So, we are not allowed to complete the thought by quoting the next phrase? How is that going to work for context?
"And the Word was with God, and the Word was....." Scrap that thought. lol
And why would I care what a Trinitarian says when Isaiah 9:6 is plain as day?
The first time that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
"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, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (KJV)
"For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition - DRA)
Get back to me when you are done giggling your way thru the discussion.
It is separate (maybe) because the Word was WITH God. You can't explain it away by quoting the next phrase - that doesn't answer the question. Trinitarians have tried to explain this with the Trinity - do you have have a different way of reconciling the Word being WITH God? What does that mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seguidordejesus
Get back to me when you are done giggling your way thru the discussion.
The next phrase answers the question. You just don't want that answer. I don't have a question here, so I'll let you knock it around with Tim-may.
It is separate (maybe) because the Word was WITH God. You can't explain it away by quoting the next phrase - that doesn't answer the question. Trinitarians have tried to explain this with the Trinity - do you have have a different way of reconciling the Word being WITH God? What does that mean?
The latter is a deeper explanation of the former and pretty much tells us the context of "with" and "Word".
Do you agree that the "word" is logos in the Greek as all theologians do? Logos in Greek means a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy. It never has meant a "person" of the trinity.
Also no one can explain to me how the second "person" in the trinity is called son. How can a son be co-equal and co-eternal? How does the term son not denote a birth thus rendering the co-eternal thing mute? How can a son be submissive to the father and be co-equal? Son before his birth was Logos. After the birth he was the messiah.
__________________
I'm unchained, unblinded, unparallel minded As I refined to combine with the finest finds of Titan
Vicious like lightning, Vikings enticed by full moons on islands Filled with the loot that eluded troops of previous tyrant
Do you agree that the "word" is logos in the Greek as all theologians do? Logos in Greek means a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy. It never has meant a "person" of the trinity.
Also no one can explain to me how the second "person" in the trinity is called son. How can a son be co-equal and co-eternal? How does the term son not denote a birth thus rendering the co-eternal thing mute? How can a son be submissive to the father and be co-equal? Son before his birth was Logos. After the birth he was the messiah.
You do not understand infinity. (x-1) comes before (x) always and yet we can let x approach infinity and x-1 will likewise approach infinity along with x.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
You do not understand infinity. (x-1) comes before (x) always and yet we can let x approach infinity and x-1 will likewise approach infinity along with x.
What?
__________________
I'm unchained, unblinded, unparallel minded As I refined to combine with the finest finds of Titan
Vicious like lightning, Vikings enticed by full moons on islands Filled with the loot that eluded troops of previous tyrant
Linear Mode
