Sevryn45 wrote:No need. Any child can see that Yahweh is not calling himself the servant here. How can Yahweh be a servant of anyone else? To suggest that he would submit himself to someone else is absolutely proposterous. So there is no need to read again, it clearly says that the servant in this passage are the people of Israel, who are also named his witnesses.
There is a distinction in that passage between his witnesses and his servant. (No Israel is mentioned in that passage, only his witnesses and his servent, explicitly YHVH says that his witnesses must understand that YHVH is that Servant.)
There is no distinction in that passage. Please re-read it.
You're equivocating since the passages are not directly connected.
YHVH says he's that servant, I have no problem with that.
I gave you guys referances, I can't open your minds for you; I can only point you toward Scripture. Sometimes I feel like I wasted my time, ohh well you can't please everyone.
The passage does not state Yahweh is a servant, i.e. becomes subject to himself. To say that the Almighty creator of all can become subject to his creation is truly proposterous.
Who? I speak English here so how am I supposed to know who you are referring to?
I presume you're speaking of either God or Jesus, either way I dont see how my statement and your response are in any way related. Care to enlighten?
Hashem means God in Hebrew.
Ok.
For the record, I do believe Christ came in the flesh, not God.
Isaiah 9:6 says Hashem is God-Incarnate, can you please tell me on what basis you reject the Messiah as God Incarnate?
Because Isaiah 9v6 does not teach that God become a man. You're in a tough position here, because to make any kind of a case for this, you have to show me why you think Hezekiah is not God-incarnate and also why translations have the singular word "name" in that verse and then procede to give 8 seperate names. The fact of the matter of the matter is, the name (singular) is precisely that - one name - Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-adar-sar-shalom. This translates into English as the one name "The Wonderful Counsellor is the Mighty God and is the Everlasting Father of the Prince of Peace". In other words, Jesus was to be given a name which identifies him as the son of the Mighty God.
The teaching of the "deity of Christ" is a) nowhere taught in scripture, b) a "man made" doctrine evolved over a period of 300 or so years by the pagan infected "early church fathers", so we reject this teaching of "another Jesus" and retain the originally held Bible-based belief that Jesus was a human being like you and I in everyway, yet without sin (and remember, we do not believe in original sin). This is all demonstrable.
:roll:
Question: Please tell me on what basis you reject the Diety of the Messiah?
Please re-read my post. I will not continue to answering the same questions over and over again. If you want a more detailed examination of point a) that I made in that last message, go
here,
here and
here. For explanation of point b) go
here and
here (Chapter 8 ).
Question: Tell me exactly what you believe and don't believe?
We dont believe the Trinity, or Modalism, or Universal Unitarianism or Arianism. We do believe that Christ was the son of God and son of man, fully man - like us in all points yet without sin (and remember we dont believe in original sin).
Perhaps
this definition of the 5 Christological models will explain things better.
Happy reading.
Are you going to answer my questions or you just going to feed me your misrepresented drool?
If not our discussion is over.
Don't worry, I'm right with you, hot on your heels.