Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Paradoxes

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's not true. The most famous occurrence had no "constraint" and was understood by the Jews as being a declaration by Christ that he is God who declared his name is "I AM" to Moses (that's why they picked up stones to kill him):

    NKJ John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

    This is an accurate word for word translation. Nothing follows the EGO EIMI (I AM) at the end of the sentence.
    I am not going to get into an argument with you about this. Those same words are most often translated "I am he". It is unfortunate the translators did not put the "he" in this verse for consistency. Why the inconsistency? Translators not sure? Therefore, translators are possibly showing some bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    As an aside, this I found this verse very convincing demonstration of the Divinity of Christ when I was a Christian because it is confirmed by the Isaiah Bible Correlation. The Book of John is often thought of as the "I AM" Gospel because of the seven I AM statements made by Jesus. It's the 43rd book and so corresponds to Isaiah 43 which has the highest frequency of I AM statements from God. The distribution of I AMs in the NT correspond to the distribution in the NT portion of Isaiah. Here's the distribution, which I discuss in this article:
    Look at all the "I am" in Isaiah 45 and to see how emphatic God is about being singular; "I am the LORD, and there is none else". Four times God says that of himself in that chapter. Another three times in chapter 44 God says; "none beside me". In those two chapter you have for divine completion God saying that he is ONE and there is none else besides him.

    All the best
    David

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Wrap your head around this?

    The generations leading to King David and his dynasty might be called "The King Line".

    The Matthew genealogy would be that King Line, but the Luke genealogy would be "The Priest Line".

    King David, followed by King Jesus? Since we are both kings and priests: Rev 1:6

    This is NOT the way its usually thought of or taught, so do we call it Paradox?
    There are many correlations, I am sure I will forget something, so I will post a photo and a link to one of Chuck Misslers videos.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZxwy4wDkTs
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Nicely formatted post David! It's good to see you taking control of the software. Well done.

    I think we should leave all the items in the list, and mark them depending on their status. E.g. WE could use the "strike tag" [ s ] to strike out any entries that were either poorly formulated or false. And we could put hyperlinks to the best explanations that we find on the net. Things like that. Unfortunately, I'm much too busy today to examine any of them. But they'll be here when I find time. That's what I love about this form of communication.
    Hello Richard
    As you know, I have used the table tags before when considering the parallel accounts of the Olivet Prophecy and the parallel accounts of the events from the time of Jesus's resurrection to his ascension.

    Can you please list somewhere the full list of tags available? I guessed there would be a strike tag, but did not try the obvious. The strike tag is not shown in my toolbar. I have tried other html tags without success. I will be using the strike tag in future.

    All the best
    David

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    As you know, I have used the table tags before when considering the parallel accounts of the Olivet Prophecy and the parallel accounts of the events from the time of Jesus's resurrection to his ascension.

    Can you please list somewhere the full list of tags available? I guessed there would be a strike tag, but did not try the obvious. The strike tag is not shown in my toolbar. I have tried other html tags without success. I will be using the strike tag in future.

    All the best
    David
    Hey there David,

    You can find all the info about the tags here. You can navigate to that link by clicking the FAQ hyperlink just below the main menu bar at the top of the page, and then click the Board FAQ link on the page that comes up, and then got to the page about creating new posts, and the link to the BB Code (tags) is there. It's buried pretty deep! Glad you asked.

    A note to everyone: If you have any questions about how to use the software, just ask! It's probably a lot fast than poking around all the links.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by rdelmonico View Post
    There are many correlations, I am sure I will forget something, so I will post a photo and a link to one of Chuck Misslers videos.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZxwy4wDkTs
    I did a lot of research on the patterns of the four Gospels. They follow a 3 + 1 pattern, with the first three being terrestrial (earth bound) and the fourth flying. I also found a lot of interesting correlations with the Canon Wheel, which is derived from the Bible Wheel when you label the seven canonical divisions. The pattern correlates well with the four cherubim, as explained in my old article The Fulfillment of Ezekiel's Prophecies of the Wheels:




    And then they can be overlayed with the Canon Wheel:


    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    I am not going to get into an argument with you about this. Those same words are most often translated "I am he". It is unfortunate the translators did not put the "he" in this verse for consistency. Why the inconsistency? Translators not sure? Therefore, translators are possibly showing some bias.
    Hey there David,

    No need to argue about anything. We are just sharing information. You will notice that the "he" in all those places where it is translated as "I am he" are in italics in the King James to indicate that it is not in the original text.

    There are good reasons to conclude there is no "translation bias" going on here. We can just stick to the Greek, and note that the LXX (Greek version of the OT) which was in use by the Jews in the first century, has "ego eimi" frequently in the mouth of God. For example:

    KJV Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he (EGO EIMI): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

    KJV Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, (EGO EIMI, EGO EIMI) am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

    It is used in this same way, with no "constraint" as you say, by Jesus in many verses, such these verses:

    KJV John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he (EGO EIMI), and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

    KJV John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (EGO EIMI).

    KJV John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he (EGO EIMI), they went backward, and fell to the ground.

    Many Christians are impressed by the last example, because they see it as Christ revealing his Divinity, which caused them to fall to the ground (as often happens in the presence of Deity).

    Now it is particularly stunning that there is a geometric connection between the verse where Yahweh says "that you may know and understand that I am he" and where Christ says something very similar. Here is how I explained it in my article:

    Searching the entire KJV for the phrase "that ye may know and believe" yields exactly two verses, Isaiah 43.10 and John 10.38. Beginning at John 10:37
    John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
    Isaiah 43.10 is the only other verse in all the Bible that contains this phrase.
    Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
    I called this a "first order projective KeyLink" because it was the highest possible correlation between a two and a three dimensional object. So here is what's going on. The phrase "that ye may know and believe" occurs in two and only two verses of the entire King James Bible and these verses are geometrically related as a 2 dimensional shadow to the three dimensional object that casts it! Here now is a graphic image of what is going on here:







    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Look at all the "I am" in Isaiah 45 and to see how emphatic God is about being singular; "I am the LORD, and there is none else". Four times God says that of himself in that chapter. Another three times in chapter 44 God says; "none beside me". In those two chapter you have for divine completion God saying that he is ONE and there is none else besides him.
    That's exactly correct. And that's why Trinitarians are absolutely emphatic about the absolute Unity of the Trinity. Three in One. That's the Christian Mystery. They see it as explaining how there can be persons in the world, made in the image of God. The idea goes something like this (I don't recall exactly): If God were not intrinsically intra-personal, there would be no divine basis for personality at all because God would not have had anyone to talk to for eternity.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    131

    computer simulation?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDl-CqkjhmY
    Startling New Evidence That The Universe Is A Computer Simulation
    I do not endorse their conclusions, but the research is interesting to say the least.



    New 73-Letter Bible Code found
    http://www.bibleprobe.com/biblecode.htm
    Anyone care to comment on this?
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    Thank you for the information
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    No need to argue about anything. We are just sharing information. You will notice that the "he" in all those places where it is translated as "I am he" are in italics in the King James to indicate that it is not in the original text.

    There are good reasons to conclude there is no "translation bias" going on here. We can just stick to the Greek, and note that the LXX (Greek version of the OT) which was in use by the Jews in the first century, has "ego eimi" frequently in the mouth of God. For example:

    KJV Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he (EGO EIMI): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

    KJV Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, (EGO EIMI, EGO EIMI) am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

    It is used in this same way, with no "constraint" as you say, by Jesus in many verses, such these verses:

    KJV John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he (EGO EIMI), and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

    KJV John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (EGO EIMI).

    KJV John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he (EGO EIMI), they went backward, and fell to the ground.

    Many Christians are impressed by the last example, because they see it as Christ revealing his Divinity, which caused them to fall to the ground (as often happens in the presence of Deity).
    I am not one of the many Christians you are referring to (as you know), so you can expect me not to be impressed in the same way. The fact is; we can all say "I am .." the same as Jesus said the same words. I am not claiming to be the same as Jesus in any of the ways he said; "I am..". If we cannot draw a conclusive proof one way or the other by the words "I am ..", or "I a he", then the point can be moot for now until we find something stronger to support our viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Now it is particularly stunning that there is a geometric connection between the verse where Yahweh says "that you may know and understand that I am he" and where Christ says something very similar. Here is how I explained it in my article:
    Jesus often quoted the scriptures and so the words of scripture were part of his vocabulary. We can see where Jesus is using the same language as used by the prophets. One example is that where Jesus says of the city of Capernaum (Matt 11:23) ; "And thou Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down hades" You know where similar words are found; they are words said of the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Searching the entire KJV for the phrase "that ye may know and believe" yields exactly two verses, Isaiah 43.10 and John 10.38. Beginning at John 10:37
    John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
    Isaiah 43.10 is the only other verse in all the Bible that contains this phrase.
    Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
    I called this a "first order projective KeyLink" because it was the highest possible correlation between a two and a three dimensional object. So here is what's going on. The phrase "that ye may know and believe" occurs in two and only two verses of the entire King James Bible and these verses are geometrically related as a 2 dimensional shadow to the three dimensional object that casts it! Here now is a graphic image of what is going on here:








    That's exactly correct. And that's why Trinitarians are absolutely emphatic about the absolute Unity of the Trinity. Three in One. That's the Christian Mystery. They see it as explaining how there can be persons in the world, made in the image of God. The idea goes something like this (I don't recall exactly): If God were not intrinsically intra-personal, there would be no divine basis for personality at all because God would not have had anyone to talk to for eternity.
    We are living in a time now when we can refer to things that were not possible in Bible times. Computers are a modern invention. Computer science can help us form a picture that might help us see the way God works and his power operates. I do not see God's power (Holy Spirit) being separate and autonomous from God. I do not see the Holy Spirit existing as a separate person. I do not see the Holy Spirit operating in the autonomous way Jesus did. We are told, God performed miracles through Jesus. If Jesus was God, Jesus would not have had to ask God, or pray to God every time he wanted to use God's power. It would have been his own power to draw on. That would been in-keeping, had Jesus created anything, but Jesus was not born and was unable to create anything before his genesis. If we were to see what we thought of as the Holy Spirit in operation, we could think it was the invisible God at work. In that way, it is not possible to separate God from the Holy Spirit.

    The Holy Spirit belongs to God. The Holy Spirit is his power. Can that power be somehow given to his Angels to use? We know nothing about what the Holy Spirit comprises of. It is a force/energy that cannot be measured scientifically. There is nothing much we can say about the Holy Spirit that in any way defines what it is. If God can distribute his power to his Angels, then the Holy Spirit can be divided, or shared. The Holy Spirit cannot be said to be one, when it can be divided. We can think of the way computer networks operate to come a little closer to understanding how the Holy Spirit might operate. Also, we can think of God's Angels as a network. This is a concept that millennia ago, was not in the mind of man. Therefore, we have to understand the imagery used in the Bible and relate that to something we can understand now. Maybe the images in the mind of the author of the scriptures, is not the image we have from the words used in translation. Until we make the correction, we are going to be confused. One thing we can understand in the same as was understood in the time of Jesus,is that of authority and delegation of authority. The Roman Centurion understood the authority that was delegated to Jesus.

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 01-05-2014 at 07:00 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    Thank you for the information
    You are most welcome, sir!


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am not one of the many Christians you are referring to (as you know), so you can expect me not to be impressed in the same way. The fact is; we can all say "I am .." the same as Jesus said the same words. I am not claiming to be the same as Jesus in any of the ways he said; "I am..". If we cannot draw a conclusive proof one way or the other by the words "I am ..", or "I a he", then the point can be moot for now until we find something stronger to support our viewpoint.
    You are correct, of course, that anyone could say "I am" (ego eimi). We have an example of that in this verse:

    John 9:8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he (ego eimi).

    It is curious that the words "ego eimi" are much more frequent in John than the other Gospels, even when not being spoken by Christ.

    As for "something stronger to support our viewpoint" -I "came to faith in Christ" quite independently of any particular religious group. I was studying esoteric stuff like gematria (the alpha-numeric values of words) and general mystical tradition of the Kabbalah (which is Bible based) and it morphed, quite unexpectedly, into convincing evidence for Christ and the Bible. The first big discovery involved the patterns in Genesis 1:1, and then I started noticing curious connections with the NT. After a while, I discovered the Isaiah-Bible Correlation which I found extremely compelling, and finally the Bible Wheel which I considered absolute incontrovertible proof that the Bible was inspired by God. And of course all these amazing discoveries were vivified by a very real sense of Christ in my life. I had lots of dreams back then that were mystical and religious and my whole life was like walking through heaven on earth. Or that's how it seemed anyway. The truth of God and the Bible seemed utterly incontrovertible.

    I say all this to give context to why I came to the specific beliefs that you have typically characterized as the "teachings of men" that I was "taught." That's not how it happened. One of the first Biblical Holographs that I discovered is called the Unity Holograph. It is based on the alphanumeric structure of Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) which is structured on nested multiples of the prime number 13 (which also is a "Star of David" number). Here are the basic values:

    Shema: Here O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

    1 x 13 = Echad (One)
    2 x 13 = YHVH (The LORD)
    3 x 13 = YHVH Echad (The LORD is ONE)
    86 x 13 = 1118 = Sum of the Shema

    Now the thing that really struck me is that 86 is the value of the word Elohim (God) so the sum of the Shema numerically reflects the meaning of the Shema, that is God (86) is One (13). And as I studied more, I found that the the three binary products of the three factors of 1118 = 2 x 13 x 43 yield the values of three primary names of God as follows:

    Divine Name Value Prime Factors
    The Father 559 - 13 43
    God (Elohim) 86 2 - 43
    The LORD (YHVH) 26 2 13 -

    Now the really amazing thing is that these three names are the primary names of God in the Bible. Two are from the OT and one from the NT. Here is the diagram I designed to show how they all relate. I call it the "Unity Holograph" -



    Now I say all this to explain why I came to believe in the Trinity. The greatest commandment - the Shema - which states the unity of God, is explicitly built upon the number 13 which is the value of the word "one" and which is composed of a one and a three and it encodes the three primary names of God, one of which is The Father. And all this fit naturally with the NT statements about Christ as Creator and Lord, etc.

    Now I didn't just "believe" anything that I was "taught". For example, it seemed to me that a better representation of the Trinity would be like three concentric circles, because the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Son:

    Father > Son > Spirit.

    And then of course, this all fit quite naturally with the connections between Isaiah 43 and Book 43 (John) and the I AM passages. And it went on and on ... so I became very confident that Christ was indeed a manifestation of God and not a mere human. And in none of this did I have to waste any time twisting words to force them to fit a doctrine that I had learned from men.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Jesus often quoted the scriptures and so the words of scripture were part of his vocabulary. We can see where Jesus is using the same language as used by the prophets. One example is that where Jesus says of the city of Capernaum (Matt 11:23) ; "And thou Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down hades" You know where similar words are found; they are words said of the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre.
    That's correct. And that's why we can be confident that Jesus would not take the Divine Name in vain and apply it to himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We are living in a time now when we can refer to things that were not possible in Bible times. Computers are a modern invention. Computer science can help us form a picture that might help us see the way God works and his power operates. I do not see God's power (Holy Spirit) being separate and autonomous from God. I do not see the Holy Spirit existing as a separate person. I do not see the Holy Spirit operating in the autonomous way Jesus did.
    Where in the world did you ever get the idea that anyone teaches that the Holy Spirit is "separate and autonomous from God"??? No Trinitarian would ever say anything like that! On the contrary, the Trinity teaches that the Holy Spirit IS God!

    And again, the "persons" are not considered "separate" in the way you are using that word. The Trinity simply does not teach that. I really get the impression you have no idea what the Doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches. Do you think you could accurately state it? If not, then how can you reject what you don't even understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We are told, God performed miracles through Jesus. If Jesus was God, Jesus would not have had to ask God, or pray to God every time he wanted to use God's power. It would have been his own power to draw on. That would been in-keeping, had Jesus created anything, but Jesus was not born and was unable to create anything before his genesis. If we were to see what we thought of as the Holy Spirit in operation, we could think it was the invisible God at work. In that way, it is not possible to separate God from the Holy Spirit.
    Given your facility with words, I have no doubt you could explain away anything you chose! Think about that David. I mean this most sincerely. I cannot imagine any statement that you could not explain away if you so chose.

    Great chatting!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You are most welcome, sir!
    How polite. May this continue from both of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You are correct, of course, that anyone could say "I am" (ego eimi). We have an example of that in this verse:

    John 9:8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he (ego eimi).

    It is curious that the words "ego eimi" are much more frequent in John than the other Gospels, even when not being spoken by Christ.
    At least this can be one small step of agreement. John's gospel is the most difficult. It does not follow the pattern of the synoptic gospels and concentrates on matters to do with Jesus as the Son of God. We find things mentioned in John's gospel not mentioned in the other gospels. However, we can looking for supporting evidence in the ancient scriptures that make up the Old Testament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    As for "something stronger to support our viewpoint" -I "came to faith in Christ" quite independently of any particular religious group. I was studying esoteric stuff like gematria (the alpha-numeric values of words) and general mystical tradition of the Kabbalah (which is Bible based) and it morphed, quite unexpectedly, into convincing evidence for Christ and the Bible. The first big discovery involved the patterns in Genesis 1:1, and then I started noticing curious connections with the NT. After a while, I discovered the Isaiah-Bible Correlation which I found extremely compelling, and finally the Bible Wheel which I considered absolute incontrovertible proof that the Bible was inspired by God. And of course all these amazing discoveries were vivified by a very real sense of Christ in my life. I had lots of dreams back then that were mystical and religious and my whole life was like walking through heaven on earth. Or that's how it seemed anyway. The truth of God and the Bible seemed utterly incontrovertible.
    It is good you came to faith in Christ independently. I would like to know exactly what beliefs you came to independently. Recently, I have been watching and listening to material posted on Youtube and stumbled upon a lot of material presented by Steve Gregg in which he gives Bible exposition. I have just listened to one of his talks in which he explains the origin of Satan. I propose to post the link in an already established thread on the subject, so as to continue to discuss the subject of Satan in a more appropriate thread. I gather he was brought up in an Evangelical family. However, he has questioned the things he was taught and now that he has questioned these things and studied the Bible for himself, he cannot support the things many of the Evangelical churches teach. It is not surprising to me that more people are finding out the same, once they begin to actually read the Bible for themselves and not just accept what the "churches" have been saying. I look forward to continuing to thrash out with you the subject of Satan, so that we might eventually come to agreement on the subject. I think Satan, or the Devil is one of the fundamentals to understand and in so doing, opens the way to seeing other truths and getting rid of man-made ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I say all this to give context to why I came to the specific beliefs that you have typically characterized as the "teachings of men" that I was "taught." That's not how it happened. One of the first Biblical Holographs that I discovered is called the Unity Holograph. It is based on the alphanumeric structure of Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) which is structured on nested multiples of the prime number 13 (which also is a "Star of David" number). Here are the basic values:

    Shema: Here O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

    1 x 13 = Echad (One)
    2 x 13 = YHVH (The LORD)
    3 x 13 = YHVH Echad (The LORD is ONE)
    86 x 13 = 1118 = Sum of the Shema

    Now the thing that really struck me is that 86 is the value of the word Elohim (God) so the sum of the Shema numerically reflects the meaning of the Shema, that is God (86) is One (13). And as I studied more, I found that the the three binary products of the three factors of 1118 = 2 x 13 x 43 yield the values of three primary names of God as follows:

    Divine Name Value Prime Factors
    The Father 559 - 13 43
    God (Elohim) 86 2 - 43
    The LORD (YHVH) 26 2 13 -

    Now the really amazing thing is that these three names are the primary names of God in the Bible. Two are from the OT and one from the NT. Here is the diagram I designed to show how they all relate. I call it the "Unity Holograph" -



    Now I say all this to explain why I came to believe in the Trinity. The greatest commandment - the Shema - which states the unity of God, is explicitly built upon the number 13 which is the value of the word "one" and which is composed of a one and a three and it encodes the three primary names of God, one of which is The Father. And all this fit naturally with the NT statements about Christ as Creator and Lord, etc.

    Now I didn't just "believe" anything that I was "taught". For example, it seemed to me that a better representation of the Trinity would be like three concentric circles, because the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Son:

    Father > Son > Spirit.

    And then of course, this all fit quite naturally with the connections between Isaiah 43 and Book 43 (John) and the I AM passages. And it went on and on ... so I became very confident that Christ was indeed a manifestation of God and not a mere human. And in none of this did I have to waste any time twisting words to force them to fit a doctrine that I had learned from men.
    Just from looking at the unity holograph, I see only God (Yehovah) is in it. That for me is the singularity of God. God and his power (Holy Spirit) are inextricably linked. You cannot have power without God, or that would make God powerless. There cannot be raw power without an intelligence behind it, otherwise the Universe that we know would not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's correct. And that's why we can be confident that Jesus would not take the Divine Name in vain and apply it to himself.
    More than anyone else, Jesus demonstrated humility. He did not apply things to himself. He knew that despite his appearance to have God-given power by which he was seen to perform miracles, the power was not his. Jesus did not take titles upon himself comparable to God, it was God who inferred on his only begotten son, the title of God. I believe we will see Jesus manifesting the full power of God when Jesus is ruling in the millennial age and God is appearing to be taking his Sabbath rest. At the end, Jesus surrenders the kingdom back to God (his Heavenly Father) and is subject (under God's authority) to God. That does not say Jesus is equal or the same as God. Jesus is eternal now. He was not eternal before he was born. Jesus is more like God now in that he is eternal, but then eternal life is to be given to the saints. That not make them equal with God who has all power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Where in the world did you ever get the idea that anyone teaches that the Holy Spirit is "separate and autonomous from God"??? No Trinitarian would ever say anything like that! On the contrary, the Trinity teaches that the Holy Spirit IS God!
    This is from the Nicene Creed;
    And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the Lord, the giver of life.
    He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
    He spoke through the prophets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And again, the "persons" are not considered "separate" in the way you are using that word. The Trinity simply does not teach that. I really get the impression you have no idea what the Doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches. Do you think you could accurately state it? If not, then how can you reject what you don't even understand?
    I suggest you post the new version of the Trinity as you see it defined if is now substantially different to what we read in the various creeds. I have given you one extract above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Given your facility with words, I have no doubt you could explain away anything you chose! Think about that David. I mean this most sincerely. I cannot imagine any statement that you could not explain away if you so chose.
    When "push comes to shove", I expect you can do the same. On the other hand, I am not going to take the face value of words which could be wrong. It is evident that many assumptions are being made about things the Bible does not actually state. If my explanations of Bible passages appear to be made up, they will usually have a scripture reference to back them up. If I am stating an explanation you think is not given in the Bible, my explanations must be given the same latitude as those who are giving their explanations which I do not see as supported by scripture. Unless scripture is so categorical, as not to have any other interpretation/explanation, then my explanation, until proven wrong, is as valid as any other. That is why, I am only prepared to reason from scripture as we have it in our Bibles and we deal with the man-made errors that it contains. Once the errors are spotted and taken into account, it is the integrity of the whole that I take to be the Truth. Whether you believe it is another matter. First and foremost, we have to get to the Truth behind the words in the Bible. I believe the Bible is God's divinely inspired message. That belief could have started off as a supposition on my part, but in the years of study and appreciating the words written, it is not a supposition any more. God's word is Truth, and the parts that I do not fully understand, I have no reason to think are not the Truth. God is consistent. If that was a supposition once held, it is not a supposition now; the more so as as I see the meaning of difficult passages coming to light. I have seen enough in God's word that show him as consistent. If there is anything in the Bibles that we have at face value would which would seem to indicate God is not consistent, then that must mean, the original words have not been correctly understood or translated into words that accurately convey the truth. A most recent example of that I have heard comes from listening to Steve Gregg. In Ezekiel 28:13 the KJV says; the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes
    As explained by Steve Gregg, this has lead many to think Satan had musical instruments attached to him and that Satan was the director or music in Heaven. Is that crazy or what? The NIV uses the words; Your settings and mountings were made of gold; In the context of the precious stones mentioned in the preceding verses, the NIV makes more sense. I am not saying the NIV is better than the KJV. No matter which translation we read, we will find errors. This example shows the way the KJV rendering of Eze 28:13 has been used by people, without proper knowledge of the scriptures, to support their fantasy ideas of what Satan is. We need to get all the false ideas exposed and eliminated. I shall be pleased to hear what your personal understanding of Satan is and see whether it matches up with mine.

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 01-06-2014 at 03:47 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •