County of Wexford

County departments, court system, and County commissioner information and contacts.

Kelly Road Internet Services

Internet consulting, web site design, web site hosting, e-commerce, computer programming, web marketing.

MIGenWeb Archives - Cemetery

Wexford county cemetery records available for download in text file format.

United Way of Wexford County

Supports over 25 local health and human service programs, a variety of emerging needs, and works as a convener and problem solver in many areas.

Wexford County

County Clerk Office.

Wexford County Civic Center

Information about the Wexford County civic center, with auditorium, event calendar, hockey, racetrack, and ice arena.

Wexford County Sheriff Department

Information about staff, marine patrol, Wexford County police explorers, and D.A.R.E. program.

Wexford County, Michigan - MultiMag

In article , dell12345 says...

>the context of Isa 9 does confirm that Isa 9:6 is in the
>future, that’s why Bible translators used 'will/shall' for
>this text and that this does not happen from the past as
>you are implying. If this title happened in the past, and
>continue to happen 'shall/will' is not the proper word to
>use but since most Bible translations agree in using
>shall/will, this means that the title 'Mighty God' has not
>been given yet at that time.

No, it means it has not been given to the _child_ yet. Not
the same at all.

>The title Mighty God is used for the Son (in the future
>tense, will/shall, therefore with a beginning) and ALSO for
>the Father (which has no beginning, always is the Mighty
>God). But only the Father is called "Almighty God".

You miss the point: the same title "Mighty God" is used ONLY
for the one true God. It is used for both Father and Son
ONLY because as God they are one.

>Your explanation of Trinity is another version.

"Another version"? Another version of WHAT?

> What I stated, is a version of another Trinitarian that I
>talked to.

No, what you stated was not Trinity at all. You are using it
as a straw-man. Whether or not you heard from someone else
is irrelevant. YOU are using it as a convenient straw-man.

>Well, as you said, that person’s version is a slander to
>God, which is a point that I agree with.

Good. So why could you not avoid the same sin of slander?
Instead, you insisted on slandering all Trinitarians by
insisting that that _was_ Trinitarian dogma!

>The parable of Luke 20:9-16 will tell you the difference of
>Son and the Father and their being, their uniqueness.

No, it does no such thing.

>As I have stated, when the Father sent his son, the WHOLE
>being of the 'Son' went, not just a portion.

And if you really understood Trinity, this would not
surprise you at all.

>Now, you say that Jesus is omnipresent. The word
>'omnipresent' is defined by m-w.com as 'present in all
>places at all times'. Well, Jesus' being present is NOT at
>all times.

Not true. He _is_ present everywhere at all times. It only
is His body that is spatially limited.

>There is a condition:

For where there are two or three gathered together in my
name, there I am in their midst. (v20)

>Only when there are 2 or 3 gathered together in his name,
>is Jesus present.

No. That does not follow.

>Therefore you cannot say that Jesus is present in ALL
>PLACES AT ALL TIMES.

Yes, I can, and I do.