How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

williamjordan · Aug 29, 2023

No, you need to reread what I said and this time very carefully, and without your Unitarian goggles on.

It should be pointed out that the term "submit" is only ever used when speaking of distinct persons. That is where your flaw is, as I have been expressing this entire time. You are more interested in defending Modalism (a form of Unitarianism) than genuinely trying to understand the text. This all makes perfect sense unless you are a Modalist. Stop trying to read your Modalism back into the text at every chance you get.

As I have been stating this entire time, the problem is not with the Trinitarian position, but with your Modalism. You are trying to fit your Modalism (a square peg) into something that doesn't work for a Modalist (a round hole). That is the only reason this is at all problematic, and not for the Trinitarian. Remember, we are Trinitarians, not Unitarians. This is only a problem for Unitarians, mainly, Modalists who skew the distinction between the Father and the Son.

Diakonos · Aug 29, 2023

Franc254 said:

The begetting of the Son happened on the day of His resurrection. The Psalm looks forward to that conversation between the Father and the Son.

Franc254 said:

So you DO accept a biblical inference that is not explicitly stated if the inference is supported by Scripture. That's good because the Bile infers the Trinity and gives biblical support for it.

Franc254 said:

This is not a problem within the doctrine of the Trinity because there is positional submission between the three Persons.

heavenbelieve · Aug 29, 2023

.

Recently, this has been my main question to the Trinitarian world concerning - Hebrews 10 : 12

I have contacted and written to every faithful trinitarian that I can contact, I have posted and expressed this question to all of the trinitarian world - this is the question that I have worked on day and night, working to assemble my question in the most clear and precise way.

and I have looked at the original manuscripts Greek - we find exactly what the manuscripts are saying - in Hebrews 10 : 12

Please notice the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here
:12

αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 -

HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD ) - ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -

but the Protestant Trinitarian translation omits and changes this to say that
JESUS OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER,,,, - SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD;

this is much different from the original that says that - FOR SIN,,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD. please, can the Trinitarian answer, when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ?

and why did Protestants change the Catholic translation by simply moving the punctuation mark of a " Comma " " , " instead of just translating the verse as the original message is transmitted in the manuscript.

in Hebrews 10:12 - it is very interesting about the Trinity Doctrine in that how the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate contradict and disagree with the contrasting Protestant K.J.V.

1. Firstly - Let's look at - Heb 10:12 first from the - Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate

Heb 10:12 :12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,

2. and now - the Protestant K.J.V.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

heavenbelieve · Aug 29, 2023

.
furthermore, in conclusion to my question

what we see here - in the enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations is that the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma " , " Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - - ( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING ))

the Catholic translations go on to say " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - - so the Catholics explain the Trinity to say for sure - Jesus - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however the contradiction and difference is that the Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever " - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, then the comma " , "

followed by - , sat down on the right hand of God.

The K.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because eventually Trinitarians realized that their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.

we see verse - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.
and
Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

the translators later translating the Protestant K.J.V. attempted to fix this contradiction by moving and shuffling the punctuation to move the " comma > -

NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE

Protestant K.J.V. - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God;

vs the Catholic

Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON the right hand of God,

Are Protestants realizing that they cannot believe in a Trinitarian Jesus who forever sits ON the right hand of Trinitarian God - yet they cannot believe in a Jesus who is not a Trinitarian ?

so they adjust and simply move a punctuation mark to deny and diminish the very deity of Jesus that had been instituted in the confusing and contradiction of the Trinity Contradiction instituted by their Roman Catholic mother. Can Protestants to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, - when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

do Trinitarians simply take this question to simply mean to them - when is the seating arrangement in heaven changed for the Trinitarian Jesus

heavenbelieve · Aug 29, 2023

additionally, just to clarify Can the Trinity Provide An Answer

is this something that Trinitarians can answer ? because the original manuscripts of the New Testament are so clear and so precise to explain that Jesus is NOW IN the right of God and this is eternal - as they replace the word IN with the words - AT and ON . - can the Trinitarian provide an answer to this Trinity question from their translations as to why the Catholic translation contradicts and also the Protestant translation ?

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

But this is not at all what the original manuscripts are saying - this is a complete mistranslation and alteration from what the original Greek manuscript message says, this is completely changing and altering the message of the manuscript.
Please notice the - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS
HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here - :12

αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -
θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -
δεξια the right - του of - θεου God

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 - HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD )
ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE - this is much different when the original that says -

FOR SIN,, HE OFFERED UP ONE SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD

truly, how can this contradiction between the two translations and this question in its authenticity be resolved or even answered from the Trinitarian translations ? Can my Trinitarian friends to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, -

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand o f God ? ? ?

their translations says - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.

Trinitarian Jesus is expecting that he will maintain his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit ON the right hand of God - until his enemies be made a footstool .. Is this something that Trinitarians can answer ?

When does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

williamjordan · Aug 29, 2023

Diakonos said:

The nine passages that are traditionally cited are Jn. 1:1, 1:18, 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Pt. 1:1; Heb. 1:8; Acts 20:28, and 1 Jn. 5:20. Other examples could probably be added to the list, but these are the "traditional" nine. That said, a couple examples listed in these "traditional nine" may be a bit ambiguous, and so there is some question. The more commonly accepted number is either 6 or 7, i.e., Jn. 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Pt. 1:1, and Heb. 1:8.

These six or seven passages are "no way out" passages. People do try very hard to wiggle out of them, but the evidence is too great. There is a textual issue at Jn. 1:18, however. By "textual issue," what I mean by that is, there are multiple variants that exist in 1:18 aside from the commonly accepted one ("God" vs. "Son") that can impact the translation. Most people think there is only one variant in 1:18, not recognizing there are actually six variants. And depending on the precise Greek wording, it can impact the way the entire sentence is understood. I can get into that more in another post if the question arises.

But if you want a good read on the subject matter, I recommend the book, "Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus" by Murray J. Harris, which is free for download. It is a bit technical, so it is not for everyone. But I do tend to like the technical stuff.

williamjordan · Aug 29, 2023

heavenbelieve said:

You do realize that the preposition does not always mean in the "spherical" sense, right? It can mean "in" (in the spherical sense), but can also mean "by" or "with." When it carries a "spherical" sense, it usually does so when agency is being expressed. Hence, Col. 1:16. The use in Heb. 10:12 is not expressing agency.

So for example, in Mark 12:36 (a text you cite), notice two things:

αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου

First, ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ("in/by the Spirit") expresses agency, in that it is the Holy Spirit speaking "in" or "by" David. And second, κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ("Sit at my right hand") expresses locality. Notice the term, ἐκ. This term cannot be used to express instrumentality/agency. Given that Mark 12:36 and Heb. 1:12 use the term (ἐκ) to express locality to the "right hand of God," and given that ἐν can also express locality, it is simply an alternate way of expressing the same thing. What you need to prove is that ἐκ and ἐν function as convertible terms, especially while expressing agency. They do not, and that is the problem. However, they can act as convertible terms if locality (and not agency) is in view, hence, Heb. 10:12 is stating nothing indifferent than Heb. 1:12. They are starting the same thing, but expressing it an alternate way.

williamjordan · Aug 29, 2023

williamjordan said:

You do realize that the preposition does not always mean in the "spherical" sense, right? It can mean "in" (in the spherical sense), but can also mean "by" or "with." When it carries a "spherical" sense, it usually does so when agency is being expressed. Hence, Col. 1:16. The use in Heb. 10:12 is not expressing agency.

So for example, in Mark 12:36 (a text you cite), notice two things:

αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου

First, ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ("in/by the Spirit") expresses agency, in that it is the Holy Spirit speaking "in" or "by" David. And second, κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ("Sit at my right hand") expresses locality. Notice the term, ἐκ. This term cannot be used to express instrumentality/agency. Given that Mark 12:36 and [Heb. 1:12] Heb 1:13 use the term (ἐκ) to express locality to the "right hand of God," and given that ἐν can also express locality, it is simply an alternate way of expressing the same thing. What you need to prove is that ἐκ and ἐν function as convertible terms, especially while expressing agency. They do not, and that is the problem. However, they can act as convertible terms if locality (and not agency) is in view, hence, Heb. 10:12 is stating nothing indifferent than [Heb. 1:12] Heb. 1:13. They are stating the same thing, but expressing it an alternate way.

williamjordan · Aug 29, 2023

heavenbelieve said:

.
furthermore, in conclusion to my question

what we see here - in the enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations is that the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma " , " Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - - ( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING ))

the Catholic translations go on to say " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - - so the Catholics explain the Trinity to say for sure - Jesus - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however the contradiction and difference is that the Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever " - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, then the comma " , "

followed by - , sat down on the right hand of God.

The K.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because eventually Trinitarians realized that their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.

we see verse - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.
and
Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

the translators later translating the Protestant K.J.V. attempted to fix this contradiction by moving and shuffling the punctuation to move the " comma > -

NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE

Protestant K.J.V. - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God;

vs the Catholic

Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON the right hand of God,

Are Protestants realizing that they cannot believe in a Trinitarian Jesus who forever sits ON the right hand of Trinitarian God - yet they cannot believe in a Jesus who is not a Trinitarian ?

so they adjust and simply move a punctuation mark to deny and diminish the very deity of Jesus that had been instituted in the confusing and contradiction of the Trinity Contradiction instituted by their Roman Catholic mother. Can Protestants to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, - when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

do Trinitarians simply take this question to simply mean to them - when is the seating arrangement in heaven changed for the Trinitarian Jesus

I also want to point out a very obvious error. You have repeatedly referred to Christ as a "Trinitarian Jesus" who forever sits on the right hand of a "Trinitarian God."

But here's a News Flash: We don't believe the individual persons are Tri-personal. That is, Jesus is not a "Tri-personal" person who sits at the right hand side of another "Tri-personal" person. He is one person in a Tri-personal being; not a Tri-personal person sitting at the right hand of another Tri-personal person. And by "being," we do not mean "person."

You have really managed to confuse yourself. This entire time I (a Trinitarian) have been arguing against Modalism, and then you come along and suggest that Trinitarians are Modalists. Seriously?

evyaniy · Aug 29, 2023

The statement that He is seated or sat down or sits at the right hand of YHVH is a statement of His authority. It is not like He is always sitting. He will be about His Father's business like He always has and always will. Not only that, but the Psalms tell us that He will be in the congregation of believers praising the Father with them. Even Hebrews quotes a verse telling us that and attributes it to Him. Believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit Who is also praising the Father and Son in believers. That is why knowing Their voices in the Psalms are so important in understanding Father, Son and Spirit and Their relationship to One Another.

He will always be in Authority and continue to do the will of His Father while enjoying creation with believers.

Hebrews 2

10 For it became Him, for Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, in bringing many children to glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying,
“I will declare Your(the Father) Name to My brothers.
Among the congregation I will sing Your praise.”
13 Again, “I will put My trust in Him.” Again, “Behold, here I am with the children Whom EL(Theos, God) has given Me.”

Psalm 22

(Son to Father)

22:22 I will declare Your Name to My brothers.
In the midst of the assembly, I will praise You.

(Son to believers about Father)

22:23 You who fear YHVH, praise Him!
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him!
Stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel!
22:24 For He has not despised nor abhorred
the affliction of the Afflicted,
Neither has He hidden His face from Him;
but when He cried to Him, He heard.
22:25 Of You comes My praise in the great assembly.
I will pay My vows before those who fear Him.

heavenbelieve · Aug 30, 2023

.
thank you Williamjordan and Evyaniy

completely understood, thanks for taking time to explain.

we are to understand that the situation of Jesus and his Father is expressed as agency and locality.

I thoroughly read the details of everything you both said and agree that Jesus is not always sitting, He will be about His Father's business and just because he is not always sitting does not mean that he has lost his seat and position beside the Father.

I understand that Trinitarians take the Greek words _ " ἐκ - EX " - and - " ἐν - IN "

to be defined as the meaning of agency as " ἐκ - EX "

and the Greek word " ἐν - IN " can express locality,

thank you for the time, - no need to further expound unless you would like to explain in deeper detail but I do understand exactly what the Trinity doctrine inserts and defines upon the meaning of Greek words in the translation.

please give me some time to study and think about the information you provided and if you wish you may read my response.

evyaniy · Aug 30, 2023

heavenbelieve said:

.
thank you Williamjordan and Evyaniy

completely understood, thanks for taking time to explain.

we are to understand that the situation of Jesus and his Father is expressed as agency and locality.

I thoroughly read the details of everything you both said and agree that Jesus is not always sitting, He will be about His Father's business and just because he is not always sitting does not mean that he has lost his seat and position beside the Father.

I understand that Trinitarians take the Greek words _ " ἐκ - EX " - and - " ἐν - IN "

to be defined as the meaning of agency as " ἐκ - EX "

and the Greek word " ἐν - IN " can express locality,

thank you for the time, - no need to further expound unless you would like to explain in deeper detail but I do understand exactly what the Trinity doctrine inserts and defines upon the meaning of Greek words in the translation.

please give me some time to study and think about the information you provided and if you wish you may read my response.

thank you. what you said is greatly appreciated.

heavenbelieve · Aug 30, 2023

.
.

recently, this has been my main question to the Trinitarian world concerning - Hebrews 10 : 12

I have contacted and written to every faithful Trinitarian that I can contact, I have posted and expressed this question to all of the trinitarian world - this is the question that I have worked on day and night, working to assemble my question in the most clear and precise way.

and I have looked at the original manuscripts Greek - we find exactly what the manuscripts are saying - in Hebrews 10 : 12

Please notice the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE

Heb 10:12 - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Translated word for word exactly -- here
:12

αυτος Him - δε now - μιαν the one - υπερ for - αμαρτιων sin - προσενεγκας offered up -

θυσιαν a sacrifice - εις into - το that - διηνεκες forever - εκαθισεν set down - εν IN -

δεξια the right - του of - θεου God

The manuscripts are saying - exactly =

:12 - HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD ) - ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -

but the Protestant Trinitarian translation omits and changes this to say that

JESUS OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER,,,, - SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD;

this is much different from the original that says that - FOR SIN,,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD.

please, can the Trinitarian answer, when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ?

and why did Protestants change the Catholic translation by simply moving the punctuation mark of a " Comma " " , " instead of just translating the verse as the original message is transmitted in the manuscript.

in Hebrews 10:12 - it is very interesting about the Trinity Doctrine in that how the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate contradict and disagree with the contrasting Protestant K.J.V.

1. Firstly - Let's look at - Heb 10:12 first from the - Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate

Heb 10:12 :12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,

2. and now - the Protestant K.J.V.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

heavenbelieve · Aug 30, 2023

.
what we see here - in the enormous contradiction and massive difference between these two translations is that the Catholic Translation states that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - then a comma " , " Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins, - - ( FOLLOWED BY A COMMA PUNCTUATION MARKING ))

the Catholic translations go on to say " for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, " - - so the Catholics explain the Trinity to say for sure - Jesus - for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, however the contradiction and difference is that the Protestant K.J.V. places a comma after the word " forever " - to say that Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, then the comma " , "

followed by - , sat down on the right hand of God.

The K.J.V removes the message that says that Jesus for ever sitteth on the right hand of God because eventually Trinitarians realized that their translation expressly says that Jesus is NOT forever sitting on the right hand of God.

again, let’s look at what the Protestant Translation changes compared to the previous Catholic predecessor

Protestant K.J.V. - - - After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever ,,,,, - sat down ON the right hand of God;

vs the Catholic

Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate - - - Offering one sacrifice for sins,,,,, - for ever sitteth ON the right hand of God,

Protestants realizing that they cannot believe in a Trinitarian Jesus who forever sits ON the right hand of Trinitarian God - yet they cannot believe in a Jesus who is not a Trinitarian

so they adjust and simply move a punctuation mark to deny and diminish the very deity of Jesus that had been instituted in the confusing and contradiction of the Trinity Contradiction instituted by their Roman Catholic mother. Can Protestants to this day provide answer to the question using their Translation, - when does Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of God ? ? ?

do Trinitarians simply take this question to simply mean to them - “ when is the seating arrangement in heaven changed for the Trinitarian Jesus “

The manuscripts are saying - exactly = :12 - HIM NOW THE ONE FOR SIN,, OFFERED UP A SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN “ εν IN “ THE RIGHT OF GOD

Meaning that Jesus is - { FOREVER TO DWELL “ εν IN “ - IN THE RIGHT OF GOD )

ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT ORIGINAL MESSAGE -

FOR SIN,, HE OFFERED UP ONE SACRIFICE INTO THAT FOREVER SETTING DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF GOD

when does Trinitarian Jesus be removed and taken away and loose his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit at the right hand of Trinitarian God ? ? ?

their translations says - - :13 FROM HENCEFORTH EXPECTING UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL.

Mar 12:36 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou ON my right hand, - UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 Sit thou ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 Sit ON my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Trinitarian Jesus is expecting that he will maintain his seat and position of being GLORIFIED to sit ON the right hand of God - until his enemies be made a footstool ..

heavenbelieve · Aug 30, 2023

.
I will do my very best to explain my question and present the reasoning as to why I ask this question.

My intent is never to be disrespectful or harmful to Trinitarian believers but to express and show the evidence
I love Trinitarian believers just as I love all

the truth is, the Trinitarian Translations always translate the passages of the Bible to always say that Jesus is
ON the right hand of God;

but never, ever once is the Greek word - " ON " ἐπί - epi - used to describe Jesus
as " ON " the right of God, in the manuscripts

for example Mat 26:50 ......... they laid hands " ON " ἐπί - epi - Jesus, and took him.

the Greek word " ON " is - - ἐπί - epi -

But - the definition of the Greek word { εν } - means - IN / in

\
this Greek word " εν - IN " is used a total of 2,720 total times in the New Testament.

that's - two thousand, two hundred, and twenty - total times.

the Greek manuscripts declare that Yahashua is - IN / εν = EN
IN / εν = EN, - in the right of power
IN / εν = EN, - the right of the throne
IN / εν = EN, - the right of the Father
IN / εν = EN, - the right of God

heavenbelieve · Aug 30, 2023

Heb 12:2 Christ is set - ἐν - en - - in the right of the throne of God.
Heb 10:12 Jesus is forever sat down - ἐν - en - - in the right of God;
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is - ἐν - en - - in the right of God;
Rom 8:34 Christ in - ἐν - en - - in the right of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Eph 1:20 Christ in - ἐν - en - - in his own right - ἐν - en - - in in the heavenly place.
Heb 8:1 Christ is set - ἐν - en - - in the right of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 1:3 sat down - ἐν - en - - in the right of the Majesty - ἐν - en - - in the high.

this Greek word " εν " IN - is used a total of 2,720 total times in the manuscripts - and 47 total times in the translation the Trinitarian translators change this word to replace and change this word - into the word {( ON )} -

to replace the word " IN " with the word " ON " is something that is possible to do but very rarely because the true meaning and definition of the Greek word " - ἐν - En - mean literally in Greek - IN

you can replace the Greek word " IN " with the word " ON " - - for example the translation says

Mar 14:2 But they said, Not { ON } the feast day,

however, the Greek word here in " Mar 14:2 " is the Greek word " - ἐν - En - meaning literally in Greek - IN
and should more properly translate as - IN, - as the manuscripts say exactly

:2 But they said, Not { IN } the feast day, - not ON the feast day, the manuscripts say " IN the day of the feast "

because that the the matter was dealing with death and capture of Jesus wherein the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

PRIESTS AND SCRIBES LITERALLY SAID :2 But they said, Not { IN } the feast day,

they did NOT say UPON or ON the feast day -

- they stated - - :2 Not { IN } the feast day,

you can replace the Greek word " IN " with the word " ON " - however, this is not something that is done in very many examples because these two words have a completely different meaning. The Greek word " IN " means literally " INSIDE " inside of an idea or an object or location and this is where Jesus originates , it is - IN - God,

INSIDE God's Throne and Power and Spirit where Jesus originates and the Greek manuscripts literally use the Greek word OUT FROM / EXITING " ἐξ - EX " when describing Yahashua exiting / departing out from and out God - the Greek word literally means " ἐξ - EX " =

OUT OF / FROM

Act 7:56 Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " the right of God.

Yahashua is both IN and OUT OF the right of God - He originates and dwells inside the spirit of God

Mat 26:64 see the Son of man sitting " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " the right of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mar 14:62 see the Son of man sitting " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " the right of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mar 12:36 The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " my right untill I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Mat 22:44 Sit thou " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " my right until I make thine enemies thy footstool
Mat 22:44 Sit thou " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " my right until I make thine enemies thy footstool
Luk 22:69 the Son of man sitting " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " the right of the power of God.
Act 2:34 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " my right
Mar 16:19 and sat " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " the right of God.
Luk 20:42 Sit thou " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " my right
Act 2:25 for he is " ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " my right

heavenbelieve · Aug 30, 2023

.
SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR JESUS TO BE IN AND OUT OF THE RIGHT OF GOD ?

WHEN HE APPEARS IN BODILY FORM - HE IS ALWAYS DESCRIBED AS LITERALLY DEPARTING DWELLING OUT OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF GOD - externally - exterior - manifesting externally - the physical visible form of the invisible spirit

OUTSIDE OF GOD - appearing to man

.
WHEN HE IS IN THE THRONE - HE HAS ENTERED - DWELLING IN THE RIGHT OF GOD - UNSEEN INVISIBLE RETURN BACK IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HOLY WHERE HE ORIGINATES AS AN ATRIBUTE OF GODS SPIRIT

AND HE IS FOREVER IN THE RIGHT OF GOD - BUT CAN DEPART OUT OF THE RIGHT OF GOD - TO DWELL OUT OF THE RIGHT OF GOD.... IN BODILY FORM - VISIBLE

and can exist both at the same time - in and out of the right of God

NEVER - NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE TIME - do we find Yahashua sitting ON or AT the right HAND
of God. - NEVER EVER IN THE MANUSCRIPTS

the Greek manuscripts always express Yahashua as both

- ἐν - en - - IN

and

" ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " God

the evidence is there in the manuscripts exact and precise - NOT EVEN ONCE - NOT ONE SINGLE TIME - do we find Yahashua EVER, ever sitting " ON " the right HAND of God - truly, not in one single verse within the manuscript of Greek - this concept simply does not exist.

the Greek word " ON " is - ἐπί - epi -

never is Yahashua expressed in the Manuscripts as dwelling " ON " the right of the Father - only if the Trinity Doctrine is inserted into the original message by changing the original meaning and intent of the original message and context.

ResidentAlien · Aug 30, 2023

heavenbelieve said:

.
SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR JESUS TO BE IN AND OUT OF THE RIGHT OF GOD ?

WHEN HE APPEARS IN BODILY FORM - HE IS ALWAYS DESCRIBED AS LITERALLY DEPARTING DWELLING OUT OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF GOD - externally - exterior - manifesting externally - the physical visible form of the invisible spirit

OUTSIDE OF GOD - appearing to man
.
WHEN HE IS IN THE THRONE - HE HAS ENTERED - DWELLING IN THE RIGHT OF GOD - UNSEEN INVISIBLE RETURN BACK IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HOLY WHERE HE ORIGINATES AS AN ATRIBUTE OF GODS SPIRIT

AND HE IS FOREVER IN THE RIGHT OF GOD - BUT CAN DEPART OUT OF THE RIGHT OF GOD - TO DWELL OUT OF THE RIGHT OF GOD.... IN BODILY FORM - VISIBLE

and can exist both at the same time - in and out of the right of God

NEVER - NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE TIME - do we find Yahashua sitting ON or AT the right HAND
of God. - NEVER EVER IN THE MANUSCRIPTS

the Greek manuscripts always express Yahashua as both

- ἐν - en - - IN

and

" ἐξ - EX " = OUT OF " God

the evidence is there in the manuscripts exact and precise - NOT EVEN ONCE - NOT ONE SINGLE TIME - do we find Yahashua EVER, ever sitting " ON " the right HAND of God - truly, not in one single verse within the manuscript of Greek - this concept simply does not exist.

the Greek word " ON " is - ἐπί - epi -

never is Yahashua expressed in the Manuscripts as dwelling " ON " the right of the Father - only if the Trinity Doctrine is inserted into the original message by changing the original meaning and intent of the original message and context.

You must be getting paid by the word.

heavenbelieve · Aug 30, 2023

loosing blood and treasure and lost love is all i ask for my pay

williamjordan · Aug 30, 2023

heavenbelieve said:

Let me remind you what I said,

What part of this is not clear? Where did you get the idea that Trinitarians understand ἐκ as "instrumentality," when that is exactly the opposite of what I just said? ἐκ does not mean agency/instrumentality, nor can it. That is the entire point.

ἐν (not ἐκ) can convey instrumentality, but the entire point I'm making is: That is not how it is functioning in Heb. 10:12. The way ἐν is functioning in Heb. 10:12 is closer to the way ἐκ functions in Heb. 1:13. It is about "locality," not "instrumentality" -- that is the point.

How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

Senior Member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

evyaniy

Guest

Member

evyaniy

Guest

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member