HERESY?

[Moriah's Song]

From the Blue letter bible ,,, online

In the Old Testament times, a name was not only identification, but an identity as well. Many times a special meaning was attached to the name. Names had, among other purposes, an explanatory purpose (e.g., Nabal, whose name means "fool," is the target of Abigail's explanation to David: "For as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him:" - 1Sa 25:25). Throughout Scripture God reveals Himself to us through His names. When we study these names that He reveals to us in the Bible, we will better understand who God really is. The meanings behind God's names reveal the central personality and nature of the One who bears them.

Good job!

At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter whether we say Jesus or Joshua. What matter is that Jesus’ name, his entire identity, is built upon the fact that Yahweh is a God who saves. Yahweh is a God who is defined by salvation. That is the name given to Jesus by the angel and by his parents. That is the identity taken on by God in the flesh. And that is the name to which every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. That is the name that every tongue will confess to be Lord. And that is the name that we as Christians are invited to carry with us every day of our lives.

Oh, I use the BLB website too. It is great for many things but that website is totally biased toward dispensationalism - big time. All but 2 of their list of "commentators" are dispenationalists. That website is basically funded by Dallas Theological Seminary that is one of many seminaries that list dispensationalism as their teaching of the end times in their "about us page." Dallas theos also have many, many other websites just for that purpose.

 

[Cooper]

Sad. John 1:1 does not even mention Jesus and has nothing to do with Emmanual meaning 'God is with us.' What a desperate reaching for text that does not support your doctrine!

Can I say Anyone who denies this has the spirit of ant-God? Deuteronomy 6:4.

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11 NRSV)

So as everyone gets the message, He is Jesus Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23 KJV)

Unbelievers need to be careful not to blaspheme the name of God.
.

 

[Wrangler]

He is Jesus Emmanuel

No. His name is Jesus, not Emmanuel. Are all people named Emmanuel's God? If not, why not?

 

[Moriah's Song]

No. His name is Jesus, not Emmanuel.

EMMANUEL= g1694 = Ἐμμανουήλ - emmanouēl

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emmanuel"
(which means, God with us)." Matt 1: 21-23​

Scripture does not lie, nor twists scripture like the "serpent and Eve" event.

Are all people named Emmanuel's God? If not, why not?

Another absurd strawman statement from Wrangler that's why?

 

[farouk]

Some names began with el...
El shadai...

@GodsGrace So many glorious titles......

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace So many glorious titles......

I had done a little study on this some years back.
Each name told a characteristic of God.
I think you know about it.
A blessed new year to you.

 

[Enoch111]

No. His name is Jesus, not Emmanuel.

Actually the Hebrew name of Christ is Yeshua, or Yahshua, or Yehoshua, which all mean that GOD IS [OUR] SALVATION (because Jesus is God). This is derived from Yahweh (YHWH) so YAH + SHUA = GOD IS SALVATION.

And the other name given to Him is Emmanuel (which means GOD WITH US). So all your false beliefs are totally demolished by these two names, which loudly proclaim "JESUS IS GOD" ("I AM"). That is exactly what John 1:1 says -- "the Word was GOD (THEOS)", not "a god" (which is pure baloney).

 

[farouk]

I had done a little study on this some years back.
Each name told a characteristic of God.
I think you know about it.
A blessed new year to you.

@GodsGrace Likewise. I saw a poster of many of the Lord's titles, each of which would make a good study in itself.

 

[Cooper]

No. His name is Jesus, not Emmanuel. Are all people named Emmanuel's God? If not, why not?

His name ON EARTH is Jesus and his name throughout creation is Emmanuel, meaning GOD WITH US. As you say there is only one God, so say "Thank you to Emmanual for saving the souls of those who believe in Him.
.

 

[Moriah's Song]

Jesus is certainly a created being, as all sons are

So what was Jesus created with since God (and Jesus) say that He/they created the creation?

Therefore, if God created Jesus before Adam, just what did He use to do it with since the earth, the sun, the stars, the moon etc. had not yet been created.

Now, if God created Jesus after Adam, then Jesus could not be the firstborn of creation.

According to your stated beliefs, Adam was created out of the dust of the earth but scripture does not say how God created "Jesus." If in fact God created Jesus, you need to supply your verses for it and the method God used.

God says that "He is the potter, and we are the clay." Is Jesus made out of clay then? Without scripture it is just the herecetical "doctrine of men" that will fall by the wayside in God's eyes.

 

[Moriah's Song]

unitarian nature

untitarian nature is not in the Bible. So what does "God's unitarian" nature mean and where did you get it from?

 

[Moriah's Song]

you know the trinity is not in the Bible and that Jesus never taught the trinity.

The word "Bible" isn't in the Bible either but you read it and twist what is in that Bible....along with some on this thread and many others too!

 

[Moriah's Song]

Opposing the trinity is not sinful.

In one sense you are right, and in another sense you are seriously wrong.

You would be right if you were unsaved or a new Christian that was still on "baby food".

However, if you have declared yourself to be a born-again Christian, been baptized and have a good Bible to read (not like the "Voice" bible) then after a period of intense study you have not arrived at the conclusion that the "trinity" makes sense when....

• God says He created the universe and
• Jesus says He created the univers and
• the Holy Spirit is declared in God's word that He was included in that creation in Genesis 1 especially...

then you should be very, very concerned about whether or not you really are a born-agian Christian or not.

For sure, the trinity is difficult to comprehend if the Holy Spirit has not opened the eyes and ears of those who deny the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

untitarian nature is not in the Bible. So what does "God's unitarian" nature mean and where did you get it from?

I get it from language usage. Trinitarians like to play the game that verses with ‘God, the Father’ imply other God’s. If this is so, every reference that ONLY has God must mean ‘God, in his unity nature’ or ‘God, in his unitarian nature.’

I add it for emphasis.

One example is John 3:16. ‘God, in his unitarian nature, so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.’ God in his fullness, wholeness, completeness. That is what ‘God’ means in such verses.

 

[Moriah's Song]

I get it from language usage.

So you made it up and then inserted into John 3:16 in order to say what you wanted it to say rather than let that verse speak for itself?

Therefore, projecting unitarian text onto trinitarian doctrine is futile.
Wrangler said: "The entire Bible is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day." LOL...Of course they do! But not all, many thousands of Jews became Christians on the Day of Pentecost and were the first members of the church after the apostles.

Rev 22:18-19..."I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

 

[Wrangler]

The word "Bible" isn't in the Bible either but you read it and twist what is in that Bible....along with some on this thread and many others too!

One logical fallacy after another ... It's not the word. You are adding 'the word' to weaken the argument. Some claim the trinity is the central message of the Bible. It's so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once - not the word and not the doctrine.

To this, trinitarians offer another Strawman, to offer verses that do not explicitly state the doctrine of the trinity. Something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the F, S & HS who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not accept this, you cannot be saved but will be damned to hell forever.

It would be nice if you could simply admit the trinity is not in the Bible. Can you admit this?

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus says He created the univers

There is no verse where Jesus claims to be God. There is no verse where Jesus claims to have created the universe.

I'm sure you could quote verses and demand I interpret them the way you prefer. Not good enough! Not good enough by a long shot. Explicit teaching is Scripture is required.

For sure, the trinity is difficult to comprehend

Another fallacy ... Appeal to Ignorance. There is a difference between not understanding and not agreeing. I understand the trinity and I reject it as a valid doctrine derived from:

1. The Word of God
2. Definition
3. Logic
4. Language Usage

These 4 are at constant odds with the inherently contradictory doctrine.

 

[Moriah's Song]

It would be nice if you could simply admit the trinity is not in the Bible. Can you admit this?

When heresies like you just posted about "making up your own unitarian language" and then have the audacity to charge us Christians with believing in the trinity; of which is a title description of a tri-une Godhead then it is a duty to expose them for what they are. Is that not being hypocritical of you???

Jesus was not "nice" to the Jew that forced the peons to adhere to their "traditions of men". Check out those "woes in your Bible.

 

[Wrangler]

It would be nice if you could simply admit the trinity is not in the Bible. Can you admit this?

Is that not being hypocritical of you???

You cannot answer questions with questions.

I'll leave this thread as the conversation is over.

 

[Moriah's Song]

Explicit teaching is Scripture is required.

Hypocrisy!

I get it from language usage....every reference that ONLY has God must mean ‘God, in his unity nature’ or ‘God, in his unitarian nature.’

I add it for emphasis.