Divegeester's greatest hits

Originally posted by Suzianne
Offices -- Persons

I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to.
Go on, now, drop the other shoe.

Are you saying you don't understand the difference between an office and a person?

In a company there is often one "person" holding the office of Chairman of the board and the office of Chief executive officer. Two offices, one person. It really isn't a difficult concept.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
excellent post 😀

Thanks

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you saying you don't understand the difference between an office and a person?

In a company there is often one "person" holding the office of Chairman of the board and the office of Chief executive officer. Two offices, one person. It really isn't a difficult concept.

No. What I'm saying is that in many ways, you agree with the Trinitarians, but you make it "swing your way" by using another word.

Originally posted by divegeester

I have explained this over and over and over again to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think you have explained this "over and over and over" to me.
So i don't accept your statement about repetitious explaining for the first thing.

This is the first time ever i have recalled you using to me the term office.
And what you usually do is ask over and over and over if someone has to believe my trinity doctrine to be saved. That's what you give me "over and over and over" to my recollection.

Now, I'll take a moment to see what you have that is not talking to me about hell or pagan Greek belief, which is what I usually remember from your exchanges.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. What I'm saying is that in many ways, you agree with the Trinitarians, but you make it "swing your way" by using another word.

I agree with trinitarians in many ways, except on the godhead,

Originally posted by sonship
[b]I have explained this over and over and over again to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think you have explained this "over and over and over" to me.
So i don't accept your statement about repetitious explaining for the first thing.

This is the first time ever i have recalled yo ...[text shortened]... ng to me about hell or pagan Greek belief, which is what I usually remember from your exchanges.[/b]

I've explained what I believe many many times. I've given scripture to simply explain why, I've given biblical rational and I've argued over god being one for several years.

Originally posted by divegeester
I've explained what I believe many many times. I've given scripture to simply explain why, I've given biblical rational and I've argued over god being one for several years.

To me, sonship, you have "over and over and over" quoted a passage from the Old Testament called the shema prayer. And you have to me, sonship, over and over asked about the belief in the Trinity and the security of being a Christian.

The items of your repetitions to me, sonship, are handily remembered.

Originally posted by sonship
To me, sonship, you have "over and over and over" quoted a passage from the Old Testament called the shema prayer. And you have to me, sonship, over and over asked about the belief in the Trinity and the security of being a Christian.

The items of your repetitions to me, sonship, are handily remembered.

😕

Originally posted by sonship
I have a question for you.

First a little backround. Now you really seem not to want to explain how the Father and the Son are the Divine "We" in John 14. And you don't seem to want to explain the plural pronoun "Us" in John 17.

Have you considered also that Jesus strongly indicated that He and the Father were "two" as well as one?

First we see t ...[text shortened]... that the Father and the Son are [b]"one" and the Father and the Son are also "two" ?[/b]

It seems that in all the scriptures that Jesus speaks of his father, he's always referring to his Father as greater then himself and that he does the will of his Father not his own, that he was sent by his Father and then of course his Father is the one who resurrected Jesus from death. Jesus could not do this on his own. Revelation show Jesus sitting at his Fathers right hand on a separate throne in a position of being in a sub position to his Father. Many other scriptures say the same thing about the two of them.
So could it be that when Jesus said that he and his Father are one, could it simply mean that they are of the same thought on all that Jesus came to earth to do? Could it not simply mean he is in full agreement with his Father and came to do that, even knowing it would eventually mean his death? Jesus is refereed to as a "mediator or ambassador" between humans and his Father. That would pretty much be expected from ambassadors here on earth also when representing their king or president to be in agreement and of one mind with their leader too. If they couldn't do that then they could not hold that position of trust.
Does that make sense?

Originally posted by galveston75
It seems that in all the scriptures that Jesus speaks of his father, he's always referring to his Father as greater then himself and that he does the will of his Father not his own, that he was sent by his Father and then of course his Father is the one who resurrected Jesus from death. Jesus could not do this on his own. Revelation show Jesus sitting at ...[text shortened]... f they couldn't do that then they could not hold that position of trust.
Does that make sense?

Jesus said : "If you have seen me, you have seen the father."

Perhaps this means that when a contemporary of Jesus looked at him and saw him, it actually meant that he was not the father and he was just trying to be cryptic. What do you think?

Originally posted by divegeester

Are you saying you don't understand the difference between an office and a person?

This will not do to encompass all that Christ said honestly.

You are saying that the "office" of the Son testified and simultaneously the "office" of the Father testified. And this is what the testimony of two means.

But Jesus did not say two offices. He said "two men."
He did not say a man with two titles.
He did not say a man with two functions.

" And in your law also it has been written that the testimony of two men is true:"

The law of Moses there did not mean the same man in his office as a priest and in his office as husband, let us say. But two people, two persons, two witnesses regardless of the office/s they hold.

Jesus was referring to Deuteronomy 19:15.

"One witness only shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin which he has committed; at the word of two witnesses or at the word of three witnesses shall a matter be established." (Deut. 19:15)

Two witnesses here is not one witness with two or more offices.

Christ used this law as backround to teach that He as one witnesses testified of Himself and the Father as a second witness testified on His behalf.

"I am One who testifies concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies concerning Me." (John 7:18) [/]

Clearly the [b]"two" is used to mean the living Father and the living Son Who was sent by the Father.

But there is only one God. And to know the Son one must know the Father and vica versa.

"They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, You know neither Me nor My Father, if you knew Me, you would know My Father also." (v.19)

In a company there is often one "person" holding the office of Chairman of the board and the office of Chief executive officer. Two offices, one person. It really isn't a difficult concept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the reference in Deuteronomy 19:15 suggest a person in two offices or two individuals ?

If Deuteronomy 19:15 meant one person with two offices it would have clearly said something like

"two witnesses - a man who is both a priest and a soldier." OR
"two witnesses - a man who is both a Levite and a carpenter." OR
"two witnesses - a man who is both a husband and a musician."

The mysterious truth of TWO _________s is seen further a few verses latter where Jesus says He speaks the words of Him who sent Him.

"I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true, and what I have heard from Him, these things I speak to the world.

They did not understand that He was speaking to them of the Father." (vs. 26,27)

Originally posted by sonship
The mysterious truth of TWO _________s is seen further a few verses latter where Jesus says He speaks the words of Him who sent Him.

You are free to believe whatever you want sonship.

However...are you prepared yet to tell if you believe that my outright rejection of the doctrine and teaching of the trinity will somehow preclude me from being filled with the spirit of Christ?

Originally posted by divegeester
Jesus said : "If you have seen me, you have seen the father."

Perhaps this means that when a contemporary of Jesus looked at him and saw him, it actually meant that he was not the father and he was just trying to be cryptic. What do you think?

Same answer as my previous post. Just change the scripture and you have the same point that Jesus was making:

It seems that in all the scriptures that Jesus speaks of his father, he's always referring to his Father as greater then himself and that he does the will of his Father not his own, that he was sent by his Father and then of course his Father is the one who resurrected Jesus from death. Jesus could not do this on his own. Revelation show Jesus sitting at his Fathers right hand on a separate throne in a position of being in a sub position to his Father. Many other scriptures say the same thing about the two of them.
So could it be that when Jesus said: ((((( If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" ))))) could it simply mean that they are of the same thought on all that Jesus came to earth to do? Could it not simply mean he is in full agreement with his Father and came to do that, even knowing it would eventually mean his death? Jesus is refereed to as a "mediator or ambassador" between humans and his Father. That would pretty much be expected from ambassadors here on earth also when representing their king or president to be in agreement and of one mind with their leader too. If they couldn't do that then they could not hold that position of trust.
Does that make sense?

Also the bible cleary says that "no one may see God and live" so that pretty much cancels out that Jesus is God.

Originally posted by galveston75
Same answer as my previous post. Just change the scripture and you have the same point that Jesus was making:

It seems that in all the scriptures that Jesus speaks of his father, he's always referring to his Father as greater then himself and that he does the will of his Father not his own, that he was sent by his Father and then of course his Father ...[text shortened]... leary says that "no one may see God and live" so that pretty much cancels out that Jesus is God.

Originally posted by galveston75
"You really do have a hard time with what the scriptures are saying don't you?"

Originally posted by divegeester
I have explained this over and over and over again to you.

God is one entity revealed in many manifestations and three, if you like, offices.

Manifestations:
Burning bush
Pillar of fire
Dove
Melchesideck
Tongues of fire
Etc

Offices
Father, son, spirit.
Same person reveallng himself in three official ways.
Only two eligible for wors ...[text shortened]... apped in flesh and descended lower than the angels.

Hear oh Israel the Lord your God is ONE.

If Jesus and God the father are the same entity, does that mean when Jesus died on the cross, God (the father) also died? Who raised Jesus from the dead?