPEAK, when he wasn't born yet? Kellie - WHO is THE SPEAKER in Isa 48:16 ?!?!? Its not Isaiah, he is giving prophesy.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Maybe you missed where I answered you before.Hebrew prolepsis.Common stuff.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@barbsinclair btw,I think the initial fulfillment is Isaiah as the prophet speaking,not Cyrus.I misspoke once I think hurriedly trying to answer.Ditziness.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"I think the initial fulfillment is Isaiah as the prophet speaking,not Cyrus"
Kellie, the LORD God is speaking to Isaiah in the whole of ch 48 & 49, the prophet Isaiah is recording word-for-word what God said to Him.
NOTE:
even if you deny it is the LORD God speaking every word in the whole chapters: the text history is = Isaiah never redeemed Jacob out of bondage of Babylon, nor had his arm on the Chaldeans (v14-16). Nor can it be Cyrus speaking v16, the man Cyrus wasn't born.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair the fact that sometimes God speaks through the prophet then sometimes the prophet speaks as himself refutes the whole point that a dogmatic assertion should be made.But if you admit that,then you can't make your dogmatic assertion,which is your persistent insistence.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >'sometimes God speaks through the prophet then sometimes the prophet speaks as himself"
Yes, in Is6, Isaiah makes it very clear he's recording his own words while talking with Yahweh God; he wrote >"then said I" v5,8,11. (but in ch48 & 49, Isaiah only records God speaking).
In ch6, Yahweh God wanted us to KNOW Isaiah saw Him and spoke to Him. Apostle John testifies by inspiration: in ch6, Isaiah saw and spoke to Jesus Christ = the Son of God Jesus is Yahweh God Jn12:37-43. Amen
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair To be so stubborn where ambiguity lies is evidence of the fragility of the foundation of the doctrine you seek to enforce.It's as if you didn't even consider translations like the RSV and parallel speaker change examples in places like Isaiah 8.Or that God spoke thorough Yahushua as prophet when?(Heb. 1:2)
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir>"To be so stubborn where ambiguity lies is evidence of the fragility of the foundation of the doctrine you seek to enforce."
Yes, look in the mirror, and answer this question:
Read (Is48:12-22;49:1-26). This is what the speaker who was sent does: he does God's pleasure on Babylon, has his arm is on the Chaldeans, and makes his way prosperous (v14-15), redeeming Jacob (v20).
Kellie, are you 100% sure, you want to hold to the prophet Isaiah being the one sent to do all that?
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair no you haven't been very attentive at all.I told you that first,it is probably Yahweh speaking.Then Isaiah says "And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit. "Then Yahweh speaks through him again.Just like the construct in Isaiah 8(please Barb read that to see a parallel).Not sure how you missed all that so that you could misrepresent me again,but you managed.I wasn't positive because of seeming ambiguity at first,but that's what seems to be the case.I had to study it better.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"probably Yahweh speaking"
I agree Yahweh is speaking to Isaiah, and it certainly wasn't Holy Father speaking (Jn5:37) John testifies Jesus Christ is Yahweh God who Isaiah saw, spoke of and heard, he called Jesus Christ "the King Yahweh of hosts" Jh12:37-41 = Isa6:1,5.
Christ is Yahweh maker of heaven and earth Heb1, who personally appeared speaking to man on earth. In Exodus "they continually drank from the spiritual Rock that went with them, and that Rock was Christ"1Co10:4
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"I told you that first,it is probably Yahweh speaking"
Yes, I agree its Yahweh speaking to Isaiah. And Jesus Christ said it certainly was NOT His Father (Jn5:37).
Ok, the Son of God Jesus Christ has ruled out the Father as speaking to Isaiah in Isa48. We have ruled out Cyrus speaking to Isaiah (because he was yet to be born).
So Kellie, WHO was speaking with Isaiah in ch48, who is Yahweh that spoke to Isaiah? Its not Holy Father.
Please focus, give me your answer.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair lol..using more ambiguous passages to prove your points.Read the commentaries on Jn. 5:37.And Barb please FOCUS.I am finished answering to you.My best advice..move on.:).Or keep flooding till you turn blue or red in the face.Either way,I'm done..Be well.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"lol..using more ambiguous passages to prove your points.Read the commentaries on Jn. 5:37."
See, you refuse to cleave and believe the Word of God and His Apostles testimony in Spirit of Truth teaching Christ the Lord was actively and personally appearing and speaking to fallen man on the earth.
Instead of dealing with God's Word as asked, you laugh and mock me, and then turn me away from the Word of God, to read men's commentaries.
Your behavior shows a JW-org mind and heart
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair I'm sorry you see things that way Barb.I refer you to the commentaries not as inspired but for you to see that there are exegetical insights you may have missed..just in case.If you don't believe in looking at them,then that's fine.Be well.Btw,how my reading commentaries and recommending them *just for study* reveals a "JW org heart" is beyond me.if I believed all these labels,I'd go back to the KH.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@howdytheresir
Kellie take your own best advice, and keep your word, you said your done. Be done.
You said >"My best advice..move on." = do it.
As you said >"You can keep flooding till you turn blue or red in the face." = I don't care if you can't keep your word, but there's always hope.
Either way Kellie, I'm done for a while. Bye for now.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Hey Barb,do you think I should become a Jehovah's Witness again?I've been thinking a lot about it today because I was told that I have a poisonous Watchtower mentality and a Jehovah's Witness organization mind and heart by two people who pretty much know what they're talking about!;)Makes me wonder why I ever left.I notice the labels trinitarians give anyone who disagrees with them are much worse than anything a JW has offered me yet as an ex-JW.Such a good witness to your beliefs!
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@barbsinclair in other words,I agree with the way the RSV has used it's quotations,determining a probable 2 diff speakers in verse 16 upon further examining,in parallel to Isaiah 8:1-3.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"God spoke thorough Yahushua as prophet when?(Heb. 1:2)"
Heb 1:2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds"
Father has spoken unto man by His Son since the fall of man; not only just in "these last days." Christ is God's voice and presence in OT, He appeared spake unto men multiple times, He is = Heb1:1 "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past..."
Pls read all Heb ch1
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair The RSV :
16 "Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there." And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit. 17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.
they recognize a change in speakers.From Yahweh to Isaiah to Yahweh.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"From Yahweh to Isaiah to Yahweh."
Kellie, please read the context again, this passage is on the sent redeemer of Israel (Isa48:12-22; 49:1-26). This is what the speaker who was sent does: he does God's pleasure on Babylon, and has his arm is on the Chaldeans. Does Isaiah makes his way prosperous (v14-15), and redeem servant Jacob (v20)? Are you 100% sure, you want to hold to viewing Isaiah being sent to redeem Jacob from Babylon, did Isaiah do God's pleasure on Babylon?
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair wow.it's as if you neglected to actually pay attention to any single comment i have made.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"it's as if you neglected to actually pay attention to any single comment i have made."
I'm attentive to your comments. You view God speaking through Isaiah. It seems you have 3 individuals in view: God (v16a), a future Christ and Cyrus (v16b).
We know, no man heard the Father (Jn5:37), so Father never spoke to Isaiah. Yet God speaks to Isaiah v15 "I, even I, have spoken"
Do you still hold that Christ only pre-existed in the Father's mind in OT, or have you dropped that view?
barbsinclair 9 months ago
Respectful debates shouldn't involve hounding and taunting,unwarranted labelling,public mental diagnoses,and endless futility.Those who engage in such(and I certainly have myself,sadly enough) aren't doing anything for the glory of God,just the glory of their own opinion and flesh.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir I agree. But if a person is going to get involved in such debates, they shouldn't take it as a personal insult when the opposing party says something that you don't agree with, or find difficult to disprove. Agree to disagree and move on.
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking I don't take anything as a personal insult unless it IS a personal insult.But no,I shouldn't react.They expose themselves.I didn't find anything difficult to disprove.I found the misrepresentations and labels as red herrings to distract from the issue and tactics to prevent a respectful dialogue.Barb and Brian seem to be the ones insulted by opposing opinions.I was stupid enough to be insulted by labels and their imputing false motives.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
I want everyone to take note of the demonization of me by Barb and Brian to try and distract from anything valid I may present.Brian tells everyone I have a poisonous JW mentality because I quote trinitarian commentaries that disagree with other trinitarians as if that's evil and corrupt.And Barb quotes me egregiously out of context 3 or 4 times to try and prove that I think Satan had no beginning.Amazing stuff,really.*Applause*
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"I want everyone to take note of the demonization of me by Barb and Brian to try and distract from anything valid I may present."
Kellie, stop it NOW! That is a lie.
I agree with what earnestlyseeking said, this is true:
>"Kellie, go back and read Brians post again. He isn't saying you are poison. He saying the JW mentality is, and how you seem to be still hanging on to it. There is a difference. He's not "demonizing" you personally, but rather a concept, or a mentality. "
barbsinclair 9 months ago
Using *Barb's* reasoning,we can conclude that since Satan was a sinner from the very beginning(1 Jn. 3:8) that
1.Satan is eternal,without beginning and
2.That there was never a time Satan was without sin
To be SO utterly dogmatic about ambiguous passages that probably do allude to a future Christ because he's the greater fulfillment of OT prophets and scream "trinity" just amazes me.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
Kellie, your M.O. is to habitually twist & misrepresent people.
YOU say Satan is eternal, that is *Kellie's* reasoning with the word "eternality". You Kellie said:
>"just like Satan being a sinner from the beginning says nothing about his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning."
Amazing Kellie believes Satan holds eternality saying "his eternality".
Definition of "eternality": being without beginning or end, existing outside of time, infinitely continuing perpetual = YHWH
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
For the readers here: howdytheresir (kellie) and I were discussing Isa48:16. Because the word "beginning" occurs in English text, she is saying the one speaking in that text had a beginning, so cannot be God; thus she said of the speaker in Isa 48:16
>"just like Satan being a sinner from the beginning says nothing about his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning."
How is it, that Kellie has no problems using Satan as example to consider equal to the speaker in Isa 48:16?
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair because you're misusing beginning in Isaiah,using it to prove eternality.It isn't with MY reasoning that Satan would then be eternal.That would be with yours.I wasn't comparing Satan with a prophet.I was VERY OBVIOUSLY going there to show how your reasoning fails with your misuse of beginning to prove eternality.To intentionally misrepresent my motives there is umm..just sad.I will not be answering anything else.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir>"It isn't with MY reasoning that Satan would then be eternal.That would be with yours"
Then why did you say of Satan >"HIS ETERNALITY,or the eternality of his sinning"?
That is not my reasoning, I have never thought or viewed Satan as holding eternality. Its you who said it, not me.
Definition of "eternality": being without beginning or end, existing outside of time, infinitely continuing perpetual. = that is God the maker of heavens and earth, the sea and all that in them be.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair what I said was this:"Nothing here about the eternality of the prophet,just like Satan being a sinner from the beginning says nothing about his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning."..I wasn't saying "Satan is eternal"..I was saying his sinning from the beginning DOESN'T mean that he is unless I use the same reasoning you use in Isaiah.In other words,beginning had a starting point,not an "eternality" at all!Hope that helps.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
In the beginning after God finished creating all things, "it was very good" Gen1:31.
Satan that anointed cherub: when he was created, was "perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" Eze28:14-15. Satan that created angel had a beginning with iniquity.
The context of Isa48:1-22; SPEAKER use of "beginning" refers to the time HE being God spoke = Gen 1 "in the beginning...And God said". SPEAKER in v16 is God who spoke in the beginning.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Please stop misrepresenting me.Thanks.I also never said you said Satan is eternal.I said if your reasoning were consistent,he would have to be by YOUR standards.I was demonstrating the inconsistency of your reasoning and the failure of your argument.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"I said if your reasoning were consistent"
We can't read another's mind to tell what their reasoning is. What we do is hear / read each others comments. I've read you admit you no longer believe the Saviour Christ the Lord is an angel.
There is only two categories of heavenly beings:
1. Lord (YHWH) God
2. all heavenly creatures the Lord (YHWH) God created / made.
But you don't believe Christ the creator maker of all things (Jn1:3;Ex20:11) is Lord (YHWH) God from heaven?
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair It seems(and forgive me if I'm wrong) that you are *intentionally* misrepresenting me to distract from the points I made that refute your "from the beginning means eternal" assertion.If not,I apologize.If so,you seriously need to rethink your motives.That's not an ok thing to do Barb.I think you know very well that I know Satan had a beginning!
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"If not,I apologize."
I accept your apology, and read what I just sent you on the context of Isaiah ch48, and time the Speaker in the chapter was talking about.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair interesting that notable bible commentaries not only say it's possible Cyrus is being spoken of here,but that it more than likely is.Of particular interest is that these commentaries are trinitarian as far as I could tell.I still agree with the 1st quote I pasted wholeheartedly.We shouldn't grasp where there is ANY ambiguity to form doctrines.It just makes our case look,well,fragile indeed.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"Cyrus"
Is48, sets up the servant who was SENT, to 49:5-8 "raise up the tribes of Jacob,and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles,that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth."
Utterly impossible the speaker who was sent (48:16) is Cyrus king of Persia,he never was light to the Gentiles,nor salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Context of 48:16: the speaker is ch49 the Holy One of Israel, the Saviour who was sent.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
I did more research on Cyrus and prophet Isaiah. Isa45:1-4 is a clear prophesy of Cyrus written over 100yrs BEFORE he was born, before Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the temple then carrying God's people into Babylonian captivity. Cyrus became King of Persia about 150-175yrs AFTER Isa45:1-4 prophesy.
Google = "Isaiah 45 Cyrus prophecy"
Of course Cyrus isn't the SPEAKER 3 ch's later saying, 48:16 "Come near unto me, hear ye this..."
Garbage Barnes notes on Isa 48:16.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >'I think you know very well that I know Satan had a beginning!"
Then why did you say of Satan >"his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning."
A being that holds eternality "his eternality", does not have a beginning.
Now if you want to take that back, ok. In future be very careful how you express your views. I don't misrepresent people, I take them at their own words. You said it, so I can only think you believe it. That is not misrepresenting you. I'm merely quoting you.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair seriously,Barb?Might wanna read my comments again.I hope anyone reading this doesn't buy what you're trying to sell here.I told you what I meant and the fact that you STILL do this is astounding.I don't need to take anything back because you're not quoting me ****in context**** and I explained what I meant to you 2 or 3 times.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"because you're misusing beginning in Isaiah, using it to prove eternality.
No, I'm using it showing the SPEAKER of Is48:16, cannot be prophet Isaiah, nor whom Barnes said (you quoted Barnes notes), namely Cyrus.
Full context of Is48:1-22 (all 22 verses): "beginning" (v16) = SPEAKER talks of the time:
"from the beginning from the time that it was" = when things came into existence, Gen1:1 "in the beginning" God spoke, He never spoke secretly but openly; "AND GOD SAID" = Gen ch1
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair oh ok..thanks for clarifying.Yeah,God spoke in Genesis,but to connect that with this passage is just,well,unwarranted at best.Says another commentary about what I think you're misusing:
"From the time that the expedition of Cyrus was planned, there was God managing the whole by the economy of his providence."~Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
hmm..
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"Yeah,God spoke in Genesis,but to connect that with this passage is just,well,unwarranted at best."
Did you read Barnes on Isa48:16? He split v16 into two sections saying there's two speakers: first God spoke, then Cyrus spoke:
(God) "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I"
(Cyrus) "and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me."
BUT v16 only has one speaker, not two. Barnes is wrong.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
Comment removed
howdytheresir 9 months ago
I like this....yes....I LIKED IT ALOT!!!!!!!!
TheSnarkyApologist 9 months ago
Excellent offer from NWT Rom14.
Subject is Christian "faith" (v1,23) our service to the Master as His "servants" "slaves" (4,18), we "belong to Jesus Christ" (Rm1:5-6), "our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jd4); "the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith" (Heb12:2).
NWT Rm14:8 "we belong to Jehovah" = Jesus Christ is Jehovah God whom the faithful confess they belong to: Jesus is Jehovah NWT Rm14:4,6,8,10,11,12...
The Faithful confess: we belong to Jesus Christ our Lord Jehovah (YHWH) God
barbsinclair 9 months ago 2
@barbsinclair AMEN!
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
Acts 17:31:For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the *man*(Godman?) he has appointed.(why would God have to be appointed?) He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir So do you believe he will do the judging as a mere man? If you adhere to the strict interpretation of this verse, it would require that you do. Or could it be that what is being referred to was a man who is, and became much more, upon his resurrection from the grave?
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking The text says he's a man.I don't have to imagine it.What must be imagined by trinity adherrents is "2nd person of God" and "Godman."I choose not to protest the plain language.He's not a man like us.He's an intensely glorified man(more glorified than we'll ever be if the glories will vary in the resurrection..1 Cor. 15:41) who God made Lord of all(acts 2:36) because God loves him and made him heir.Contemplate love.A father loved his Son and give freely to him.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
""."I choose not to protest the plain language""" If that was true you would not deny that Jesus pre existed. All of the plain language of scripture says that he did such as "ALL thing being made by him and for him,"
As Far as Jesus being just a man? Impossible according to scripture. Psalm 47 states: "No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them— the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough" A human only Jesus cannot save. Be well Kellie
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21 oops.. meant psalm 49.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Brian,to be honest,I do not wish to engage you anymore personally.So if you see me comment somewhere,out of respect for that I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to debate.I appreciate a respect for that(hopefully) ahead of time.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir Not trying to debate you Kellie. But as I see you teaching error and leading others astray I will provide answers to the false information you provide as I see fit. If that is a problem for you I suggest that you stop promoting your doctrine in public forums where people are free to comment. Public teachers and commenter's are all open to public correction. Why you feel you are somehow above that is beyond me.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Expose me..do what you will..but you don't have to speak to me to do it.You can warn all those poor souls without speaking to me at all.I just don't have the slightest desire to engage anyone who causes me to stumble with ENDLESS pointless insulting debates that stumble all involved in that they've become not only futile,but cruel at times.So again,thanks ahead of time?
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir As I said Kellie nor trying to argue about your perceived injuries or attempts to demonize me. However when you make a comment the best way for me to provide an answer that will be seen by the readers is to do it as a response to your statement as youtube list them in a specific order and my comment will make more sense because your comment will provide the context. If you don't want Christians responding to you I suggest you don't comment on Christian videos.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@howdytheresir Kellie, I think what CrossCheck just wants the same privileges you have. No one is speaking to anyone here dishonestly. EarnestlySeeking and CrossCheck are just as sincere in their beliefs as you are. As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is not as reliable as people assume it is. That's my belief. Sometimes I comment on other channels when disagreements arise, but I don't take my own opinions as absolute truth. Relax. Why take life so seriously? No one ever makes it out alive
anzwertree 9 months ago
@anzwertree Interesting viewpoint. Thanks for adding it. I agree that we should be able to disagree and still remain civil. Have a great memorial day!
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking Thanks, this time of the year always brings back memories. Looking back, we can all see just how easy it is to be mistaken. Some people assume I'm dogmatic. My position couldn't be further from certainty. Dogmatism was why I left religion to begin with. Embracing my own ignorance was a liberating experience. I'm now free to speculate on all sorts of possibilities that were not available when I assumed I had the truth. This is why I don't look for absolutes, only likelihood
anzwertree 9 months ago
@anzwertree I agree that they have an equal opportunity to challenge & share.If you knew the history of what has happened with Brian and I,you might understand at least a little better.I only request certain ones to not engage me(and it is RARE indeed) if my past & *consistent* interactions with them have been highly offensive or stumbling.I can't imagine why any individual would WANT to engage someone who has requested respectfully to be left alone by that one.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir This isn't like high school, though. The only interacting is through Youtube. I think most people have good intentions, but their emotions can get in the way. I've had a lot of moments like thats too -- including CrossCheck and earnestlyseeking and many others here whom I've had interactions with. Religion is a hard subject to debate because so many emotions are associated with it. Our opinions standing in -- supposedly -- for the creator of the universe! That's a lot of pressure
anzwertree 9 months ago
@anzwertree I'm just trying to follow the scriptural principle to avoid what might make me stumble.And,well,personal insults and the like sometimes have and do.There have always been certain people in life that it's just better not to engage after interactions with them have proven to be futile and insulting time and again.It isn't that you dislike the person necessarily.It's that you learn what's best for you to maintain your own sanity and principles.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir Kellie I will restrict my responses to you to the scriptures and reasoning you employ. I have no desire to be dragged down the road you are trying to go down. It is false, you have written to me and apologized for taking it in the past and admitted it was untrue. I will leave that to others to decide... or expose for themselves. Be well
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21 You seem to be under the delusion that I want to take any road at all with you.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir If you have an answer for the verses I provided in Psalm 49 I'd be happy to hear them as they make a merely human Jesus impossible as he would be unable to redeem even one man.... much less the whole world vindicating the point of Dann's video series at least in part. Anything off the topic of the video I am not interested in.... I've moved on. :')
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21 if Jesus was like other men,sinful and corrupt,then you might have a point.Otherwise,just a lack of reasoning.Look at the context.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir besides,it's just the discarding of a "man nature" that redeemed trinitarians and not any death of God.So to say God had to redeem is mindboggling if only the "man nature" did.God redeemed me by sending his son in the likeness of men,who took on sin for me though he knew no sin.(like all other men do)
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir I think the most important point is that a blemishless *life* had to redeem,as opposed to a "nature" with no blemish.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
Comment removed
Enoch2 9 months ago
@howdytheresir You wrote: "I think the most important point is that a blemishless *life* had to redeem,as opposed to a 'nature' with no blemish."
But consider: from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Lk 6:45). So Jesus' blemishless life CAME FROM His blemishless nature. If His nature had been otherwise, sin would have manifested in His life. There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed (Lk 12:2).
Enoch2 9 months ago
@Enoch2 if the nature wasn't a person,no one died for you.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir well hello there Kelly! I hope you are doing well. hey do you still have everyone blocked from commenting by not allowing any comments? lol......... oh don't take it personally Kellie, just funnin' with ya girl!
TheSnarkyApologist 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"a blemishless *life* had to redeem,as opposed to a "nature" with no blemish"
the *life* is GOD, He is that eternal life which was with the Father:
1Jn1:1-2 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,and our hands have handled,of THE WORD OF LIFE; (FOR THE LIFE WAS MANIFESTED, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you THAT ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and WAS MANIFESTED UNTO US)"
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir That would be a valid point if the text made the exclusion you are presupposing but correct me if I'm wrong.... it doesn't.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@howdytheresir I have followed you for a while with your disputes with several people ie..Snarky,Barb and Brian and not to make you mad.... But you have very thin skin when someone does not agree with you. You have thrown your fair share of insults out there too.The thing is you remove your comments for some reason not sure the reason. Then you tell Brian not to comment on a third persons video Kellie REALLY?????? His comment was not only directed to you it was made for all on youtube.........
pande4509 9 months ago
@pande4509 I know I've been at fault too!Why do you think I'm saying snark and insults and the like sometimes make me stumble?You have NO idea what I've been through with any of them concerning misrepresentations,disrespect,insults,the like.I've erased comments because I regret engaging them at all,not because I said anything untrue.Since when was the concept that it's better to avoid what makes you stumble so reviling?
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir I understand your position and your passion for what you believe.... Just remember that this a public forum. crosscheck did not say any thing that was insulting in this video response.... I am glad to see you and he have conversation.. I think there is a lot of passion for what one believes and that is OK! Kellie I do like hearing your view even if I don't agree.You have the same right as the rest on youtube..Have a great night and god bless!
pande4509 9 months ago
@pande4509 Thanks.You too.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
Comment removed
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair No Godhead today but we will be discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer and perhaps we'll touch in His person hood.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"text says he's a man"
Text says He "is the second man is the Lord from heaven"1Co15:47 "who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" 1Pe1:20
The second man is Saviour Jah Jehovah from heaven become flesh:
Is12:2 "Behold,God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; HE ALSO IS BECOME MY SALVATION...6 for great is THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL IN THE MIDST OF THEE."
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking If the bible indicated anywhere that Yahushua possessed everything he does without having to be given all of it,then a more sound case could be made for his being God.Otherwise,all you have is a God who had to be given everything.Or at least one of his people who did.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir The problem with most people who deny the deity of Christ, is that they think it has to make sense to them and that they have to be able to explain it perfectly and logically so that it makes sense and sounds reasonable to fellow humans. I know, I use to be of that crowd. But looking back I see now that at the same time I wanted the Trinity to make perfect sense to my lowly human mind, I also was willing to accept that it was OK that I didn't understand how God had always existed.
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking I appreciate your sincerity,but my point isn't that it has to make sense to my peabrain.My point is that it has to be scriptural.I can listen to Yahushua without qualifying what he said everywhere to fit a trinity.His words are simple,and I don't want to be corrupted from that simplicity with any sophistry of men anymore.He's my truth.That's my standard.That's why I don't believe he's an angel anymore.That's why I never believed he was Godman.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir The words of Isaiah are simple when he said that he would be called "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father". But somehow, you and JWs and others seem to think that statement needs to be modified or amended to be read correctly. Both sides of the debate have to accept that all the passages can't be interpreted literally in every case. So it's left to the individual to decide where the bulk of the evidence lies, and I choose to believe that Jesus was much more than a Man or an Angel
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking That's exactly how I obtained my established position,Dann.Looking at the bulk first,ambiguity later.Well said.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"I don't believe he's an angel anymore"
Excellent news. Because Lord (YHWH) of the Sabbath day is NO angel Ex20:11;Jn1:1-4;Mt 12:8. He is "the Word of life; For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us" 1Jn1:1-2 = co-existed from eternity with Father. He is "the true light" Jn1:9, "the light of the world" Jn8:12. "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all"1Jn1:5
barbsinclair 9 months ago 2
@howdytheresir >"If the bible indicated anywhere that Yahushua possessed everything he does without having to be given all of it"
Possessor is maker:
Jn1:3 "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made"
Ex20:11 "For in six days YHWH MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH, THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IN THEM IS,and rested the seventh day: wherefore YHWH blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" [Col 1]
Mt12:8 "For the Son of man [Jesus] is Lord [YHWH God] even of the SABBATH DAY"
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"why would God have to be appointed?"
This is in God's "LAW" and of God's "TESTIMONY", the Word of God Jesus Christ which His apostles and disciples declare about Him, God our Saviour. Volume of the book/s testify of Him. People in unbelief of the Gospel of God our Lord Jesus Christ, need to be told of His law, and be given His appointment testimony.
Isa8:20 "TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair You've been hounding me for years with the exact same points over and over,especially the one about my "having no light in me."I'm not sure how scriptural it is to focus intensely on one subject(me..the heretic) with identical warnings for an extensive period.I think Yahushua would have moved on to those willing to embrace his viewpoint.Hounding people for years kind of sours them from even considering your message .Just an opinion though.Be well.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"You've been hounding me for years with the exact same points over and over"
No. Its multiple different textual points which over and over you refuse to address. As your doing now on the Redeemer Holy One of Israel texts; its not an "illusion of the Christ" as you said. You don't deal with the texts, you bash people for showing theres problems with your teachings. Do people who love God's Word in His light act this way? No.
I point these things out for readers of YT comments.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Just know that when I don't answer to you it isn't because I'm stumped.It's because I understand the futility and sometimes attempt to adhere to scriptural principles that would prevent me from continuing in that futility.Be well.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"when I don't answer to you it isn't because I'm stumped.It's because I understand the futility and sometimes attempt to adhere to scriptural principles that would prevent me from continuing in that futility.Be well."
When you ask a question in comments, I shall reply with Words of God giving answers for readers, and shall continue to show readers that your teaching is not the truth of the doctrine of God our Saviour Jesus Christ and the blessed hope of His appearing Tts2:10-14
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair "I point these things out for readers of YT comments."
Oh ok..carry on.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@barbsinclair When you come to realize that you can't forcefeed people YOUR interpretations of scripture and your personal understanding of the texts you paste,it is then you might be able to move on.I would understand maybe better if I had shown in all this time any indication that I accept the trinity as being possible,but I haven't.Reach out to others.Just some advice.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
pre-human Jesus speaks to you Kellie:
Isa48:16-17 "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now YHWH GOD, and his Spirit, HAS SENT ME. Thus saith YHWH, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am YHWH thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."
YHWH God the Redeemer was sent; but you reject YHWH God, the Holy One of Israel Jesus Christ.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair "But the evidence that this refers to the Messiah is too slight to lay the foundation for such an argument; and nothing is gained to the cause of truth by such forced interpretations."~Barnes' Notes on the Bible
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
Kellie, did you read Isa48 in context, and all Barnes on Is48:16? He says v16 refers to Cyrus:
16 "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was,there am I: and now YHWH GOD,and his Spirit,has sent me."
God speaks in v16, He said same in v5 "I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee" = v16
Cyrus NEVER spoke so man heard him from the beginning! Cyrus is not God.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair the beginning would be when he *began* to speak.Don't let your presupposition cloud your reason.Nothing here about the eternality of the prophet,just like Satan being a sinner from the beginning says nothing about his eternality,or the eternality of his sinning.It had a beginning point,just like a prophet's speech does.1 Jn 3:8
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"beginning would be when he *began* to speak."
No.
The one sent spoke to mankind BEFORE being sent:
16 "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was,there am I: and now YHWH GOD,and his Spirit,has sent me."
Hes tells us to come near to Him, and HEAR Him. He says He's always been there, when He spoke it wasn't in secret: "from the time that it was, there am I" - commands us to hear Him.
Impossible this is Cyrus.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
Your word "eternality", the definition is: being without beginning or end, existing outside of time, infinitely continuing perpetual
Speaker in Is48:16 existed BEFORE time that it was, saying: "from the time that it was, there am I".
This can't be prophet Isaiah or any created being. Only true God exists from time that it was, from the beginning of time in eternality. God the creator and maker of time and all things (Gn1&2; Ex20:11; Jn1:3,10; Col1:16-17) was sent, became flesh.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
Phrase "The Holy One of Israel" occurs in 37 OT texts. He's the eternal Son of God, the One Saviour Christ the Lord come in flesh, Jesus HaMoshiach (Isa 53). The Holy One of Israel (Jacob) is of tribe of Judah, stem of Jesse, Branch grew out of King David's roots; Son of David: Saviour and Redeemer YHWH who was sent (Isa48:16-17). In all 37 verses the Holy One of Israel is YHWH "God of the whole earth" (Isa54:5) "YHWH the Holy One IN Israel" Ez39:7
Show in OT where this is wrong.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Just trying to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling.Every prophet prefigures the ultimate one.(Heb. 1:2),so I'm sure there are allusions of the Christ to come,as opposed to the Christ that was there.Every time Christ is in the OT,it is in prophecy,prefiguring,typology..etc.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"Just trying to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...."
In 25yrs of study unto God [one Elohim (God) in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; these three are the one true Elohim YHWH, in the 66 books of Holy scriptures], not once have I met solid trinitarians who are disagreeable on proof texts. Even if I did, I'm not to show myself approved unto them: 2Tim 2:15
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair This is a continued Watchtower mentality that all must agree on every detail for something to be true. It is a poison (not to mention a logical fallacy) that remains in many peoples minds. Commentaries and commentators are not inspired and Christians have never claimed that they are. They merely have the freedom to express their opinions. Many cherry pick these commentaries and and try to present what they like as fact while spitting out what does not tickle the ear.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21 I never said that "all must agree on every detail" for something to be true.I am also sick of being demonized and lambasted for showing that trinitarians disagree on proof texts within their own community.it's a fact,and it's not a crime to know it and point it out.It doesn't mean I have a "JW mentality" and that I'm "poison."I also never said those commentaries are inspired.How ridiculous.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir Kellie, go back and read Brians post again. He isn't saying you are poison. He saying the JW mentality is, and how you seem to be still hanging on to it. There is a difference. He's not "demonizing" you personally, but rather a concept, or a mentality. The non trinitarians do the same thing, they don't all agree either, on all points, just that the trinity doesn't exist.
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking Nothing he said is true though.It isn't a JW mentality that causes me to quote trinitarian commentaries that disagree with the trinitarians confronting me.Common sense causes me to do that.He invented a demonizing fallacy.Telling an ex-JW that they have a Watchtower mentality that's poisonous is MEANT to offend,while also being baseless.To give my mentality a demonizing label for quoting a commentary is seriously twisted.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"He invented a demonizing fallacy.Telling an ex-JW that they have a Watchtower mentality that's poisonous is MEANT to offend,while also being baseless."
No!
Honest ex-jws all admit the Watchtower mentality is poisonous and they all find it VERY difficult to remove the mental patterns installed by that mind controlling cult. The first step of getting away from WTS mental conditioning is admitting that: JW can get out of the WTS, but the WTS can't easily get out of the JW.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair And all this venom for my daring boldly to quote a trinitarian commentary that disagreed with an interpretation of yours.I'm so stupid for engaging your machine gun comment flood.it always leads to these kinds of lows.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"And all this venom for my daring boldly to quote a trinitarian commentary that disagreed with an interpretation of yours.'
After researching WT, I always fully read context of any partial quote given by anyone. So did you read all Barnes (1798–1870) on Isa 48 (& 49)? He quotes from other Christians in history that agree with me. Barnes is being honest, admitting others disagree with him, and then offers his view and why to consider it. Exactly as Brian said trinitarians are.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair The problem with all your disciplining Barb is that I NEVER SAID that anyone I quoted didn't acknowledge that others disagree.I simply acknowledged their personal opinions,which doesn't warrant either disciplining,rebuke,labelling,or public diagnoses.Thanks for your time.I'm moving on now.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"I NEVER SAID that anyone I quoted didn't acknowledge that others disagree.I simply acknowledged their personal opinions..."
I'm glad its no big deal to you now. I encourage you to keep reading the OT, wherein you shall see the eternal Son of God Christ really there appearing on the earth, and as an indwelling Spirit in OT prophets. Christ was NOT an allusion to come... He was true God personally there interacting with saints and coming against pagan nations in judgment =Heb13:8
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair I love being publicly diagnosed by trinitarians for disagreeing with their interpretations.Kind gentle stuff.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
Btw,Dann,just so everyone knows I admitted Isaiah 48 probably has allusions to the Christ to come(as opposed to the Christ that was already there) in a greater fulfillment.I'm sure that point got lost in all this.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@barbsinclair I know I was conditioned as a JW to think a certain way,but to diagnose & label me with a poisonous JW mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with you speaks more of the conditioning in your mentality than mine.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir>"but to diagnose & label me with a poisonous JW mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagrees with you speaks more of the conditioning in your mentality than mine."
You said:
>"I admitted Isaiah48 probably has allusions to the Christ to come(as opposed to the Christ that was already there) in a greater fulfillment.I'm sure that point got lost in all this."
Read Is48:16 again: Speaker was SENT = Past Tense, was already there, He came. Same speaker speaks 49:1...
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Hebrew prolepsis.Plus there are two fulfillments,as Christ fulfills many of the OT revelations in greater applications.That's why some of the same texts are applied to him as those to God,David,and Solomon(etc.) because he was given God's prerogatives(as a separate being,sorry..Acts 3:13),David's prerogatives(on a greater scale),etc.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir Oh boy... here we go again. I would have thought you had learned by now. Please read my comment more carefully.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21 saying that an ex-JW has a poisonous Watchtower mentality for quoting a trinitarian commentary that disagreed with your friend as if THAT's a psychologically troubling thing for her to do is just asinine.And I read it very carefully.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir I'm sorry you feel that way Kellie... but I once again suggest that you read comments more carefully before you read to far into them and react in inappropriate ways.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking I appreciate the respect afforded me from trinitarians like you and Rachel,but being continually misrepresented and hounded by people I had to block for a NUMBER of reasons will prevent me from even being able to engage those who I can respect FOR their respect.It's frustrating just trying to counter their ridiculous misrepresentations alone.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
Kellie prove Brian wrong that you don't cherry pick commentaries to present what you like, spitting out the rest.
You said you quoted Barnes' >"to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling"
Read all Barnes' on Isa 48 & 49. Barnes says Redeemer Messiah is GOD come in the flesh saying Isa49:1 "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people"
My point =48:16 Speaker says same
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Barb,sorry.I didn't know I wasn't allowed to quote commentaries from trinitarians that disagree with other trinitarians.I thought it was clever.Guess I just have a poisonous mentality.;)
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
I really am hoping you would prove Brian wrong. I'm waiting.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair God bless you Barb,but if you really think that how you're behaving and what you have to offer me(labels,misrepresentation,endless futile insulting debates) will lead to anything valuable or commendable,then you need some rest and prayer.Keep waiting,but just know that your hounding and what has gone on with a couple others as well has prevented me before from being able to engage respectful trinitarians peacefully,and there is nothing new here.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@barbsinclair And,Barb,my very first comments where I tried to nip this in the bud still stand.You cannot force people with hounding and repetition to swallow your opinion.There's a time to move on and it is unbiblical to engage one particular target "heretic" with labels and misrepresentation and the same points(yes,they're the same points over and over) thinking that that one will somehow then think your message is golden and embrace the kind of spirit that compels you to behave that way.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@barbsinclair btw,I never said there aren't any commentaries that exist that agree with you nor did I even imply it.What is with you all?I don't get it.Chill out and understand that I broke no rule.I did nothing wrong.Actually,what I did is what anyone with a brain should do.Looked at the opinions on the texts you hounded me with and noticed from my own reason your dogmatic stance is unwarranted,even according to a number of trinitarian commentaries.How.Dare.I.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
I spend days reading theological articles, commentaries, arguments to understand various views; testing if it harmonizes with Bible truth. I first started with WT articles, then expanded from there. What I find is two camps:
a) those who aggressively deny the deity of the Saviour Christ Jesus the Lord who bought them, b) those who do not.
You said>"your dogmatic stance is unwarranted"
Say that to God the Saviour your maker and King when you try to see and enter His Kingdom.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking It would seem just from looking at what Barb and Brian have said that they think their views on the texts are inspired and that if anyone quotes someone within their own community who disagrees with those views that the person who uses that ammunition needs to be labelled and hounded for doing so.This has happened a number of times.Even had videos making fun of me and trying to say that I was implying trinitarians aren't trinitarian for doing so.Interesting.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking Thank you Dann for putting what I said in it's proper perspective. I was simply pointing out an erroneous line of reasoning commonly used by the WT. Regrettably Kellie would take offence if I asked what time it was. :>) I am used to it and I am used to her constant and unfounded attacks on my character. We all know that there is baggage for all who leave the WT. The WT is poison, not the people.
21crosscheck21 9 months ago
@howdytheresir
You quoted Barnes' to me>"to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling"
Brian said to me>"Many cherry pick these commentaries and try to present what they like as fact while spitting out what does not tickle the ear."
Kellie pls read all Barnes' on Isa ch's 48 & 49. Barnes says Redeemer Messiah speaks Isa49:1 "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people"
Speaks same 48:16
barbsinclair 9 months ago
Comment removed
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@21crosscheck21
Amen.
Kellie fails to see dialog among trinitarians is Holy Spirit working out issues as we discuss Bible. I have "Barnes' Notes on the Bible"; and Kellie states why she quoted one sentence from Is48:16:
>"Just trying to prove my point once again that trinitarians disagree amongst themselves within their own community about "proof texts"...every time.Very telling"
For me what is very telling: solid trinitarians can discuss texts remaining united on the doctrine of the Godhead.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
Rev 22:1,3 say "throne of God and of the Lamb"... note that it is not the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb, nor is it "the thrones of God and of the Lamb". It is one throne that they both share.
rachelbinto 9 months ago
@rachelbinto Good point. Thanks!
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@earnestlyseeking Robert Bowman has a whole chapter on this concept in his book "Putting Jesus in His Place:The Case for the Deity of Christ". I can highly recommend that book to you.
rachelbinto 9 months ago
@rachelbinto Awesome Book!
pretoshohmoofc 9 months ago
@rachelbinto Thanks for mentioning it. I'll look for it. God bless
earnestlyseeking 9 months ago
@rachelbinto Rev 3:21:To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir Why did "God" have to overcome anything to sit on the throne of his own God?If "one throne" means "one being",wouldn't that same one throne that includes Christians who've conquered the world mean they are God too?Logic.
howdytheresir 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"Why did "God" have to overcome anything to sit on the throne of his own God?"
Father possesses His own God and Lord: His dear Son. The Father personally addresses His Son as "God" and "Lord YHWH" maker of heaven and earth (Heb 1).
Col 1:16 declares, all thrones were created by the Son, and for the Son. Thus, Holy Father sat down on the throne of His own God = The Father's God gave His own throne to Father.
Kellie, when did the Father's own God, give the Father His own throne?
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir>"If "one throne" means "one being",wouldn't that same one throne that includes Christians who've conquered the world mean they are God too?"
Almighty God Jesus gives & takes away His thrones powers Rv2:26;3:21;20:4
"For BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, that are in heaven and that are in earth,visible and invisible,whether they be THRONES,or dominions,or principalities,or POWERS: ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM,AND FOR HIM: And HE IS BEFORE ALL THINGS,AND BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST"
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@howdytheresir >"Rv3:21:To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne"
All thrones were created by the Father's dear Son for His Son:
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him..." Col1:16-17
When did the Son give Father His throne?