Michael Terran

Well Done Sister Cheryl Well Done!
This is amazing, you been the sciptures out so clearly a little child can understand. I thank Our Lord for feeding us using you a Woman! Amen

Hello Michael,

Welcome,Greg Anderson said it the best. This is a nice site and with lots of Christ Love here. Check out all the issues and posts you will learn alot about scripture! Bye and God Bless from one Michael to another (Smile).

Hello all,

This is some great info for those who have a problem with women teaching! I’m going to put these tips on my website.

Hope all is well with you Cheryl, I’ve been so buzy with school. Keep up the great work for Our Lord & Saviour!

Hello Cheryl,

You hang in there and God will indeed lead you by His Holy Spirit. Be strong and don’t worry to much, God will give you the right words to speak in that very hour. Take care

Cheryl Quote

“A polygamist could be blameless if he came to Christ after he was already a polygamist, but Paul ruled that such a one would not be a good spiritual example. He could be a Christian, but not a leader”

Now the man could not be a leader. But what about the women (The Wifes)? No right, because there not the only wife? So the Husband and His Wifes could not be in leadership right? I guess my question is about the wifes (The Women). The women/wifes too were included in this as well, right? If she is not the “only” wife then she couldn’t be a leader.

Thanks for the 411 Cheryl, I showed disc 3 to my friend Bonnie and she loved it, this is great teaching! What I have notice is these ministries and churches that promote there opposing view don’t put it at the forefront! In there church memebership statment they unsually have it buried near the end of it’s many pages! It’s almost like they safe that bomb for the end LOL. On Harvest Church Memebership Statement the beginning (Page 1) is set up this way GOD, Jesus, Holy Spirit etc
Notice they put the word GOD but not FATHER. They never tell you there view on the FATHER.No mention of Jesus being “Eternally under the Father” yet thats the view that church promotes! Why hide there view if they think there so right. It’s almost like they want memebership…numbers instead of being up front on their issues. I’m starting to see this alot when it comes to this issue on the Trinity and Women. CBMW is up front on their view on there website BUT when they are Trying to bring/get people into there churches they don’t talk about these issues up front! Do you notice this cheryl or anyone reading this?

How is the Trinity DVD going? May the New Year Bring Many Blessings!

I send an e-mail to LivingWater Ministries (Ray Comfort) to promote WIM 4 disc set. I was very Friendly and Nice and Loving. Just sharing our view on this issue and they should check it out! (Smile)

Many Blessings, Michael

Hello Kim,

Your using your Gift of Pastoral Right now On This site. Thanks for the Bibical Teaching… Good Fruit! Keep going for Jesus and I’ll be right next to you on my knee’s scrubing the floor with you. (Smile)

Here is my research:

Yes, billy is correct, her name is means: “ancient” see the link in post # 162

However tranlators like to use/put the spelling “Priscilla” because the spelling/pronounment of “Prisca” sounds to much like the word Priest! Plus some tranlators try and also put her name in second place/postion instead of first!

With the above stated why go through all that trouble on the spelling of her name and putting/listing her in second postion! The answer: Because the tranlators put there own ideas into the text instead of letting the Bible text speak for itself! They didn’t want the reader to know a woman was in Leadership over a man.

ALL (Believers) are a Royal Priesthood! End of Story!

I’m trying to find the research on the name and Meaning “Prisca”! I just wish I could remember, I hate when that happens.

English form “Priscilla” the meaning is: “ancient”

But in the Greek it’s spelled “Prisca” and this spelling form means: Priest! It even sounds like our english word Priest only with a “sia” sound on the end of it. I think I was looking up Royal Priesthood in The Book Of Revelation and I saw a similar spelling.

My question is why not tranlate her name right from the Greek?Why add two L’s in there when the Greek doesn’t have it! Why change her name….it’s just like the issue with the name “Junia”! What are the tranlators hiding? also why put her name second when in the Greek it was first! Once again what are they hiding…..Female Leadership!

Any info or thoughts on this would be great!

I watched WIM disc 3 on 1 Tim 2 to refresh my mind! We need to know the “She” and “They”. Your right and I’m in full agreement with your research and teaching on it.
I was just showing another side (on the same side) that goes with your research. That one woman that was in false teaching/error would be “Murdering” a man (Her Husband)! My “support view” on 1 Tim 2 helps people understand what the infant Church was up against… A Full Blown Goddress Cult At That!

More back ground on the Ephesus infant Church and the City it was in!

The great temple of Artemis in Ephesus was one of the
seven wonders of the ancient world. The roof was
supported by l27 columns that were 65 feet high (roughly
seven storeys). The building was 221 feet wide and 425
feet long. Within the temple as an institution, women
exercised power on two levels. First, the temple was
controlled by a group of virgins and castrated men. The
latter were called Magabizes. Then second, under their
control were thousands of female priestess-slaves called
hierodules. There is specific evidence for priestesses,
receptionists, supervisors, drummers, bearers of the
sceptre, cleaners, acrobats, flute players and bankers. The
economy of the town and province was profoundly linked
to the temple as an institution (cf. Acts 19:23-29). The
entire town set aside one month a year for ceremonies
games and festivals connected to the cult.21 The focus of
all of this was Artemis, a female goddess with rows of
multiple breasts. Thus the Ephesians lived in a city and
district where the huge seven-storey high temple, a
wonder of the world, dominated the skyline. As an
institution it was naturally a powerful force in all aspects
of their lives. The focus of all this was a goddess whose
worship was controlled by virgins who shared leadership
with males only if they were castrated.
In such an atmosphere, what kind of female-male
relations would have developed? What possibility would
any male religious leadership have had for a sense of
dignity and self-respect? What kind of female attitudes
would have prevailed in such a city? How easy would it
have been for the values of the society to have penetrated
the Church? Castration being the ultimate violence
against the male, would not anti-male sexism in various
forms have been inevitable?.

1 Tim Cha 2.

The key to understanding the present
passage, then, is to recognize that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing
so (v. 11). They are to be “in full submission”; this is often taken to mean “to the men,” or “to their husbands,”
but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel—which of course would be the same attitude required of male learners. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as “I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man”—the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority
over women.” Why might Paul need to say this?

Read Acts Cha. 19:21-41
There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the primary religion—the biggest temple, the most famous shrine—was a female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.

Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organizing male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, such that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line?

That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis cult, but rather so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching, and leadership God is giving them.

“That’s for your test!” misspelled

Thanks for the test!

Hello Billy,

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4251

On this site it has your meaning which is correct but it also means Priest! I have to do some digging ok, I know I have the article with the info.
I love to be corrected when I’m wrong.That’s for your test! like I said let me check up on this again it’s been awhile, ok.

“different roles”

I always here that but it’s not found in scripture. For example who raises a child the mom or the dad…..quick answer, BOTH. The wife may stay home in the daytime and watch the kids so the husband may work then when he comes home, he should watch the kids so his wife can presue her Godly Callings, she can go to nightschool for bible courses or have a job etc. They have to work out a plan that works for them! The point is that Both (Husband/Wife) are to have an equal full share in the raising the kids/family life! This is for those who can have kids or want to have kids!

Paul said Marriage is Honorable BUT singleness is prefered! Most people never check with God first! Is this Marriage going to help me/us do more for the Lord or will marriage hinder the Lords plans for me/us?!
Marriage is not something you jump into!

I never ruled marriage out for me (I’m 29yrs) but as of right now I can do more for the Lord in my singleness then if I was Married! For me Marriage would hinder my work for the Lord! I have the gift of singleness from God. Now if God gives me the gift of marriage one day our oneness/unity/teamwork will advance the Gospel better then if we were both single! It’s putting God first and His Will/Leading, not my own!

Jesus broke alot of roles or traditions of his day because it was making the word of God void!

The name “Priscilla’ is the english tranlation. In the Greek her name is SPELLED “Prisca” which means PRIEST! So her name should be spelled Prisca which is pronouned (Pre-si-a’). Her name means priest. I did alot of research on her name because I can across that spelling one day when I was checking the Greek to English! A good rule is to always look up the greek spelling and go from there, I did and look what I found out.

Jude
14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

Revelation 19

8It was given to her to clothe herself in (A)fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the (B)righteous acts of the saints.

14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in (AT)fine linen, (AU)white and clean, were following Him on white horses.

1 Corinthians 6:2
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?

The point I’m making with these scriptures is this, we come back with Christ at the end of the 7 year Trib.. Notice “The Saints” ” The Bride” are made up of Male and Female Born-Again believes (On white Horses prepared for war!). Christ is treating the body of believes as ONE! We know Christ does the fighting but we are all with Him together as One. Also in the next life The Saints (Male & Female) will judge the world! Just from these passages alone I see no division but biblical equality/unity!

Also about the OT being only male leaders, we have to remember that God is working “Within” a cursed sinful world! Once there was enough Godly men that rise up the Godly Women would take there Equal rule along side them without hinder. Just like Adam is Made first and then Woman (Eve), then she comes alone side him to take her Equal rule with him! We do know that God does call Women into Leadership and sometime a woman is Gods first and only choice. I do see a pattern in the old testament and in the New.

The 12 apostles being only male because the 12 apostles represent the 12 son’s of Jacob/12 tribes:

Revelation 21
12It had a great and high wall, (AJ)with twelve (AK)gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.

13There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the w[est.

14](logos4:///Bible/Es 14)And the wall of the city had (AL)twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the (AM)twelve apostles of the Lamb.

He (Jesus) was letting Israel/Jerusalem know he wants to make a New Israel/New Covenant/Bringing Salvation. If Jesus had put a women as one of the 12 it would have been to confusing for the Jews at that time! They needed to look back to scripture to see this! Later we see Junia (Female) as an apostle not of the 12 but never the less an apostle like Paul! In the end it all balances out!

Also we know God is not done with Little Natural Israel as a Nation.

Hello all, thanks for your kind words and yes I am learning how to do things in Love, God Bless This Site! Gerald e-mailed me back and this is the good fruit of Love when it is ripe and done God’s Way! When done in Love this is the ideal reply one should get! I hope that after reading all my e-mails to Gerald folks that yes we must done it in Love and pick our words carefully.

I thank God for Cheryl ,Molly and Don and others for helping me do this in Love and The Holy Spirit hellped me to put this in action! God is good and after all the long e-mails back an forth I couldn’t ask for a better reply, just read and you be the judge.

The door is still open and I can’t wait to send Gerald a copy of the Trinity DVD, since “Harvest Church” is his home church and if the DVD through the Spirit convicks him that Church might change. I’m just the messager……messager of Truth In Love thanks guys!

The e-mail is below:

Michael,

Thanks for your kind email. I sense your genuine heart of concern in it, and I appreciate that. May God lead us both into the fullness of truth in this matter.

And yes, please do send the DVD. I would be interested in viewing it.
Many blessings,
Gerald

After reading all your replys I put all your Godly wisdom into action and e-mailed Gerald one last final time!

To Gerald,

QUOTE:(as well as the way in which you call into question the salvation of those who don’t agree with your particular brand of trinitarianism.) END QUOTE;

Maybe I come on strong I admit that, but I don’t want Jesus to say to you Gerald “I never knew you”. This is a Big issue because it has to do with the Doctrine of God/Jesus. Who do you say Jesus is? I didn’t mean to question your salvation but please understand the issue at hand is BIG.

How many things can you get wrong about someone before you step in and say you have a diiferent person…another Jesus,The one the apostles have not preached! That’s all I’m saying, I say this in Love…Great Love, please understand.

When I stand before The Lord someday as we all will, I don’t want to have any bloodguilt on my hands like Jude & Paul said, Contending for The Faith etc etc.

Acts 20:25-31
25″Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[a] Be shepherds of the church of God,[b] which he bought with his own blood. 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

When the Trinity DVD comes out (In production) I will send your Church a copy,ok. I really have a heart for Truth and My prayer for you and your Church that you Let God’s Word do the teaching and not what man said it thinks it’s saying or trying to make it say, for that matter! In the meantime thank you for all your replys (Even though I disagree with you) and dialogging, ok.

Blessings, Michael Terran

To: Don Johnson, Molly,Cheryl,Lin etc

You guys are so right. I know I can come on strong but must do all things in Love. What I don’t want to do is make someone think they have The Jesus of Scripture when in fact they have another Jesus the one the apostles have not preached.

The opposing side are saying Jesus is Eternally Lesser to the Father in Function etc. Would believing in that mean they have another Jesus? How many things can you get wrong about someone before you step in an say “that’s not Jesus of The Bible”! I’m just putting the question out there folks, that’s all.

This is a BIG Error in the Church because this is indirectly attacking his being by attcking his function eternally! With this issue at hand is there going to be another pullout like in Luthers day!Reformers pulled out of Rome for Truth and now Reformers pullout from Reformers to uphold Truth once again! History repeats itself.

Just a thought folks

Blessings to all!

Actually, the first Alpha and Omega reference in chapter one is to “the Lord God”, but the last one in chap. 22 is to Jesus.

Yes, But lets look more closely shall we…..

In REVE. Cha. 1 The Almighty is Jesus…who’s coming or is to come? Jesus!

Reve 1:8
8″I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Reve 22:12,13,16
12″Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

16″I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

verse 16 tells us who is speaking and who is calling himself the Alpha/Omega First/Last Beginning/End and The One Who Is Coming! If we keep the context of the book of Revelation The Alpha/Omega is Jesus cha. 22 tells us and uses the same words in Cha 1 of Reve..

OF THE BOOK Of REVELATION:
The “FIRST” cha (1) is speaking of Jesus and The “LAST” cha (22) Jesus is speaking, Yes he truely is the First and the Last!

once again who is coming…Jesus The Almighty!

My reply to Gerald his quotes are in ()

To Gerald,

There is no lack of info your just blinded to the facts

(you call into question the salvation of those who don’t agree with your particular brand of trinitarianism. )

Yeah, I am calling your salvation into question because your doctrine of God/Trinity is wrong, Your views are anti-biblical. It’s another Jesus, the ones the apostles have not preached! Your Jesus is Eternally (Under The Father) Lesser somehow in Function/Power, The Jesus Of the Bible the one I believe in is not eternally lesser because he is Eternally God with FULL POWER!

(You quote Grudem as if his argument is self-evidently wrong)

By his own words he is tried! You can’t say there co-equal in Being then on the other hand say there not co-equal in authority. You can’t have it both ways, if Jesus is lesser Eternally in authority, that would also apply to his being because he is some how lesser to the Father in someway Eternally. Your avoiding my question your not answering it, so you go and get the book and look up what I typed in my last e-mail and then come to the table with some meat.

(It was not a rejection of economic diversity within the Godhead )

Your wrong, the arians were trying to read back the incarnation into the Eternal Trinity not just attacking his being but his workings.

Also in “relation” we have The Father,The Son, The Holy Spirit it’s Dispositional not a sub-ordering. We must remember Neither one is before or after the other.

(Your failure to see a distinction between economy and ontology is your primary problem. )

I have not failure and that’s not my problem but yours! You can’t apply something Eternally to Christ economy and say it doesn’t make him lesser somehow Ontology! The minute you do something like that you indirectly mess with his being!

Read this part in the Athanisian Creed

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Augustine, the Cappodocians, Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, NEVER put Jesus ‘Eternally” Under The Father or implyed that.NEVER, they never divided the workings of The 3 Divine Persons only distinguished them because they work with one will never divided. When one does something the other 2 are there working as well!

I think I need to deal with someone from you Church is higher up who knows more about the Trinity/Church History then you do.Someone who has studied deeply and did there homework.

You never answered my questions. You want to read the incarnation back into the Eternal Trinity, then what if we use your same understanding/teaching and read Creation back into the Eternal Trinity? Your understanding/teaching is very flawed, it leads to many errors. There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end leads to death!

Bye, Michael

I thought it was over but evil never dies fast enough anyway this guy Gerald e-mails me against after I kicked the dust off! This is what he send me.

Michael,

Your zeal is to be commended, but your lack of information on this issue is troubling, as well as the way in which you call into question the salvation of those who don’t agree with your particular brand of trinitarianism.

You quote Grudem as if his argument is self-evidently wrong. You then draw non sequitur conclusions from his statements that he himself would never draw. Not particularly convincing. Your failure to see a distinction between economy and ontology is your primary problem.

The other place where you need more work is in your understanding of the Christological/Trinitarian controversies of the early church. The Arian controversy was about ontological inequality/equality—was the Son con-substantial with the father? Was he homoousios (same substance) with the Father, or was he a created being and thus only homoiousios (similar substance) with the Father? The Nicene Creed was a rejection of ontological inequality between Father and Son. It was not a rejection of economic diversity within the Godhead. In fact, both the Western and Eastern sides of the Church affirmed the eternal generation of both the Son and the Spirit from the Father and referred to the Father as the “font” or “source” of divinity (Augustine, the Cappodocians, Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, et al.). This demonstrates they viewed the Son and the Spirit as occupying some form of a subordinate position in relation to the Father. Yet they did not then draw the illogical conclusion (as do you) that therefore the Son and the Spirit must no longer be con-substantial with the Father.

And now I too would probably do best to keep my feet clean.

Blessings,

Gerald

This was a final e-mail I send to Gerald, just one more final plee so to speak. Two feet, Two Feet to kick dust off…..Two final e-mails this being the second and final! Pray He sees the Error of his ways about Jesus!

To Gerald,

Hello Gerald,

Thought you should Professor Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology says, ” The Father and the son relate to one another as a father and a son relate to one another in a human family:the Father directs and has authority over the Son and the Son obeys.” 28 Later he makes exactly the same point and adds,”The Father has greater authority. He has a leadership role among all the members of the Trinity.” 29

28 Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 249.
29 Ibid., page 459.

Check this out, look and find out what Wayne Grudem said about Jesus in his book Systematic Theology . More words or less that Jesus is not a leader or the Holy spirit, then he is saying more or less there not fully equal, you then have One big God and Two little ones so much for the Trinity (Tri-Unity)! This is plain Heresy at the Highess and if you can swallow that your pretty far gone in my book! You Unintentionally have embraced fundamental aspects of the Arian heresy in its varied forms, producing a strange amalgam of truth and error! You need to correct your Error!

All the fourth-century Arians focused on what was revealed in the economy of salvation,arguing that the subordination of the Son seen in the incarnation was to be read back into the eternal Godhead, or as we would say today,the immanent Trinity.From the time of Athanasius onward, those who opposed thinking of the Son as eternally subordinated argued that while the Son does reveal the Father, he does not reveal the Father or himself exactly as they exist in communion with the Spirit in eternity.There is correspondence but not identity between the economic and immanent Trinity.

Evangelicals who argue for the eternal subordination of Son today follow the Arian trajectory. They argue that if Jesus was subordinated in the incarnation, he must be subordinated in eternity.The economic Trinity is to be equated with the immanent Trinity.I argue that Scripture makes the triune God as he is in eternity primary and foundational,seeing the revelation of the Father,Son, and Spirit in history and Scripture as accurately conveying truth about God but not comprehensively or exhaustively.

What if someone wanted to read Creation back into the Eternal Trinity! Did God create himself! You see the Error of doing that, reading the (Works of God) things back into the Eternal Trinity! We know God has No beginning or end etc!
But can you now see the Error your doing Gerald!

You see Gerald, God is greater than what he has revealed to frail human minds and what the human mind can comprehend.God the Son in the incarnation did take the form of a servant for our salvation, but Scripture also teaches that he is coequal God,the Lord.The incarnation is only one scene in God’s unfolding revelation of himself in the Son.The scriptures also reaveal the Son as the cocreator and after the resurrection as the ruler of the universe.So I hold that what is known of the immanent Trinity is given in revelation, but the econmy of salvation is not the totality of the revelation given by God of himself in scripture,and the revelation given does not exhaust who and what God is.

You also need to test yourself to see if your are in The Faith 2Cor.13:5!

2 Corinthians 13:5 (Amplified Bible)
5Examine and test and evaluate your own selves to see whether you are holding to your faith and showing the proper fruits of it. Test and prove yourselves [[a]not Christ]. Do you not yourselves realize and know [thoroughly by an ever-increasing experience] that Jesus Christ is in you–unless you are [counterfeits] disapproved on trial and rejected?

2 Corinthians 13:5 (New American Standard Bible)
5(A)Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; (B)examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you (C)fail the test?

Now all the dust is kicked off, This is all done in Love, bye

Michael Terran

The fact is that they work together in unity. The Holy Spirit is sent to us from Jesus from the Father and Jesus comes to us and the Father comes to us. It isn’t just one. It is all three.

Your so right, put that in the Trinity DVD with the scriptures in John!

At my Church this was the first day I was back on a Sunday? The Pastor was speaking on Acts Cha. 8 and on The Holy Spirit etc. He said Holy Spirit 3rd person of the Trinty Is Co-Equal Co-Eternal etc. But then he said He (The Spirit) has a different role! Now the Teaching wasn’t on the Trinity and he didn’t go into anymore details, I was like, ok I’m not going to split hairs now because he didn’t have time to explain his statement further. It is truth they do different things BUT the other two are right there also working (One In Will). I just wish the Pastor would have said something more on the line like this:

The Holy Spirit is doing the role of working in believes hearts/The Church and covicting people of sin etc. An the Father and Son are doing there parts too with The Spirit.The 3 Persons/Beings Working as ONE.
Like I said when ever the 3 Persons of the Godhead do something by themselfs we find the other two right there working. Like Creation..The Father Spoke It, Jesus Is The Word, The Spirit was over the waters etc. Each one is doing something different but there all working as ONE…Creating! Creation would have never been made if there was a conflick of wills! They Work Together as a Team! You Can’t have One with out the Other Two.

Revelation 3:20
20lo, I have stood at the door, and I knock; if any one may hear my voice, and may open the door, I will come in unto him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Revelation 3:21
21He who is overcoming — I will give to him to sit with me in my throne, as I also did overcome and did sit down with my Father in His throne.

Just these two scriptures right here show Jesus using his own will and Him sitting on the Fathers Throne! Jesus is not only at the right hand!

Also in sunday school today we had a great study in James Cha. 5 and we focus on verse 12. The teacher who’s name is Walt went into the culture which is very important. The Jewish leaders had two kinds of Oaths one they can keep (swearing by Heavenly things) the other they could break (swearing by earthly things) if they wanted to! So James Corrects this error. But we need more scriptures, so Walt showed us many passages where God made Oaths and Abraham made Oaths etc! So what does this all mean: Can we or can we not make oaths, marriage vows are a type of oath!

Simply…Yes we can make oaths but you MUST follow through with it even if it may cost you, If you let your Yes mean Yes and your No,No. Then you don’t need all these oaths for this an that but you MUST follow through (Mean What You Say and Do It). However we are all sinful and because of that we do have certian oaths that are good, like (Marriage Vows) (Testimony In Court/Swearing to tell the Truth!). It’s a binding agreement that keeps us sinful people in check to stay on the right course so to speak. But if you tried to build a whole doctrine on this one scripture alone you would make the bible say something it doesn’t (You can NEVER take an oath)! This relates about this topic on the Trinity, the opposing side uses one scripture like 1cor 15:28 and build this whole teaching about Christ yet forgetting to look at the Whole Scope of Scripture/Other Passages.

Why would God tell us to “Test Everything,Hold Fast To The Good” “Contend For The Faith”etc Because God knows His Word can an would be abused/misunderstood in the endtimes by people who should know better!

James 5 (Young’s Literal Translation)
12And before all things, my brethren, do not swear, neither by the heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath, and let your Yes be Yes, and the No, No; that under judgment ye may not fall.

1 Corinthians 15:28 (Young’s Literal Translation)
28and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.

My final e-mail to Gerald. I have be in dialog with him on this issue but it came to the point where I have to kick the dust of so to speak. I want to show the Love of Christ but there has to be a time when the Holy Spirit must take over an convict the person because we can talk till were blue in the face. Cheryl is doing a great job with the Trinity DVD, presenting our views and the otherside views on one DVD to show the different on what the Bible is really teaching. Once the DVD is out, the issue will be much easyer to talk about because all the Info/Creeds (History)/Scripture/Views/Quote will all be in one DVD! So I can just buy an hand out DVDs who want to know about this issue! Anyway my final e-mail to Greald is below:

Hello Gerald,

HIS QUOTE:
Nothing you have written has adequately addressed this passage. END QUOTE;

God may be all in all.” Jesus is God and can function no less in the Eternal age! Your trying to read the incarnation what God in the Flesh did in human form (Only empty himself for aliitle while) into the Eternal Trinity. Maybe you should read John 1:1, Jesus before the incarnation he was not flesh or in Human form.

HIS QUOTE:
It does not merely relate to Jesus time of earthly incarnation (incidentally, his incarnation is eternal—he never ceases to be human). END QUOTE;

Like I said before I don’t think scripture tell us that Jesus stops being human, but it appears that God will appear in his unity so that God will be all and in all.

In scripture there is a duel (Double) account of Christ! You believe that the incarnation tells use Everything about the Triune Eternal God. The icarnation only shows what God is willing to do to save his wayward Children, stooping down to our level to do it. You lose that Co-Equality of the GodHead when you do that to Jesus saying he is under the Father Eternally. To apply something that Jesus is lesser in Function etc to the Father. The problem of “equality of being with equality of function” is that the inequality of the function necessitates an inequality of being. That’s what your saying! You can’t do that.In the end there is no longer any need for the submission of the human Son since God will be all in all.

The ancient Nicene theologians argued that everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working together with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work inseparable, for their work is always the work of the one god. Because of this unity of will, the Trinity cannot involve the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.

Eternal subordination can only exist if the Son’s will is at least conceivably different from the Father’s. But Nicene orthodoxy says it is not. The Son’s will cannot be different from the Father’s because it is the Father’s. They have but one will as they have but one being. Otherwise they would not be one God. If there were relations of command and obedience between the Father and the Son, there would be no Trinity at all but rather three Gods.[43]

In explaining why the Bible speaks of the Son as being subordinate to the Father, the great theologian Athanasius argued that Scripture gives a “double account” of the son of God – one of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the incarnation, and the other of his eternal divine status.[44] For Athanasius, the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry. Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity.

Like Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers also insisted there was no economic inequality present within the Trinity. As Basil wrote: “We perceive the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing differences or variation; from this identity of operation we necessarily infer the unity of nature.”[45]

Augustine also rejected the idea of an economic hierarchy within the Trinity. He claimed that the three persons of the Trinity “share the inseparable equality one substance present in divine unity.”[46] Because the three persons are one in their inner life, this means that for Augustine their works in the world are one. For this reason, it is an impossibility for Augustine to speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying as if there could be a conflict of wills within the eternal Trinity.

John Calvin also spoke at length about the doctrine of the Trinity. Like Athanasius and Augustine before him, he concluded that Philippians 2:4-11 prescribed how scripture was to be read correctly. For him the Son’s obedience is limited to the incarnation. It is indicative of his true humanity assumed for our salvation.[47]

Much of this work is summed up in the Athanasian Creed. This creed stresses the unity of the Trinity and the equality of the persons. It ascribes equal divinity, majesty, and authority to all three persons. All three are said to be “almighty” and “Lord” (no subordination in authority; “none is before or after another” (no hierarchical ordering); and “none is greater, or less than another” (no subordination in being or nature). Thus, since the divine persons of the Trinity act with one will, there is no possibility of hierarchy-inequality in the Trinity.

Since the 1980’s, some evangelical theologians have come to the conclusion that the members of the Trinity may be economically unequal while remaining ontologically equal. This theory was put forward by George W. Knight III in his 1977 book The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women, states that the Son of God is eternally subordinated in authority to God the Father.[48]

This conclusion was used as a means of supporting the main thesis of his book: that women are permanently subordinated in authority to their husbands in the home and to male leaders in the church, despite being ontologically equal. Subscribers to this theory insist that the Father has the role of giving commands and the Son has the role of obeying them.

Your Church and You are trying to teach that the Son of God is eternally subordinated in authority to God the Father. That’s False the early Christians never believed that. I believe you are inbracing a doctrine of Demons.

I CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING AND THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN CHANGE YOUR FALSE VIEWS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT, SO YOU ARE ALL IN MY PRAYERS BUT I HAVE TO KICK THE DUST OFF MY FEET NOW.

I pray your hearts will melt for Truth, Michael

“Misspelled”

The woman said to God “The Sepent Beguilded me and I did EAT!”