**You sure do like to talk about yourself a lot.**
LOL! Actually, your screen name tells me a lot about you.
I said, “You wouldn’t answer if you and your word are separate entities.”
And you still haven’t answered it.
**You yourself confess that someone’s word is not separate from yourself.**
Made in the image of God.
**The Word that is God is also with God. It is an expression that depicts Christ as the image of God, the active and expressive power by which God reveals Himself to the world. Christ is similarly called “the light of the world,” “the way and the truth and the life,” “the resurrection,” “the door,” “the lamb;” and in Revelation, “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the almighty.” Is Christ a number? Is Christ a physical door? Is Christ literally a lamb? All these words merely tell us Christ’s essential character, of which His chiefest characteristic is “God with us.”**
Good comment, especially because you recognize that the Son is ‘the image of God’, NOT ‘God the image’. Because the Father is in him, and he is in the Father. That’s what he tries to tell you all through the book of John. Oh, and your ‘interpretation’ of 17:1-3 must still be in a holding pattern.
**Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.**
“..he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also”. Because......
**So the Father directed the Son to assert that He is the God of Moses, the Almighty “I am” who has always existed. Way to go Dad!**
Actually, that is not mocking me, but the Son, and his words, such as those from John 12:49,50.
**The Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. That’s because they’re two members of the Trinity.**
No, because the Son said that that is literally the relationship; the Father in him, giving everthing divine, whenever needed, doing the works. I gave you over 100 references pointing that out, but you prefer man-made terms and phrases: ‘trinity’, ‘God the Son, and ‘God the Holy Ghost’. By the way, you skipped right over that issue in my last post. Here it is again, and I’m giving you another opportunity to mock it:
The Holy Ghost “proceedeth from the Father”. The Son said that to be the case. John 15:26. And you still seem to think you have a better understanding than the inspired writers, who NEVER referred to the Holy Ghost(Spirit) as “God the Holy Ghost”, or the Son of God as “God the Son”. The phasing of those words in your approved fashion verily contradict the scriptures, and the proper definition of God. Example: Is it proper to define ‘St. Louis of Missouri’, or ‘Missouri the St Louis’?How about another: ‘Pacific Ocean of Planet Earth’, or ‘Planet Earth the Pacific Ocean’.
**As blasphemous as this is, it’s already been firmly refuted. How does a cell phone have an independent identity of its user?**
Would you want a cell phone that doesn’t relay the words of the source? The Son doesn’t have an indepentent DIVINE identity: “I and my FATHER are ONE”, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”. The Son is the perfect audio and visual expression of the Father; which is what John told you in 1:18. BUT, the MAN Christ Jesus, had an independent SOUL and MIND of a man (”I thirst”), and tempted in all points, but able to overcome the world, BECAUSE........
Maybe you don’t like parables and similtudes, like the Son used regularly in getting his points across. “God......hath spoken to us by his Son”, who only spoke the words the Father told him to say.
**It’s pointless for you to keep spamming me with the same tired nonsense, and then ignoring everything that I say, forcing myself to repeat myself again and again.**
“Ignore everything that I say” Exaggerate much?? I use the ** to mark your words and then reply.
**Actually, pretty sure I already responded to most of what you’ve written dozens of posts ago, probably multiple times too.**
I’m REALLY sure you haven’t replied to the “same tired nonsense”....that for the FOURTH time, are questions that you have yet to answer in agreement or disagreement:
1. Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons? (we are made in the image of God aren’t we?) You say you’ve answered it, by using John 1:1. But you still didn’t answer the question.
2. Who’s greater: The Son says, “My Father, which is GAVE them me, is GREATER than ALL..”. 10:29; and “..for my Father is GREATER than I..”. 14:28.
3. Mat_28:19 “ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:..”. The greatest teacher of all gave the disciples that commandment, and they promptly went about baptizing in the name of JESUS. Now, first of all, note that he says ‘name’ in the singular, not ‘names’. ‘Son’ is a title. “thou shalt call his NAME Jesus”. Luke 1:21. Jesus Christ said that his name is not his own (John 5:43), And Heb. 1:4 says that he inheritted it. The apostles knew what they were doing when they baptized in the name of ‘Jesus’. Do you use his name in water baptism?
4. “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME...”. So, what name are YOU going to use to request the coming of the Holy Ghost?
5. AND........don’t forget Matthew 28:18; Jesus..spake...”All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in Earth” (that’s pretty much everywhere, and let’s see, who GAVE it unto him?......could it be the Father that dwelleth in him, and he in the Father?).
6. Jesus praying to the Father (17:1), “And this is life eternal, that they might know THEE the ONLY TRUE GOD, ........AND........JESUS CHRIST, whom THOU hast SENT.” John 17:3. So, do you disagree with the Son, who declares the Father to be the “ONLY TRUE GOD”? (That’s some more ‘plain reading’; just like ‘the ‘Father in me, and I in the Father’)..
And you didn’t deal with this:
Food for thought: 15:1 A vine (Son) and a husbandman (the Father). The husbandman plants the vine and cares for it, etc. The ‘husbandman’ gave the ‘vine’ it’s start, provides all it’s needs, and has the power to prune or even kill the vine. Of itself, the vine has no such power.
Or this: How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the 2nd and 3rd ‘persons of God’ don’t know??)?
“And you still haven’t answered it.”
Yes I have. Many times. And that’s a serious problem.
” Because the Father is in him, and he is in the Father. “
This assertion has already been refuted.
“I gave you over 100 references pointing that out,”
Not only did you give me 100 of your references, which in no way contradicted anything I wrote, you did it 100 times. Why should I regard your position when it is based on the false premise that the Father is ONLY in the Son, and the Son isn’t in the Father, and the two aren’t in us, with the Holy Spirit who is called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ? Who Himself is called ‘God’?
All you’ve done is repeat the same things over and over again, asking me to disbelieve the plain words of the scripture in favor of your partial and crooked theology.
“Would you want a cell phone that doesn’t relay the words of the source?”
Huh? How exactly is this a response? I wrote:
“As blasphemous as this is, it’s already been firmly refuted. How does a cell phone have an independent identity of its user?”
“The Son doesn’t have an indepentent DIVINE identity: “
So now you’re saying He has an identity, but He’s not divine? Earlier you said that the Word and God are not separate.
Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Sounds like the Son is pretty divine to me.
At this point I really wouldn’t be surprised if you’re copying and pasting what you’ve written to me before. It looks so similar that I just kind of glaze over and end up skimming through it. I’ll end this reply at this, and then we’ll repeat it again with your next post where you’ll say the same things for the 101st time.