Find mental health, disability, and social services, support and self-help groups, special recreation, shelter, and senior services. Non-profits, build free web pages.

Offers a wide variety of programs for Illinois residents, families, and communities, many centered around horticulture, gardening, and nutrition. Features details of programs, workshops, news and events, and contacts.

I had written:

>Let me get this straight. When Jesus says "not my will but your will
be
>done" to his God and Father he was not capable of being a "separate
>being"? Impossible.


Matthew wrote:


>No, not 'impossible'. ON the contrary: it is not only 'possible', it
is
>NECESSARY. Perhaps you would at least see it is 'not impossible' if
you >realized
>that 'your will' refers to the divine will, 'my will' to the _human_
will of
>Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you would admit this is eisegesis for nothing in Scripture
makes this qualifier. This is a trinitarian "explain-away" when any
scripture or scenario destroys the trinity.

You have a contradiction here that you wish to be a paradox. You have
said Jesus was God on earth because he had authority to forgive sins
and raise the dead but then you then proceed to exclude him from having
"divine will". You can't have it both ways. Jesus the BEING had his own
will whether you call it "divine" or "human"

Tell me Matthew was Jesus' "divine will" or "human will" calling YHWH
his Father "God" four times in Rev. 3:2,12?


>And we read those same passages and say that no, they are not
>'separate beings".

You didn't address my question on 1 Tim. 2:5 (and Heb. 9:15):

For Jesus to be a mediator he would HAVE TO be a separate entity by the
very nature of mediation. Jesus was as separate as Moses in this
regard. Jesus and Jehovah (YHWH) are separate beings.

>Nope! Remember: "I and the Father are one", "he who sees me, sees the
>Father".
>That does not sound 'separate' to me!

Well Jesus' own words show what he meant by the father and him being
"one" at John 17:11,21

11 "Also, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world and
I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own
name which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we
are.

21 "in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in
union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in
union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me
forth."

Unless you want me to believe Jesus' followers are not separate beings
you clearly see the "father and I are one" means nothing beyond simple
unity of purpose and thought.

>It is not mere 'subjetive separation'. If you could understand how
badly you
>have misread Irenaeus, Ignatius and Athenagoras, maybe, just maybe, I
>could
>start explaining this also.

We haven't talked about two of them yet. You did not respond to my
Irenaeus post and Athenagoras is outside the scope for he extended into
the 3rd Century, did he not? I never said there were no professed