It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib
You do realize, that Ronald Weinland is simply teaching a perverted version of the Trinity doctrine don't you? If "The Word" is the revelatory thought of God and was God, then this is simply a perverted version of the Trinity doctrine
(re Heb 1:1)
Yes this verse states quite plainly that God the Father spoke to the prophets of the old testament, and only in the days of the Apostles spoke through his Son.
You simply have not read the verse. You are reading the verse through a filter. If you had read the verse you would have recognized something important.
It DOES NOT SAY God spoke to either the fathers OR the prophets.
It says he spoke to the fathers THROUGH(by) the prophets.
There is a monumental difference.
Heb 1:1 God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib_2
Let's revisit John 1:1-2
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Let's re-read it using the mental double think of Ronald Weinland.
1 In the beginning was the Mind of God, and the Mind of God was with God, and the Mind of God was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
(so that...repeating verse 1)
In the beginning was the God, and the God was with Mind of God, and the God was Mind of God.
Such utter lunacy. This is simply a twisted version of the Trinity doctrine where you have The mind of God as one God, and God as another God both residing in the same body. Such nonsense.
HEBREWS 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.
The above scripture plainly states that Christ did not glorify himself, but that he was glorified by YAHWEH!....proving once again that Christ was NOT Yahweh.
Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib
HEBREWS 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.
The above scripture plainly states that Christ did not glorify himself, but that he was glorified by YAHWEH!....proving once again that Christ was NOT Yahweh.
I see no problem with verse Hebrews 5:5.
For that matter, if you just re-read it, it's not speaking about being glorified by either the Father or Himself. If you just read the plain english, it says Christ did not glorify himself. That is all the verse states
Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib
It should be noted, that if Christ was just a man (albeit a special man), that He could only pay the penalty for one other human being.
The only one who could pay the penalty for all mankind, is if that being's worth was greater than mankind. This is only possible if their Creator was the one that was sacrificed.
You may say, oh that time it was God the Father speaking, but other times it was Christ, but that only confuses things, since how do you know who is speaking in what instance if both were Yahweh (and God says he is not the author of confusion) and that also doesn't clear up why Paul also stated that it was God the Father who spoke to the Prophets of the old testament, not Christ.
Posted by Locoman8
You must understand that interpreting Jesus as the Word of God simply implys that He's the spokesperson of the Father or the Family of God. So, the Father spoke through the prophets to the fathers of Israel is just as true saying Christ was the one speaking to the prophets.
Christ spoke on behalf of the father.
Analogy: "The White House released this statement today...” when in fact it was Robert Gibbs who spoke the words.
the christ was in pureness after a certain time.