Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[robertroberg]

130 times Jesus called himself a ben Adam, a son of Adam, a son of man -a mortal.

Since God is immortal and cannot die, and Jesus died, he was not immortal and therefore could not be God.

[drmilo]

But i posted a verse showing that Jesus does not know all things. and can't be God because he doesn't know all things.

He can't be God because he is not equal to God by his own words.

Every being in heaven is greater then man. So if Jesus emptied himself of what he was while in heaven he would be less then what he was. that does not prove he is God.

How can one person of God subject all things to another part of God ? God is God period.

If three persons make up God they all would have to be fully equal do you agree ?

Jesus, the man on Earth, the Christ, is not omnipresent or omniscent. But, right now, do you pray to Jesus? Do you ask him to forgive your sins? Do you ask him to intercede for you to the Father? Do you believe he hears you? Do you believe he has the power to do all that he promised to do for you -- if you merely ask for him to do so?

How can he do these things, if he is not omnipresent and omniscent, and omnipotent? How can he hear the prayers of everyone praying to him? How can he intercede on everyone's beahalf, answering all those who pray to him? How can he fulfill the promises made to each and everyone one of us who believes in him, and accepts his sacrafice? Did he do all this on the cross, or is he still active in our lives now? Because he must possess the attributes of ominpotence, omnipresence, and omniscience now in order to be active in our lives now.

I believe he is active, and that he does hear me and all those who call on his name. I believe this because he is God.

[Reeder]

130 times Jesus called himself a ben Adam, a son of Adam, a son of man -a mortal.

Since God is immortal and cannot die, and Jesus died, he was not immortal and therefore could not be God.

Jesus is immortal now. So what does that make Him? (for the record, I'm not saying "immortality" means you are "God")

[Reeder]

Jesus, the man on Earth, the Christ, is not omnipresent or omniscent. But, right now, do you pray to Jesus? Do you ask him to forgive your sins? Do you ask him to intercede for you to the Father? Do you believe he hears you? Do you believe he has the power to do all that he promised to do for you -- if you merely ask for him to do so?

How can he do these things, if he is not omnipresent and omniscent, and omnipotent? How can he hear the prayers of everyone praying to him? How can he intercede on everyone's beahalf, answering all those who pray to him? How can he fulfill the promises made to each and everyone one of us who believes in him, and accepts his sacrafice? Did he do all this on the cross, or is he still active in our lives now? Because he must possess the attributes of ominpotence, omnipresence, and omniscience now in order to be active in our lives now.

I believe he is active, and that he does hear me and all those who call on his name. I believe this because he is God.

I fail to see why Jesus would have to be "omnipresent" to fulfill any of what you just said. Omnipotent and omniscent, yes......but omnipresent??

[robertroberg]

Here's a question, Warrior. If you believe that the Spirit of God has led you to the conclusion you have come to, does that mean that those of us who believe in the Trinity are not being led by the Sprit of God?

I do not presume to answer for Warrior, but I would say "of course you are being led by the spirit or you would not bother debating this."

For most of my adult life I taught the trinity and never questioned it. I was forced to examine it when I met a oneness pentecostal who showed me that logically the scriptures say that Jesus is YHVH. Therefore there is only one God whose name is Jesus. He appeared in three roles, but when you get to heaven all you will see is Jesus.

I spent 10 years studying the trinity and came to this conclusion:
If Jesus was a man and not God and I worship him as God, then the devil has replaced God with a man and I have worshiped the creature instead of the creator, I would then be an idolater.

This led me to carefully examine the words of Jesus. He never said he was God but said he had a God. He calls us to worship his God. He never asks us to worship himself. So to obey Jesus I must worship his God and not him. I must not hallow the name of Jesus, but hallow the name of his God. I saw that Jesus was not the Father because he said if I loved him he and his Father would come and make their abode with me.

The phrase you use Drmilo "Led by the spirit" implies a journey. That is the journey I am on and where I am at. It's only when we think we have arrived that we quench the spirit. By that I mean I don't claim to have arrived or have answers written in stone.

I do believe however when the spirit leads you to carefully examine the Trinity and see how it comes out of Greek mythology and philosophy and has no root in the words of Jesus you will be set free saying things like

three in one, triune, the father is the son the father is not the son, the Holy Spirit is the son the Holy Spirit is not the son. The father is the Holy Spirit the Father is not the Holy spirit etc. Or three persons in one nature or substance etc. etc.

[drmilo]

Jesus says he was the only one to ascend to heaven and return. As a young man he was taken up and instructed.

Please provide us with the scripture that states this...

[robertroberg]

Please provide us with the scripture that states this...

I'm not sure of your point, but we know Jesus did not go to paradise that day but into the grave for 72 hours where he was unconscious -flat out dead.

[drmilo]

Yes that will work for me.

I do not reject anything that harmonizes with Jesus words and feel free to use OT quotes if you feel they harmonize. John 1 does harmonize if rightly translated. It does not say Jesus was with God it says the word was with God.

En archê ên ho logos,
In beginning was the Wisdom Angel, the Memra, the logos

kai ho logos ên
and the angel was

pros ton theon, kai theos ên ho logos.
beside the Eloah and an elohim was the angel.

The Wisdom Angel was there in the beginning with Father. It was through the agency of the Wisdom Angel that everything else came into being. Without the Wisdom Angel not one single thing came into being. It (the Wisdom Angel) was the mediator of life and that life gave light to humans. See how it continues to shine and the darkness has no power over it.

“Against wisdom wickedness does not prevail.” (Wisdom of Solomon 7:30 Septuagint.)

Through the Wisdom Angel, Father enlightened a man named John ben Z’kharYah and sent him to teach about the light. John was not the source of the light, but a mediator of the light. He taught that Father was the source of the light and encouraged all to believe, and turn to Father who gives life and light to everyone born into the world. Through the agency of the Wisdom Angel, Father was in the world, the world was made by him, yet the world was ignorant of him. He came to his chosen people, the Hebrews, century after century, but most of them did not believe in him.

Wisdom went forth to dwell among the sons of men, but (it) obtained not a habitation. Enoch 42:2

However a remnant did believe in him, and to as many as received him, and honored his name in their hearts, he gave them the right to become his children; not children born of flesh and blood parents, but children “spirit-born,” “fathered from above” by Father who is the father of all Spirits.

Panta di’ autou egeneto
All things through itself it made

Kai ho kosmos di’ autou egeneto,
and the cosmos through itself it made

Kai ho logos sarx egeneto
And the angel flesh it made

kai eskênôsen en hêmin,
and it tented among us

So the Logos angel was not made flesh , it made flesh and tented in the body of Jesus. Jesus said his body was the tent (Tabernalce -temple). The angel presence of the father was in him. "The father is in me."

Where does it say "Wisdom Angel"?

It says "logos" which is word. It further says the Word was made flesh and we beheld his Glory as the only begotton of the Father -- this is Jesus.

I know of no one who translates John 1:1 as "In the beginning was Jesus...."

[Reeder]

I'm not sure of your point, but we know Jesus did not go to paradise that day but into the grave for 72 hours where he was unconscious -flat out dead.

His body was dead, yes, but what about His spirit?

1 Peter 3:18-20

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


When did Christ do this?

[drmilo]

Hi drmilo,
would it be fair to summarize your view to say God is like an actor who plays three different roles in a movie?

No. That would be one person playin three different parts.

God is a triune being -- a trinity of persons. One being separated into three different persons, but still only One in Being.

All analogies of man by necessity fall short in "describing" the nature of God, but I believe the best analogy I can come up with is the verb "To Be." The verb To Be is a single verb that has a specific meaning. But in its relation to the English Language, it also consists of three words (shown in the "persons" of speech): Am, Is, Are. Each word holds a different function -- Am is connected with I and enhances the meaning of "to be" to a specific person -- the speaker; Is connects with He/She/It and enhances the meaning of "to be" to a specific person: the one about whom the speaker is speaking; Are is connnected to "you" and enhances the meaning of "to be" to a specific person: the one to whom the speaker is speaking. The three words make up one verb -- each word serves a different purpose and function, but they all are one in "nature" in that they are one verb.

[drmilo]

Technical question: How do we put graphics into a post?

I went to user cp and uploaded a signiture picture.

[robertroberg]

Please provide us with the scripture that states this...

Gladly, but if you were a true Berean you would search yourself.

“And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man.” (John 3:13)

Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended? ( Pro 30:4 )

Who has gone up to the heavens and taken it (Wisdom), or brought it down from the clouds? (Baruch 3:29)

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

The fact that he is called a man-child emphasizes that he was not an adult when God brought him to heaven and filled him with wisdom and commissioned him.

He often said he had been above. It was in his conversation with Nicodemus that he said. If you can't understand earthly thing how ill you understand the heavenly things (I learned) when I ascended to heaven..

The Sunday after his death he told Mary not to touch him for he had not ascended. Sunday evening he told the Disciples to touch him, so he must have ascended after he saw Mary and returned the same day. 40 days later he ascended the final time. That would have been his third ascension.

[robertroberg]

No. That would be one person playin three different parts.

God is a triune being -- a trinity of persons. One being separated into three different persons, but still only One in Being.

All analogies of man by necessity fall short in "describing" the nature of God, but I believe the best analogy I can come up with is the verb "To Be." The verb To Be is a single verb that has a specific meaning. But in its relation to the English Language, it also consists of three words (shown in the "persons" of speech): Am, Is, Are. Each word holds a different function -- Am is connected with I and enhances the meaning of "to be" to a specific person -- the speaker; Is connects with He/She/It and enhances the meaning of "to be" to a specific person: the one about whom the speaker is speaking; Are is connnected to "you" and enhances the meaning of "to be" to a specific person: the one to whom the speaker is speaking. The three words make up one verb -- each word serves a different purpose and function, but they all are one in "nature" in that they are one verb.

Nice try DRmilo, but it only further muddies the water. Three words are not one verb. I can say I have a wagon pulled by a team of donkeys. They are three donkeys making up one team, but they are still three separate donkeys. You can say I have three separate persons who make up one being but they are still three separate persons.
1. a God called Father
2. A God called Son'
3. A God called Holy Spirit.
To say these are only one God is to deny the laws of math, language, physics, and logic. Three can never be one. However if you think that I'd like to exchange some money with you.

But if you want to play the game define what you mean by person. Does a person have a soul? So are there three souls in your one being?

[robertroberg]

I went to user cp and uploaded a signiture picture.

I'm still new here. Where do I find user CP and can we upload our own images?

[drmilo]

I'm not sure of your point, but we know Jesus did not go to paradise that day but into the grave for 72 hours where he was unconscious -flat out dead.

I want the scripture that says he was taken up and instructed as a young man.

[Reeder]

I'm still new here. Where do I find user CP and can we upload our own images?

In the top, left-hand corner of your screen above where it says "Sean Hannity."

[robertroberg]

His body was dead, yes, but what about His spirit?

1 Peter 3:18-20

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


When did Christ do this?

This is why I reject 1 Peter Reeder.

If you say his spirit never died then what died on the cross? If it was just flesh than we are forced to say only part of Jesus died. Flesh died for me.

And when you say spirit if you believe Jesus was God and God is spirit, then you cannot say God died for me for according to Peter God (spirit) never died but made a trip to hell.

Once again you are stuck with a sack of skin hanging on the cross. Did a sack of skin die for you?

If Jesus was on an evangelistic mission to hell then he never died, so he could not resurrect. He could only reunite with his sack of skin and then the only thing that resurrected was his flesh.

If you follow Peter you are lost. Stick to the one vine, one master,

"if my words remain in me and you continue to obey them, then you are my disciple indeed.

[Reeder]

This is why I reject 1 Peter Reeder.

If you say his spirit never died then what died on the cross? If it was just flesh than we are forced to say only part of Jesus died. Flesh died for me.

And when you say spirit if you believe Jesus was God and God is spirit, then you cannot say God died for me for according to Peter God (spirit) never died but made a trip to hell.

Once again you are stuck with a sack of skin hanging on the cross. Did a sack of skin die for you?

If Jesus was on an evangelistic mission to hell then he never died, so he could not resurrect. He could only reunite with his sack of skin and then the only thing that resurrected was his flesh.

If you follow Peter you are lost. Stick to the one vine, one master,

"if my words remain in me and you continue to obey them, then you are my disciple indeed.

If you want to reject 1st Peter, be my guest. But I think you're failing to comprehend the nature of Christ's sacrifice. He didn't just "die" on the cross. A lot of people have died for their friends. Christ suffered both body and spirit - more than man could EVER suffer. He suffered first in the Garden of Gathsemane:

Luke 22:39-44

39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.



This was part of the atonement. In some way, unfathomable to the human mind, Christ took upon himself all the horrors that Satan could ever inflict upon mankind. He ultimately overcame them all.......all the sins of mankind from the beginning to the end. This suffering was so great, that even Christ wished for "the cup to be removed." But He understood that mankind's salvation rested on His shoulders, and He submitted to the will of the Father.

I believe the same suffering He went through in the Garden returned when He was on the cross.......which is why He said "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" The Father withdrew His presence from the Son, so that Christ could overcome the world alone - without ANY divine intervention from the Father.

And as a side note, I don't believe Jesus and The Father are the same being, and I don't believe the Father is a spirit. I believe "spirit" is a part of what He is.

[robertroberg]

Where does it say "Wisdom Angel"?

It says "logos" which is word. It further says the Word was made flesh and we beheld his Glory as the only begotton of the Father -- this is Jesus.

I know of no one who translates John 1:1 as "In the beginning was Jesus...."

So are you saying the word in you mind was not Jesus?

To learn about the Wisdom angel you'll have to do some study. I recommend the Jewish encyclopedia online to see how the logos was used in the O.T.

Also do a word study on only begotten. You can't get the true meaning if you only study this in English. Words have been added the word "the" is not in the text where it says (the ) only begotten son, or (the) father.

hōs monogenous para patros As one born in the vicinity of a father. Monogenuos does not mean begotten. There is another verb Gennao that means beogtten , God says this day I have gennao (begotten) you.

"John clearly means to say that “the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son” (Bernard).

The angel of Wisdom is called the Glory of the Eternal. It is this angel that the Father is sharing with Jesus.

The logos/angel the wisdom angel was God's architect beside him when he made the earth. The logos was not made flesh, the logos/angel made flesh and at the Jordan River came down and entered the temple of Jesus' body. He tented among us.

[robertroberg]

If you want to reject 1st Peter, be my guest. But I think you're failing to comprehend the nature of Christ's sacrifice. He didn't just "die" on the cross. A lot of people have died for their friends. Christ suffered both body and spirit - more than man could EVER suffer. He suffered first in the Garden of Gathsemane:

Luke 22:39-44

39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.



This was part of the atonement. In some way, unfathomable to the human mind, Christ took upon himself all the horrors that Satan could ever inflict upon mankind. He ultimately overcame them all.......all the sins of mankind from the beginning to the end. This suffering was so great, that even Christ wished for "the cup to be removed." But He understood that mankind's salvation rested on His shoulders, and He submitted to the will of the Father.

I believe the same suffering He went through in the Garden returned when He was on the cross.......which is why He said "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" The Father withdrew His presence from the Son, so that Christ could overcome the world alone - without ANY divine intervention from the Father.

And as a side note, I don't believe Jesus and The Father are the same being, and I don't believe the Father is a spirit. I believe "spirit" is a part of what He is.

Bu... but... but...if God is one being how could the father God abandon the son God on the cross? Where does one being go to distance himself from himself? And how could God on the cross Cry out "God why have you forsaken me?" Jesus is God according to you. Did he forget he was God? And wher was the Holy Spirit hiding through out all this? If you have three persons in three different places you do not have one being. You have three independent beings and therefore three gods.

[Reeder]

Bu... but... but...if God is one being how could the father God abandon the son God on the cross? Where does one being go to distance himself from himself? And how could God on the cross Cry out "God why have you forsaken me?" Jesus is God according to you. Did he forget he was God? And wher was the Holy Spirit hiding through out all this? If you have three persons in three different places you do not have one being. You have three independent beings and therefore three gods.

:))

Apparently you didn't finish reading my last post where I said:

"And as a side note, I don't believe Jesus and The Father are the same being, and I don't believe the Father is a spirit. I believe "spirit" is a part of what He is."

In other words, I don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity. I believe The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct Beings.

[robertroberg]

Jesus is immortal now. So what does that make Him? (for the record, I'm not saying "immortality" means you are "God")

He was the first man to gain immortality. Hi is the elder brother who shows us the way.

My point is those who say he was god, an immortal cannot cease to be immortal. God cannot change.

To say that God who is a spirit, became human means that he changed, he expanded by growing a human body. Where is that body now?

[robertroberg]

:))

Apparently you didn't finish reading my last post where I said:

"And as a side note, I don't believe Jesus and The Father are the same being, and I don't believe the Father is a spirit. I believe "spirit" is a part of what He is."

In other words, I don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity. I believe The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct Beings.

Oh I read what you said but didn't understand it. What church do you belong to and are each of the beings gods?

Excuse my dualistic tendencies but there are only two states: spirit and flesh (immaterial and material) So do you see God as a mixture?

[Reeder]

He was the first man to gain immortality. Hi is the elder brother who shows us the way.

He was born with both human and Godly qualities. I agree that He is the elder brother who shows us the way.


My point is those who say he was god, an immortal cannot cease to be immortal. God cannot change.

I don't know about you, or anyone else on these boards, but I believe our spirits to be immortal - eternal. Christ was/is God. He is a member of the Godhead. He didn't "cease to be immortal," he simply "put on" flesh. He still possessed an immortal spirit which cannot be destroyed.


To say that God who is a spirit, became human means that he changed, he expanded by growing a human body. Where is that body now?

Where is that body now? Christ's eternal, immortal spirit has been inseparably connected with His resurrected, immortal body.

Luke 24: 39

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

[Reeder]

Oh I read what you said but didn't understand it. What church do you belong to and are each of the beings gods?

I'm a member of the LDS faith.

Yes, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each members of the Godhead. They are "one" God, but not in substance - they are "one" in purpose.


Excuse my dualistic tendencies but there are only two states: spirit and flesh (immaterial and material) So do you see God as a mixture?

Yes, I believe both God the Father and Jesus Christ possess immortal, tangible bodies of "flesh and bone." (and they each possess spirits which are inseparably connected to those bodies) The Holy Ghost, however, is a spirit ONLY.


Do you belong to a specific religious organization?

[robertroberg]

I'm a member of the LDS faith.

Yes, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each members of the Godhead. They are "one" God, but not in substance - they are "one" in purpose.



Yes, I believe both God the Father and Jesus Christ possess immortal, tangible bodies of "flesh and bone." (and they each possess spirits which are inseparably connected to those bodies) The Holy Ghost, however, is a spirit ONLY.


Do you belong to a specific religious organization?
No Reeder,
I don't have a church. I ask too many questions.

I don't want to derail this conversation into an LDS one, so I won't ask for further information, But it is nice to see where you stand.

I believe there are many God's but only one supreme God the father of Jesus. I believe Jesus never pre-existed but was the vessel of the Logos (angel of the Lord ) and having conquered death is the first man to gain immortality. The first of many who will gain it. I believe the paraclete that most call the Holy Spirit is another angel, the angel of the Truth and that neither Jesus nor the angel of the truth are part of a trinity. The father alone is worthy of worship and all other gods exist to serve him. As the Messiah and first man to gain immortality Jesus was given the right to all power and is engaged in a battle to gain all power after which he will lay it at the Father's feet.

That would make me a monolatrist. Monolatry is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity.

[Reeder]

No Reeder,
I don't have a church. I ask too many questions.

:D



I don't want to derail this conversation into an LDS one, so I won't ask for further information, But it is nice to see where you stand.

No problem. I wasn't expecting it to become an "LDS" thread, but since the OP asks "Should You Believe In The Trinity," I figured I'd put in my input. Its been an enlightening conversation. :)

[robertroberg]

He was born with both human and Godly qualities. I agree that He is the elder brother who shows us the way.



I don't know about you, or anyone else on these boards, but I believe our spirits to be immortal - eternal. Christ was/is God. He is a member of the Godhead. He didn't "cease to be immortal," he simply "put on" flesh. He still possessed an immortal spirit which cannot be destroyed.



Where is that body now? Christ's eternal, immortal spirit has been inseparably connected with His resurrected, immortal body.

Luke 24: 39

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So if our spirits are already immortal, what do you make of the verse that says we mortals must put on immortality , If we already have it what are we putting on?

[Reeder]

So if our spirits are already immortal, what do you make of the verse that says we mortals must put on immortality , If we already have it what are we putting on?


Immortal "bodies." Mortal will become immortal. Corruption will become incorruption.

The words "put on" even suggest that we exist beyond the grave - that we are "adding" something else to our immortal spirit.....we are "putting on" immortal bodies.

[drmilo]

So are you saying the word in you mind was not Jesus?


Not at all. The Word in John 1:1 is definitely Jesus. It says so in John 1:14. I am saying that I know of no one here on these forums, or anywhere in the people I speak with, that translates John 1:1 as "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus is God."

[drmilo]

Oh I read what you said but didn't understand it. What church do you belong to and are each of the beings gods?

Excuse my dualistic tendencies but there are only two states: spirit and flesh (immaterial and material) So do you see God as a mixture?

Where do you get that there are only two states of being -- spirit and flesh?

I believe God to be above all, the creator of spirit and flesh.

[robertroberg]

Where do you get that there are only two states of being -- spirit and flesh?

I believe God to be above all, the creator of spirit and flesh.

Do you know of any other states. Either things are material and we can experience them with our senses or they are immaterial and we can be aware of things like thoughts, dreams, the spirit world etc.

[robertroberg]

Where do you get that there are only two states of being -- spirit and flesh?

I believe God to be above all, the creator of spirit and flesh.

Good, we have a mutal starting point. Yes God is the creator of all things visible (flesh) and invisible (spirit).

[Warrior4God]

I am saying that I know of no one here on these forums, or anywhere in the people I speak with, that translates John 1:1 as "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus is God."

You are right there I believe.

John 1:1 refers to the Word of God and that Word, Gods purpose and plan became a reality when Jesus was born.

John 1:1 is not refering to Jesus it is refering to Gods plan and purpose (logos) and that plan was redemtion for mankind through Jesus.

[robertroberg]

Not at all. The Word in John 1:1 is definitely Jesus. It says so in John 1:14. I am saying that I know of no one here on these forums, or anywhere in the people I speak with, that translates John 1:1 as "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus is God."

You say it is definitely Jesus. That's exactly my point. You say no one translates it as Jesus. Maybe you are thinking of a written translation.
They don't write it but they translate in in their minds exactly as you do. In the beginning was Jesus and he was with God and he was God.

My point is that is to mistranslate John 1. For the word " Jesus "only exists in your mental translation which you were taught to believe. A serious investigation of the word Logos will find it does not refer to Jesus at all.

In the first 5 English translations the logos was called an IT. It didn't become a he until the Pope declared the Logos a he in the Douay Rheims translation. The KJV translators followed the Pope's lead..

[robertroberg]

Immortal "bodies." Mortal will become immortal. Corruption will become incorruption.

The words "put on" even suggest that we exist beyond the grave - that we are "adding" something else to our immortal spirit.....we are "putting on" immortal bodies.


Do you believe we existed before we were born? And can you find any scripture to support that?

[Warrior4God]

Here's a question, Warrior. If you believe that the Spirit of God has led you to the conclusion you have come to, does that mean that those of us who believe in the Trinity are not being led by the Sprit of God?

Not touching that.

[Ron Jon]

Hi drmilo,
would it be fair to summarize your view to say God is like an actor who plays three different roles in a movie?while your question was directed to drmilo, I'd like to answer, as I am a Trinitarian believer, by saying the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing like what you've just described (your description sounds more like modelism). The doctrine of the Trinity is simply this. Within the one Being (God) there exists three Persons. The Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (Pneuma). We (Trinitarians) do not confound the Persons nor do we divide the substance (Being) of God. We simply recognize and believe the revelation that God has provided to us in His holy word, the Bible.

[Ron Jon]

130 times Jesus called himself a ben Adam, a son of Adam, a son of man -a mortal.

Since God is immortal and cannot die, and Jesus died, he was not immortal and therefore could not be God.Actually, Jesus called Himself the Son of Man, not "a son of man". Do you not know the difference between us and Him? Jesus said Himself that He was from above and we are from below. Surely, you can see the dichotomy in that statement. John 3:31
"He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all."

John 8:23
"And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world."

[Ron Jon]

I'm not sure of your point, but we know Jesus did not go to paradise that day but into the grave for 72 hours where he was unconscious -flat out dead.Being "dead" does not mean you are "unconscious". It just means you are in a different state of consciousness. "Death" is nothing more than seperation. Such as when the spirit is seperated from the body. That is physical death. The second death would be when you are seperated from God after the judgment. Was Jesus seperated from His body (which lay in the tomb)? I believe He was. Where was His spirit then (during those 3 days)? I believe He descended into Hades (the underworld) and delivered the Old Testament Saints from "Abraham's rest" (paradise) and lifted them up to dwell with God in Celestial (heavenly) glory. However, even this present "paradise" is only temporary. God did not make the earth in vain and there is coming new heavens and a new earth. And, I believe, it is this "new earth" and the "New Jerusalem" where our eternal hope and reward will be.

[Ron Jon]

His body was dead, yes, but what about His spirit?

1 Peter 3:18-20

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


When did Christ do this?"quickened by the Spirit" means "made alive by the Spirit" and it was by this same Spirit (the Holy Spirit) that a message was preached to those spirits who were alive during the days of Noah. Noah, being a preacher of righteousness, was the one who preached repentance to these people. The verses you quoted are, unfortunately, sometimes used to sway people into thinking that Jesus preached the Gospel to those who had died. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. When you are dead, that's it. There are no more chances to repent. For now is the time, now is the day of repentence. It was same back then. They had their chance to repent and listen to Noah's message, but they chose not to and they will spend eternity seperated from God.

[Ron Jon]

Gladly, but if you were a true Berean you would search yourself.

“And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man.” (John 3:13)

Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended? ( Pro 30:4 )

Who has gone up to the heavens and taken it (Wisdom), or brought it down from the clouds? (Baruch 3:29)

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

The fact that he is called a man-child emphasizes that he was not an adult when God brought him to heaven and filled him with wisdom and commissioned him.

He often said he had been above. It was in his conversation with Nicodemus that he said. If you can't understand earthly thing how ill you understand the heavenly things (I learned) when I ascended to heaven..

The Sunday after his death he told Mary not to touch him for he had not ascended. Sunday evening he told the Disciples to touch him, so he must have ascended after he saw Mary and returned the same day. 40 days later he ascended the final time. That would have been his third ascension.Actually, a more accurate translation of John 20:17 would be Jesus telling Mary not to "cling" or "hold on" to Him. In other words, Mary was so overjoyed at seeing the risen Lord that she literally didn't want to let Him go so she held Him by the ankles (or legs) clinging to Him for fear He would be taken from her. In no way was Jesus telling her not to touch him as though He were unclean (like a leper).

[Ron Jon]

But if you want to play the game define what you mean by person. Does a person have a soul? So are there three souls in your one being?Again, not speaking for drmilo, but please try to understand that God is unique. God is not like Man. Man can be "like" God but only in a finite sense. God, being infinite, can be so much more than Man can comprehend.

[wesraue]

What does God have to say about the matter? I think I will go along with Him.

[Ron Jon]

So are you saying the word in you mind was not Jesus?

To learn about the Wisdom angel you'll have to do some study. I recommend the Jewish encyclopedia online to see how the logos was used in the O.T.

Also do a word study on only begotten. You can't get the true meaning if you only study this in English. Words have been added the word "the" is not in the text where it says (the ) only begotten son, or (the) father.

hōs monogenous para patros As one born in the vicinity of a father. Monogenuos does not mean begotten. There is another verb Gennao that means beogtten , God says this day I have gennao (begotten) you.

"John clearly means to say that “the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son” (Bernard).

The angel of Wisdom is called the Glory of the Eternal. It is this angel that the Father is sharing with Jesus.

The logos/angel the wisdom angel was God's architect beside him when he made the earth. The logos was not made flesh, the logos/angel made flesh and at the Jordan River came down and entered the temple of Jesus' body. He tented among us.

Regarding Monogenes, you might find the following word study interesting. http://scripturetext.com/john/1-14.htm

Also, "The translation of monogenes by “only-begotten” in the KJV and other English versions in six of the nine New Testament occurrences (all except those in Luke) would suggest a presumed etymology from monos, “only” and gennao, “to beget, father, procreate.” This presumed etymology is certainly erroneous. The lexicographers are united in this. Moulton and Milligan state that ”monogenes is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus).” [4] Thayer gives as the roots of the word monos and genos (the latter word meaning "kind, sort, class”), [5] as does Abbott-Smith.[6]

“Only-begotten,” then, as the English translation of monogenes is apparently based on the word’s supposed etymology. It is a mistake to base the understanding of a word’s meaning on its etymology (rather than its usage), especially so if you have the wrong etymology, as is the case of the translation “only-begotten”! This is not what monogenes means, either in etymology or usage." http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/monogene.htm

So basically, the word simply means that Jesus was "one of a kind" and "unique" (like God is). There are those who would claim that we are all "children of God" but this one word "monogenes" in describing Jesus refutes this claim. It is ONLY by the power and authority of God that we can BECOME children of God and that is through adoption into God's Family. Yes, that is the destiny of those who believe (trust) in Jesus Christ. There is no reason to "become a child of God" if we already are "children of God." ;)

[Ron Jon]

Bu... but... but...if God is one being how could the father God abandon the son God on the cross? Where does one being go to distance himself from himself? And how could God on the cross Cry out "God why have you forsaken me?" Jesus is God according to you. Did he forget he was God? And wher was the Holy Spirit hiding through out all this? If you have three persons in three different places you do not have one being. You have three independent beings and therefore three gods.You are correct, if a person believes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three seperate beings then that person believes they are three gods (welcome to polytheism 101). But like I said, Trinitarians do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three seperate beings. Rather, we believe God is one Being who has been revealed in three Persons. God is (in a sense) monogenes (unique, one of a kind).

[Ron Jon]

He was the first man to gain immortality. Hi is the elder brother who shows us the way.

My point is those who say he was god, an immortal cannot cease to be immortal. God cannot change.

To say that God who is a spirit, became human means that he changed, he expanded by growing a human body. Where is that body now?Do you believe Jesus rose from the grave? Do you believe in the resurrection? Do you believe Jesus ascended into Heaven? Where is that body now? Are you kidding us? When someone wants to know where you are, do they ask where your body is?

[Ron Jon]

No Reeder,
I don't have a church. I ask too many questions.

I don't want to derail this conversation into an LDS one, so I won't ask for further information, But it is nice to see where you stand.

I believe there are many God's but only one supreme God the father of Jesus. I believe Jesus never pre-existed but was the vessel of the Logos (angel of the Lord ) and having conquered death is the first man to gain immortality. The first of many who will gain it. I believe the paraclete that most call the Holy Spirit is another angel, the angel of the Truth and that neither Jesus nor the angel of the truth are part of a trinity. The father alone is worthy of worship and all other gods exist to serve him. As the Messiah and first man to gain immortality Jesus was given the right to all power and is engaged in a battle to gain all power after which he will lay it at the Father's feet.

That would make me a monolatrist. Monolatry is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity.I would say that makes you a polytheist. Some might even call you a henotheist, but you don't have to worship multiple gods to be included in the polytheist category, you just have to believe they really exist. A Monotheist (like Trinitarians) do not believe in the existence of other true Gods. Rather, we believe there is only one true God and that other so-called "gods" are nothing but the vain imaginations of men.

[Ron Jon]

You are right there I believe.

John 1:1 refers to the Word of God and that Word, Gods purpose and plan became a reality when Jesus was born.

John 1:1 is not refering to Jesus it is refering to Gods plan and purpose (logos) and that plan was redemtion for mankind through Jesus.Try reading John 1:1 in the original Greek. It literally says theos en ho logos - θεος ην ο λογος which would be translated "God is the Word."

[Ron Jon]

What does God have to say about the matter? I think I will go along with Him.:)) Now there's a safe answer!

[DispensationalJim]

You are correct, if a person believes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three seperate beings then that person believes they are three gods (welcome to polytheism 101). But like I said, Trinitarians do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three seperate beings. Rather, we believe God is one Being who has been revealed in three Persons. God is (in a sense) monogenes (unique, one of a kind).

Good to see you on this thread, Ron Jon. Hope all is well with you.

[Ron Jon]

Good to see you on this thread, Ron Jon. Hope all is well with you.I'm glad to be back! Hopefully I'll be able to keep my halo on straight this time. :angel:

[Warrior4God]

Actually, Jesus called Himself the Son of Man, not "a son of man". Do you not know the difference between us and Him? Jesus said Himself that He was from above and we are from below. Surely, you can see the dichotomy in that statement. John 3:31
"He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all."

John 8:23
"And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world."




Num 23:19a God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man.....

[Warrior4God]

Try reading John 1:1 in the original Greek. It literally says theos en ho logos - θεος ην ο λογος which would be translated "God is the Word."

I have read it many times in the greek and logos is translated in Gods Word many ways.
Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God



Read more about John 1:1 HERE (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85)

[Ron Jon]

Num 23:19a God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man.....Maybe you should quote the entire verse.
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

Clearly, this verse is saying that God, unlike Man, does not lie nor does He say one thing and then does another. In other words, unlike us, God is true to His word.

While I agree that God is not Human, like us, there is nothing in either the Old or New Testaments which prohibit God from taking on the form of a Man or even becoming one for a specific purpose.

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11

"For in Him [Jesus Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;" Colossians 2:9

[Ron Jon]

I have read it many times in the greek and logos is translated in Gods Word many ways.
Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God



Read more about John 1:1 HERE (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85)This doesn't change the fact of how it literally reads. Again: theos en ho logos - θεος ην ο λογος which would be translated "God is the Logos." You can define "logos" as "word," "reason," "intellect" or whatever but it still says that "God is the logos". And it was this same "logos" aka "God" who was in the beginning WITH God (v. 2) and "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (v. 3). and in verse 14 John identifies who the Logos [Word] is "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." And finally, John tells us the name of the Logos, who is the only begotten of the Father, and His name is "Jesus Christ!" Tada! :)

[DispensationalJim]

Maybe you should quote the entire verse.
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

Clearly, this verse is saying that God, unlike Man, does not lie nor does He say one thing and then does another. In other words, unlike us, God is true to His word.

While I agree that God is not Human, like us, there is nothing in either the Old or New Testaments which prohibit God from taking on the form of a Man or even becoming one for a specific purpose.

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11

"For in Him [Jesus Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;" Colossians 2:9

Amen, Ron! Several of us have been through this with Warrior repeatedly. We have also pointed out that when Numbers was written, Jesus Christ was God the Son -- THE CREATOR! -- so he was NOT a man. But, as you just said, that would not prohibit God the Son from MAKING HIMSELF INTO A MAN, as Paul told us in Phil. and as you so appropriately quoted.

ooops... bedtime... good night all!

[robertroberg]

This doesn't change the fact of how it literally reads. Again: theos en ho logos - θεος ην ο λογος which would be translated "God is the Logos." You can define "logos" as "word," "reason," "intellect" or whatever but it still says that "God is the logos". And it was this same "logos" aka "God" who was in the beginning WITH God (v. 2) and "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (v. 3). and in verse 14 John identifies who the Logos [Word] is "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." And finally, John tells us the name of the Logos, who is the only begotten of the Father, and His name is "Jesus Christ!" Tada! :)

R.J. since you know a little Greek you know that there is no indefinite article and the translators must decide where to put them . It is just as correct to say
"an elohim was the logos. YHVH is the high elohim and is the father of many myriads of elohim. He is the God of gods.

The nation of Israel was to be a race of human elohim to their gentile neighbors Ye are gods all of you, but they refused to share the truth of YHVH with their neighbors and instead of publishing his name they blotted it out of their scrolls, and threatened to kill anyone who spoke it.

If you look closely at John 1 you will see that the translators have also left out the word ton and translated pros (beside) as with.

It should read in the beginning was an elohim and the elohim was beside "the" God.

Proverb 8 speaks of an elohim named wisdom who was beside God as an architect in the beginning and made all things.

Just something for you to ponder.

[Constantine the Great]

It should read in the beginning was an elohim and the elohim was beside "the" God.




Wrong, in Greek it is standard to place the article "ton" in front of the subject of the sentence.


You could insert the name Mike instead of God, and you'd still have to place the article "ton" in front of it however, you would not translate it as "the Mike" now would you? No, I don't think so.

[DispensationalJim]

R.J. since you know a little Greek you know that there is no indefinite article and the translators must decide where to put them . It is just as correct to say
"an elohim was the logos. YHVH is the high elohim and is the father of many myriads of elohim. He is the God of gods.

The nation of Israel was to be a race of human elohim to their gentile neighbors Ye are gods all of you, but they refused to share the truth of YHVH with their neighbors and instead of publishing his name they blotted it out of their scrolls, and threatened to kill anyone who spoke it.

If you look closely at John 1 you will see that the translators have also left out the word ton and translated pros (beside) as with.

It should read in the beginning was an elohim and the elohim was beside "the" God.

Proverb 8 speaks of an elohim named wisdom who was beside God as an architect in the beginning and made all things.

Just something for you to ponder.

robert, I'm still waiting to find out which Greek text you have approved, or do you pick and choose the Greek text, also, according to which one agrees with your doctrine? I do hope you are aware that the Greek groups of texts have some serious variations.

Just something else for you to ponder.

[drmilo]

You are right there I believe.

John 1:1 refers to the Word of God and that Word, Gods purpose and plan became a reality when Jesus was born.

John 1:1 is not refering to Jesus it is refering to Gods plan and purpose (logos) and that plan was redemtion for mankind through Jesus.

That's not exactly what I said.

Jesus is the Word. John 1:14 shows this -- "and the Word became flesh..."

I'm just saying that I know of no one who when quoting John 1:1 substitutes the word "Jesus" for the word "Word."

I already debated against the unitarian point of view on the logos being God's thought or purpose.

In the original Greek the order of the words is not the same as in the English translation. If we did a word-for-word translation of the original Greek you'd have: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was the Word."

"toward" is translated as "With" so this means that the Word is another "person" physically with God. The same with "God was the Word" When we translate it as "The word was God" we can come to the mistaken interpretation that the Word is the purpose of God, because the Word is of the substance of God. When we see in Greek it says "God was the Word," we see that God is of the subance Word. This is because both are the same being, only different persons of that being.

[robertroberg]

That's not exactly what I said.

Jesus is the Word. John 1:14 shows this -- "and the Word became flesh..."

I'm just saying that I know of no one who when quoting John 1:1 substitutes the word "Jesus" for the word "Word."

I already debated against the unitarian point of view on the logos being God's thought or purpose.

In the original Greek the order of the words is not the same as in the English translation. If we did a word-for-word translation of the original Greek you'd have: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was the Word."

"toward" is translated as "With" so this means that the Word is another "person" physically with God. The same with "God was the Word" When we translate it as "The word was God" we can come to the mistaken interpretation that the Word is the purpose of God, because the Word is of the substance of God. When we see in Greek it says "God was the Word," we see that God is of the subance Word. This is because both are the same being, only different persons of that being.

One can not be with itself or towards itself or beside itself. One is a unit. Something can be towards the unit, or with the unit, or in the unit but the unit can not be towards, or with it itself. I can say My hat is with my coat, but I can never say my hat and my coat they are one being.

I agree there are two persons. One is an elohim and the other is "the" Elohim. Why do the translators leave out the word ton (the)? Because they are fudging Jesus to godhood.
There are many elohim but the only elohim in the Bible described as being with the God in the beginning is the elohim called Chokma (Wisdom)

Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was...
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, ...rejoicing always before him;

[robertroberg]

robert, I'm still waiting to find out which Greek text you have approved, or do you pick and choose the Greek text, also, according to which one agrees with your doctrine? I do hope you are aware that the Greek groups of texts have some serious variations.

Just something else for you to ponder.

Disp. Jim,
I follow the KJV text but when I see a word that I don't understand I use 100 Bibles at bibleburea.com, I Use strongs, I use commentaries, Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias and turn over every stone.

[robertroberg]

Wrong, in Greek it is standard to place the article "ton" in front of the subject of the sentence.


You could insert the name Mike instead of God, and you'd still have to place the article "ton" in front of it however, you would not translate it as "the Mike" now would you? No, I don't think so.

Of course we use ton in front of names , if Mike Jordan walks in the room some one asks that that's not "The" Mike is it ?

Just as I can say about your tag You are not "the" Constantine the Great.

In Spanish they do it all the time. I was often greeted by asking "how is the Robert today?" And I would reply "The Robert is fine".

It is a sin of terrible ramifications to not translate a Greek word that appears in the text. Wrong wrong wrong. It distorts the meaning.

[Reeder]

Do you believe we existed before we were born? And can you find any scripture to support that?

Yes.

When God laid the foundations of the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy, Job 38: 4-7.


The spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Eccl. 12: 7.


Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer. 1: 4-5.

In this case more is involved than merely God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah, for God says that Jeremiah was known, sanctified, and ordained before he was born. Such terms don't make much sense if the person that was ordained and sanctified did not yet exist.


We are all his offspring, Acts 17: 28.


God chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1: 3-4.


We are to be in subjection to the Father of spirits, Heb. 12: 9.


The angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, Jude 1: 6 (Abr. 3: 26).


The Devil and his angels were cast out, Rev. 12: 9.



And besides these scriptures, we also know that Christ existed before He came to this earth. While He was known as Jehovah, He existed in spirit form. He was then born into a mortal body.

[Reeder]

"quickened by the Spirit" means "made alive by the Spirit" and it was by this same Spirit (the Holy Spirit) that a message was preached to those spirits who were alive during the days of Noah. Noah, being a preacher of righteousness, was the one who preached repentance to these people. The verses you quoted are, unfortunately, sometimes used to sway people into thinking that Jesus preached the Gospel to those who had died. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. When you are dead, that's it. There are no more chances to repent. For now is the time, now is the day of repentence. It was same back then. They had their chance to repent and listen to Noah's message, but they chose not to and they will spend eternity seperated from God.


Well, we've been over this before, and you know that I completely disagree with that concept. That scripture is not referring to Noah preaching to the people while they were yet on the earth. The scripture clearly says "[Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison." "SPIRITS" in "PRISON,"..........not mortals on the earth.

It then goes on to say "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

It doesn't say "while" they were BEING disobedient.......it says "which SOMETIME were disobedient, WHEN ONCE..........IN THE DAYS OF NOAH........"

I could substitue the plural with a singular name.....like........Bill. :)

It would then say:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring BILL to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto BILL in prison;

20 [Who] sometime was disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.



Clearly its speaking of the spirits who have died who are now in "prison." The same spirits who were disobedient during the time of Noah.

[scipio337]

Yes.

When God laid the foundations of the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy, Job 38: 4-7.


The spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Eccl. 12: 7.


Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer. 1: 4-5.

In this case more is involved than merely God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah, for God says that Jeremiah was known, sanctified, and ordained before he was born. Such terms don't make much sense if the person that was ordained and sanctified did not yet exist.


We are all his offspring, Acts 17: 28.


God chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1: 3-4.


We are to be in subjection to the Father of spirits, Heb. 12: 9.


The angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, Jude 1: 6 (Abr. 3: 26).


The Devil and his angels were cast out, Rev. 12: 9.



And besides these scriptures, we also know that Christ existed before He came to this earth. While He was known as Jehovah, He existed in spirit form. He was then born into a mortal body.I'm not sure about the whole "Jehova" claim, but you're speaking about the Incarnation.

We're not Jesus. Jesus is eternal, we are created.

Job 38 is a direct reference to Job 1:6, and clearly means "angels".

Ecc 7 would further suggest that our spirits didn't exist before G*d breathed them into dust, and therefore, not eternal.

G*d can still have foreknowledge of Jeremiah, and pre-ordained and pre-sanctified him before his birth. G*d has a hand in destiny, especially in the OT.

Isreal as a nation was blessed before it was formed, but didn't have a pre-existence. See Deuteronomy.

I would not the context of Acts 17:25 "Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything." Would also suggest that our "life" comes when that same "breath" is breathed into dust. Not existing elsewhere beforehand.

My Bible, Eph 1:3-4 reads:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,

as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him.

Paul opens his letter with a blessing, in the Jewish berakah tradition. Here is is talking about the "gift of divine adoption" establishing a unique spiritual relationship with G*d through Christ, an echo of Gal 4:5.


The KJV is certainly alone on the "estate" business. Other translations clearly show that it was a "position of authority" that was left, a repeat of the story, as seen in Gen 6:1-4

I'm not sure how any of the others would be an argument for "preexistence".

[Reeder]

I'm not sure about the whole "Jehova" claim, but you're speaking about the Incarnation.

You don't believe Christ was once Jehovah, and that He was later born on the earth through Mary and was called Jesus Christ?


We're not Jesus. Jesus is eternal, we are created.

I agree that we're not Jesus. I disagree that we're not eternal.


Job 38 is a direct reference to Job 1:6, and clearly means "angels".

I believe "angels" are spirit sons and daughters of God. I believe all angels who minister to the earth have once lived, or will live as mortals on the earth.


Ecc 7 would further suggest that our spirits didn't exist before G*d breathed them into dust, and therefore, not eternal.

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The DUST (body) shall return to earth, AND THE SPIRIT SHALL RETURN UNTO GOD.


G*d can still have foreknowledge of Jeremiah, and pre-ordained and pre-sanctified him before his birth. G*d has a hand in destiny, especially in the OT.

You cannot foreordain or sanctify someone without them being present at that foreordination and sanctification. I think its a stretch to think otherwise.


Isreal as a nation was blessed before it was formed, but didn't have a pre-existence. See Deuteronomy.

I would not the context of Acts 17:25 "Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything." Would also suggest that our "life" comes when that same "breath" is breathed into dust. Not existing elsewhere beforehand.


The "breath of life" means our spirits enter our mortal bodies.



My Bible, Eph 1:3-4 reads:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,

as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him.

Paul opens his letter with a blessing, in the Jewish berakah tradition. Here is is talking about the "gift of divine adoption" establishing a unique spiritual relationship with G*d through Christ, an echo of Gal 4:5.

I can accept that answer, even though I still believe it is debatable.

[robertroberg]

Yes.

When God laid the foundations of the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy, Job 38: 4-7.


The spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Eccl. 12: 7.


Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer. 1: 4-5.


In this case more is involved than merely God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah, for God says that Jeremiah was known, sanctified, and ordained before he was born. Such terms don't make much sense if the person that was ordained and sanctified did not yet exist.


We are all his offspring, Acts 17: 28.


God chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1: 3-4.


We are to be in subjection to the Father of spirits, Heb. 12: 9.


The angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, Jude 1: 6 (Abr. 3: 26).


The Devil and his angels were cast out, Rev. 12: 9.



And besides these scriptures, we also know that Christ existed before He came to this earth. While He was known as Jehovah, He existed in spirit form. He was then born into a mortal body.

Hi LDS Reeder,
I can see how you arrived at your position. On the surface it would seem to have merit, let me show you were I see chinks in the armor.

When God laid the foundations of the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy, (no problem here).

God is indeed the father of spirits (elohim-gods) They do not have gender so it is not quite right to call them sons and daughters but they are his bene children. They perform functions in the heavenlies. Some were sent to earth as messengers (angels). Some of the messengers fell and became the watchers who defiled earth women and created wicked giant offspring. These watchers are chained, but other fallen angels with their leader Azazel are at work on the earth causing demonic activity.

There were and are also good angels like Michael, Gabriel Raphael and the un-named angel of the Lord known as th angel of God's presence, the logos. Another un-named one that was in Elijah and later in John the Baptizer. And the final un-named one in scripture requested by and brought by Jesus called the Angel of the Truth.

Angels can manifest in the appearance of men. Only two times have they manifested as women with wings like storks. Usually they do not appear with wings but look like Jewish men (long beards short hair)

When God formed Adam he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The problem with both Greek and Hebrew is they only have one word for spirit and breath Pneuma and Ruach.

This means we must read it in context. You would say the ruach they are receiving is a pre-existent elohim or spirit. And I would say it is merely the oxygen we breathe. When we stop breathing at death, the breath returns to the one who created it -God.
Neither of us can prove our point from this verse.

The idea that God chose us before the foundation of the earth, and chose Jeremiah leads us into one of the teaching of Paul that I think is a false teaching. Paul says he pre-destined some of us to hell and some to heaven.

If the verse about Jeremiah is true, then he had no free will and was pre-destined to be a prophet. That would make God into a cruel being playing with humans like a boy plays with toy soldiers.

This is an Islamic notion that we are all victims of God whims. Some he saves and some he burns no matter what they do.

I reject 95% of what Paul wrote and so would have to reject the Jeremiah quote, for both of those quotes disagree with the teaching of Jesus on Free will. Right after he called som Jews the children of the devil. He told them that they would perish UNLESS (here is the free will) unless they repented. It was there choice.

[Reeder]

Hi LDS Reeder,
I can see how you arrived at your position. On the surface it would seem to have merit, let me show you were I see chinks in the armor.

When God laid the foundations of the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy, (no problem here).

God is indeed the father of spirits (elohim-gods) They do not have gender so it is not quite right to call them sons and daughters but they are his bene children. They perform functions in the heavenlies. Some were sent to earth as messengers (angels). Some of the messengers fell and became the watchers who defiled earth women and created wicked giant offspring. These watchers are chained, but other fallen angels with their leader Azazel are at work on the earth causing demonic activity.

There were and are also good angels like Michael, Gabriel Raphael and the un-named angel of the Lord known as th angel of God's presence, the logos. Another un-named one that was in Elijah and later in John the Baptizer. And the final un-named one in scripture requested by and brought by Jesus called the Angel of the Truth.

Angels can manifest in the appearance of men. Only two times have they manifested as women with wings like storks. Usually they do not appear with wings but look like Jewish men (long beards short hair)

When God formed Adam he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The problem with both Greek and Hebrew is they only have one word for spirit and breath Pneuma and Ruach.

This means we must read it in context. You would say the ruach they are receiving is a pre-existent elohim or spirit. And I would say it is merely the oxygen we breathe. When we stop breathing at death, the breath returns to the one who created it -God.
Neither of us can prove our point from this verse.

The idea that God chose us before the foundation of the earth, and chose Jeremiah leads us into one of the teaching of Paul that I think is a false teaching. Paul says he pre-destined some of us to hell and some to heaven.

If the verse about Jeremiah is true, then he had no free will and was pre-destined to be a prophet. That would make God into a cruel being playing with humans like a boy plays with toy soldiers.

This is an Islamic notion that we are all victims of God whims. Some he saves and some he burns no matter what they do.

I reject 95% of what Paul wrote and so would have to reject the Jeremiah quote, for both of those quotes disagree with the teaching of Jesus on Free will. Right after he called som Jews the children of the devil. He told them that they would perish UNLESS (here is the free will) unless they repented. It was there choice.

I don't even know where to begin with this post. I feel like we're not even talking about the same scriptures, or the same God. I haven't arrived at my conclusion that we lived in a preexistent state by ONLY the Bible verses I referred to earlier. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covanents, Pearl of Great Price, as well as modern-day revelation have also guided me to that conclusion.


They were called and prepared from the foundation of the world, Alma 13: 3.


Christ looked upon the expanse of eternity and hosts of heaven before the world was made, D&C 38: 1.


Man was also in the beginning with God, D&C 93: 29 (Hel. 14: 17; D&C 49: 17).


Noble spirits were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church, D&C 138: 53-55.


Many received their first lessons in the world of spirits, D&C 138: 56.


All things were created spiritually before they were on earth, Moses 3: 5.


I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh, Moses 6: 51.


Abraham saw the intelligences that were organized before the world was, Abr. 3: 21-24.




I could go on, but I'll stop there.....:)

[robertroberg]

I don't even know where to begin with this post. I feel like we're not even talking about the same scriptures, or the same God. I haven't arrived at my conclusion that we lived in a preexistent state by ONLY the Bible verses I referred to earlier. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covanents, Pearl of Great Price, as well as modern-day revelation have also guided me to that conclusion.


They were called and prepared from the foundation of the world, Alma 13: 3.


Christ looked upon the expanse of eternity and hosts of heaven before the world was made, D&C 38: 1.


Man was also in the beginning with God, D&C 93: 29 (Hel. 14: 17; D&C 49: 17).


Noble spirits were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church, D&C 138: 53-55.


Many received their first lessons in the world of spirits, D&C 138: 56.


All things were created spiritually before they were on earth, Moses 3: 5.


I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh, Moses 6: 51.


Abraham saw the intelligences that were organized before the world was, Abr. 3: 21-24.




I could go on, but I'll stop there.....:)

That's why Jesus told us his words must abide in us or we would wither and be cut off. And why I follow only his words.

Its not just you Reeder but most Christians are connected not only to Jesus, but to 50 or 60 other vines or prophets/masters

He said we could only have one master, I choose Jesus you are free to follow Smith, Young and your other master/apostles and prophets . All the best to you.

[Reeder]

That's why Jesus told us his words must abide in us or we would wither and be cut off. And why I follow only his words.

Its not just you Reeder but most Christians are connected not only to Jesus, but to 50 or 60 other vines or prophets/masters

He said we could only have one master, I choose Jesus you are free to follow Smith, Young and your other master/apostles and prophets . All the best to you.

You clearly don't understand my faith. Joseph Smith, Paul, Abraham, Brigham Young......these men are not my "masters," nor are they "separate vines." Jesus Christ is our Savior, and is the Head of the Church. HE is my master.

Prophets are inspired to write the things of God.

Tell me, if you believe ONLY in the words of Jesus, then how can you be sure what Jesus said? The ONLY words of Jesus that we have were written by men......disciples of Jesus.

They are NOT separate vines. They all point the way to Christ.

If I were to use your way of thinking, I wouldn't be able to use ANY scriptures, and I would have no guidelines to follow. I would be left to myself. No offense.

[robertroberg]

You clearly don't understand my faith. Joseph Smith, Paul, Abraham, Brigham Young......these men are not my "masters," nor are they "separate vines." Jesus Christ is our Savior, and is the Head of the Church. HE is my master.

Prophets are inspired to write the things of God.

Tell me, if you believe ONLY in the words of Jesus, then how can you be sure what Jesus said? The ONLY words of Jesus that we have were written by men......disciples of Jesus.

They are NOT separate vines. They all point the way to Christ.

If I were to use your way of thinking, I wouldn't be able to use ANY scriptures, and I would have no guidelines to follow. I would be left to myself. No offense.

Each prophet you listen to become a source of nourishment -a vine. I am a one-viner and only draw truth from the one who said I am the truth. I know his words are true because in 1977 I saw him and he told me.

If you had only the words of Jesus wouldn't that be enough?

[Fire Watch]

Each prophet you listen to become a source of nourishment -a vine. I am a one-viner and only draw truth from the one who said I am the truth. I know his words are true because in 1977 I saw him and he told me.
So why pick and choose which of his words are true? Jesus said that if we believed on Him, we would listen to His apostles as well:

John 15:20:

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

John 17:20:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;


Its entirely arbitrary to accept the Gospels as true reports of Christ's teachings, and yet reject the apostles writings as distortions and heresy. It is also arbitrary to accept the Gospel writers accounts of Christ's words as accurate, and yet believe that the apostles strayed from Christ's teachings themselves. You must make an a priori commitment to reject everything but Christ's words, and/or an a priori commitment to believe that while the apostles may have been deceptive/incorrect elsewhere..they werent deceptive/incorrect in recording what Jesus said and did. Why should we believe this line of reasoning? With such arbitrary reasoning I could assert that only Paul taught truth, and all the other apostles were liars...so we must reject the Gospels as true accounts of Christ's teachings. Anyone can make assertions like these..but it has to be backed up with sound reasoning and evidence. To date I have yet to see any sound reasoning or evidence to support the notion that the apostles deviated from the teachings of Christ, and therefore only Jesus' words can be trusted. In light of the evidence, we have the rational obligation to accept both Jesus' and the apostles' teachings as congruent and harmonious.

[robertroberg]

So why pick and choose which of his words are true? Jesus said that if we believed on Him, we would listen to His apostles as well:

John 15:20:

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

John 17:20:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Its entirely arbitrary to accept the Gospels as true reports of Christ's teachings, and yet reject the apostles writings as distortions and heresy. It is also arbitrary to accept the Gospel writers accounts of Christ's words as accurate, and yet believe that the apostles strayed from Christ's teachings themselves. You must make an a priori commitment to reject everything but Christ's words, and/or an a priori commitment to believe that while the apostles may have been deceptive elsewhere..they were not deceptive in recording what Jesus said and did. Why should we believe this line of reasoning? With such arbitrary reasoning I could assert that only Paul taught truth, and all the other apostles were liars...so we must reject the Gospels as true accounts of Christ's teachings. Anyone can make assertions like these..but it has to be backed up with sound reasoning and evidence. To date I have yet to see any sound reasoning or evidence to support the notion that the apostles deviated from the teachings of Christ, and therefore only Jesus' words can be trusted. In light of the evidence, we have the rational obligation to accept both Jesus' and the apostles' teachings as congruent and harmonious.

Hey Fire watch,

the key word in the John 15:20 is logos

If they have kept my logos they will keep yours also. The apostles were not bringing a different logos.

BTW this shows that Jesus was not the logos but he taught a logos.

The disciples were sent out with the logos of the kingdom (the gospel)

Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the logos.
Mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the logos of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy logos is truth.
Joh 17:14 I have given them thy logos

Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy logos.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my logos

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the logos that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The apostles were never authorized to teach another logos or their own ideas. Even Jesus was not giving us his own logos but the logos of the Father.
Joh 14:24 and the logos which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.


The disciples are called

Lk 1:2 the Ministers of the logos

But it is not their own words but they minister the words of the father as spoken by Jesus.

When the Spirit comes he will not bring a new logos either but

Joh 14:26 bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus' last words were to go to the whole world

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (nothing new, no new progressive revelations, no new logos)

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[Fire Watch]

Eisegete it all you want..but that's all it is, pure eisegesis. You're arbitrarily picking and choosing what you will consider valid..ultimately, still relying on the words of the Apostles.

[robertroberg]

Firewatch,
you wrote:
"To date I have yet to see any sound reasoning or evidence to support the notion that the apostles deviated from the teachings of Christ, and therefore only Jesus' words can be trusted. In light of the evidence, we have the rational obligation to accept both Jesus' and the apostles' teachings as congruent and harmonious."

Be patient Firewatch ,

Joh 7:51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him?

I only began posting a few days ago.

[robertroberg]

Eisegete it all you want..but that's all it is, pure eisegesis. You're arbitrarily picking and choosing what you will consider valid..ultimately, still relying on the words of the Apostles.


How can I post a graphic like your Obama one?

[robertroberg]

In order to understand the logos we have to see how John used it throughout his gospel.



Joh 17:14 I have given them thy logos

Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy logos.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my logos

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the logos that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Here's how Matthew and Mark used it:

Mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the logos

Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the logos of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.

Jesus spoke the logos given to him by God and gave it to his disciples to sow to the entire world. You preach it, hear it and obey it.

It is not a person. If Jesus was the logos he could not give it. It belonged to God. He gave it Jesus. Jesus gave it to the disciples.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy logos

[RayMan]

Disp. Jim,
I follow the KJV text but when I see a word that I don't understand I use 100 Bibles at bibleburea.com, I Use strongs, I use commentaries, Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias and turn over every stone.


Note: it is http://www.biblebureau.com

[Constantine the Great]

Of course we use ton in front of names , if Mike Jordan walks in the room some one asks that that's not "The" Mike is it ?
You must be joking. That is improper English and you're trying to use a colloquialism to justify a faulty way of translating Greek to English.

:))

[Ron Jon]

In order to understand the logos we have to see how John used it throughout his gospel.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy logos

Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy logos.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my logos

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the logos that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Here's how Matthew and Mark used it:

Mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the logos

Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the logos of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.

Jesus spoke the logos given to him by God and gave it to his disciples to sow to the entire world. You preach it, hear it and obey it.

It is not a person. If Jesus was the logos he could not give it. It belonged to God. He gave it Jesus. Jesus gave it to the disciples.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy logos
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say? Are you saying the Greek word [logos] can only originate from God? "A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe." http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3056&t=kjv

[robertroberg]

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say? Are you saying the Greek word [logos] can only originate from God? "A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe." http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3056&t=kjv

I am saying Jesus was not the logos made flesh. He was a channel for the logos. When he opened his mouth the logos came through him. He said I gave them the logos, it was the seed , Jesus was the sower not the seed.

[drmilo]

One can not be with itself or towards itself or beside itself. One is a unit. Something can be towards the unit, or with the unit, or in the unit but the unit can not be towards, or with it itself. I can say My hat is with my coat, but I can never say my hat and my coat they are one being.

You are using limited human knowledge to define the limitless God. According to limited human knowledge and understanding, your definition would be true. But a triune being is outside the realm of human knowledge, experience, or understanding.

I agree there are two persons. One is an elohim and the other is "the" Elohim. Why do the translators leave out the word ton (the)? Because they are fudging Jesus to godhood.
There are many elohim but the only elohim in the Bible described as being with the God in the beginning is the elohim called Chokma (Wisdom)

Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was...
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, ...rejoicing always before him;

I refer you to Constantine's post above about the use of the word ton in the Greek, and why it is omitted before a proper noun when translating to English.

[drmilo]

In order to understand the logos we have to see how John used it throughout his gospel.



Joh 17:14 I have given them thy logos

Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy logos.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my logos

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the logos that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Here's how Matthew and Mark used it:

Mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the logos

Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the logos of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.

Jesus spoke the logos given to him by God and gave it to his disciples to sow to the entire world. You preach it, hear it and obey it.

It is not a person. If Jesus was the logos he could not give it. It belonged to God. He gave it Jesus. Jesus gave it to the disciples.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy logos

You do realize that a single word can have many meanings. Not all occurences of the same word refer to exactly the same thing. The context in which the word is used determines the meaning.

Just because in John 1:1 John uses the word logos to mean the Word that was with God in the beginning (as I see it, Jesus) does not mean that another usage of the word logos must carry the same meaning. In John 1:1 logos can mean Jesus. In John 17:14 the word logos can mean gospel.

The same word has more than one meaning. It's meaning is determined by the context. If you are going to assign only a single meaning to a single word, you are going to have an awful lot of trouble with language. For example -- "John wears a hat when he goes outside." And "John wears two hats at work." Does the word "hat" have the same meaning in each sentence? No. In the first, he is literally wearing a hat on top of his head. In the second, he plays two different roles (perhaps both supervisor and clerk.) Just because the same word is used does not mean it carries with it the same meaning. And this example was merely one in which I used a metaphor to change the meaning of the word -- just wait until you get to words that literally have more than one meaning.

[robertroberg]

You do realize that a single word can have many meanings. Not all occurences of the same word refer to exactly the same thing. The context in which the word is used determines the meaning.

Just because in John 1:1 John uses the word logos to mean the Word that was with God in the beginning (as I see it, Jesus) does not mean that another usage of the word logos must carry the same meaning. In John 1:1 logos can mean Jesus. In John 17:14 the word logos can mean gospel.

The same word has more than one meaning. It's meaning is determined by the context. If you are going to assign only a single meaning to a single word, you are going to have an awful lot of trouble with language. For example -- "John wears a hat when he goes outside." And "John wears two hats at work." Does the word "hat" have the same meaning in each sentence? No. In the first, he is literally wearing a hat on top of his head. In the second, he plays two different roles (perhaps both supervisor and clerk.) Just because the same word is used does not mean it carries with it the same meaning. And this example was merely one in which I used a metaphor to change the meaning of the word -- just wait until you get to words that literally have more than one meaning.

Okee Dokee

[robertroberg]

You are using limited human knowledge to define the limitless God. According to limited human knowledge and understanding, your definition would be true. But a triune being is outside the realm of human knowledge, experience, or understanding.



I refer you to Constantine's post above about the use of the word ton in the Greek, and why it is omitted before a proper noun when translating to English.

Anything that cannot be explained to a 12 year old, is not the Gospel _Allon Maxwell

[robertroberg]

You must be joking. That is improper English and you're trying to use a colloquialism to justify a faulty way of translating Greek to English.

:))

Not translating words in the Greek text is a sin that affects millions. If a rocket shot at the moon is off by one millionth of a degree it will miss the moon by thousands of miles.

Leaving out the word "Ton" in John 1:1 changes the entire Gospel.

[drmilo]

Not translating words in the Greek text is a sin that affects millions. If a rocket shot at the moon is off by one millionth of a degree it will miss the moon by thousands of miles.

Leaving out the word "Ton" in John 1:1 changes the entire Gospel.

No, it really doesn't.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and God was the Word"

Is the same as:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

One is just more proper English than the other, that is all.

[robertroberg]

No, it really doesn't.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and God was the Word"

Is the same as:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

One is just more proper English than the other, that is all.

If you look closer "The God" distinguishes it from the "other" god mentioned. Since Greek has no indefinite articles (a, and an) it can properly be translated that "a god" was with "The God"
.
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and the word was a God."

By translating t"he God" it posits that another god was with him. He is after all the God of gods.
Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?

Bishop Arius and the JWs say that Jesus is a god. I reject that completely, because I do not see Jesus as the word here.

What I am saying is that YHVH was called elohim and that the gods were also called elohim but YHVH was called "The" Elohim.

YHVH is the high elohim who created the lesser elohim (the gods).

One of the elohim was with him in the beginning.

Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:30 Then I was by (pros) him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him

The speaker in this passage is Wisdom (Chokma). YHVH is the father of the elohim and one of those elohim bears the name Chokma. Chokma (In the beginning was Wisdom and Wisdom was with YHVH and Wisdom was an elohim -a god)

Psa 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! You made them all by Wisdom.
Psa 136:5 To him that by Wisdom made the heavens.
Pro 3:19 The LORD by Wisdom hath founded the earth.

All things were made by wisdom and without wisdom was not anything made that was made.

Just some thoughts, I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong.

[Constantine the Great]

Not translating words in the Greek text is a sin that affects millions. If a rocket shot at the moon is off by one millionth of a degree it will miss the moon by thousands of miles.

Leaving out the word "Ton" in John 1:1 changes the entire Gospel.

Again, you're trying to use a colloquialism of improper English to justify your faulty translation and your analogy is a faulty one. Sorry, it doesn't work because I'm not talking about sending men to the moon. I'm talking about the proper translation from Greek to English. It is quite simple; there is a time to translate "ton" with "the" and there is not.

[robertroberg]

Again, you're trying to use a colloquialism of improper English to justify your faulty translation and your analogy is a faulty one. Sorry, it doesn't work because I'm not talking about sending men to the moon. I'm talking about the proper translation from Greek to English. It is quite simple; there is a time to translate "ton" with "the" and there is not.

And who makes the call? Who decides? A human translator working from a preconceived theology right?

If it is a English 16th Century Trinitarian he leaves it out, if it is a 21st Century pure monotheist he puts it in.

However if your read the Greek you're stuck. The word is there and you can't ignore it. Hmmmm....that what the Pure Monotheist does too come to think of it.

[drmilo]

If you look closer "The God" distinguishes it from the "other" god mentioned. Since Greek has no indefinite articles (a, and an) it can properly be translated that "a god" was with "The God"
.
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and the word was a God."

Well, if you're going to insist on such a "literal" translation from the Greek to the English, you then must abide by the word order in the Greek as well. Once you do that, you will see that your translation of "a god" in the third clause is faulty.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and God was the word." Is the proper word order in the Greek. Now, translating the word "God" in the third clause creates this nonsensical sentence: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and a god was the word." That makes no sense, and definitely doesn't say what you want it to say. The proper translation, I'm happy to say, is the one we currently have, whereby you drop the "the" in front of God just like you would drop the "the" in front of any proper noun: "In the beginnng was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. "

Notice, John the Baptist testified to The Word. But John spoke about Jesus Christ. He doesn't testify that Jesus Christ is indwelt by an angel called the logos. He says that Jesus Christ is the logos -- he who is preferred before [John] because he was before [John]. Jesus was born AFTER John. The Word existed BEFORE John. John testifies that Jesus is the one after and before him. Jesus is the Word.

[Warrior4God]

Bout time we stopped beating this horse because neither side will budge.

How bout we drop John 1:1 for a while.

I am the only one with the right view anyway.......just ask me.

Theres only 3 right people in the world and the other 2 send me post cards.

[Warrior4God]

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


Jesus has a God even after he ascends to sit on Gods right hand.

How is this possible that God is a trinity but Jesus talks about his God..........it appears Jesus is left out if there is a trinity.This does not say his Father but his God=trinity from what I have read in this thread.

God is 1 being in 3 persons but Jesus says his God 4 times in 1 verse,that leaves Jesus out of the mix does it not?

[robertroberg]

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


Jesus has a God even after he ascends to sit on Gods right hand.

How is this possible that God is a trinity but Jesus talks about his God..........it appears Jesus is left out if there is a trinity.This does not say his Father but his God=trinity from what I have read in this thread.

God is 1 being in 3 persons but Jesus says his God 4 times in 1 verse,that leaves Jesus out of the mix does it not?

It is clear to me Warrior4God.

His God is my God. He and I have the same God. Jesus calls him Father, so I call him Father. He never calls him Father/son/holy Ghost so I don't either.

He taught me to hallow the Father's name. His name is Yah the Eloah of Tsebaoth. Yah the God of Hosts.

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, ... for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yah thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. "

So I worship only the father. I honor the son, but worship the father.

Joh 5:23 all men should honour the Son.

[Warrior4God]

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

[DispensationalJim]

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


Jesus has a God even after he ascends to sit on Gods right hand.

How is this possible that God is a trinity but Jesus talks about his God..........it appears Jesus is left out if there is a trinity.This does not say his Father but his God=trinity from what I have read in this thread.

God is 1 being in 3 persons but Jesus says his God 4 times in 1 verse,that leaves Jesus out of the mix does it not?

Well, thank you, Warrior, for bringing up the Book of THE Revelation.

Warrior, who is speaking in your quote (Rev. 3:12)? Of course, you would quickly say: "IT IS JESUS, WHO HAS A GOD."

But, Warrior, it is the same person who was spekaing in Rev. 1:11, 17; 2:8 and 22:13 shown below.

So, exactly who is this who is speaking again?
• Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: ...
Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev. 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

=============================

Now, who is speaking in these next two verses?

• Is. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Is. 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

And who is this?
• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,...
the Almighty.

============================

And here He is again:
• Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

And the Alpha and Omega then says this:
• Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

So, in conclusion, we have THE FIRST AND THE LAST, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, and ALMIGHTY GOD. And, what do you know...

IT IS JESUS!!

==============================

Yes, Jesus has a God... it is His Father. But His Father calls His Son God, too!

• Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
... a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

It looks like Jesus is God the Son to me!

[Constantine the Great]

And who makes the call? Who decides? A human translator working from a preconceived theology right?
No, in fact you'd find quite a few translators who would not translate it your way.

However if your read the Greek you're stuck. The word is there and you can't ignore it. Hmmmm....that what the Pure Monotheist does too come to think of it.

No, actually you're not stuck. You see, the Koine Greek is still the language of the Greek Orthodox Church, and we know what the translation should be, as well as the meaning behind the verse in Greek, otherwise, the Church would have accepted your position on the matter a long time ago.

[robertroberg]

My God My God Jesus cries from the cross. If he was God why was he crying out to his God?

[drmilo]

My God My God Jesus cries from the cross. If he was God why was he crying out to his God?

The Incarnation.

[Constantine the Great]

The Incarnation.


+1


Seems simple doesn't it? But instead it's like :wall:

[Warrior4God]

Well, thank you, Warrior, for bringing up the Book of THE Revelation.

Warrior, who is speaking in your quote (Rev. 3:12)? Of course, you would quickly say: "IT IS JESUS, WHO HAS A GOD."

But, Warrior, it is the same person who was spekaing in Rev. 1:11, 17; 2:8 and 22:13 shown below.

So, exactly who is this who is speaking again?
• Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: ...
Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev. 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

=============================

Now, who is speaking in these next two verses?

• Is. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Is. 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

And who is this?
• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,...
the Almighty.

============================

And here He is again:
• Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

And the Alpha and Omega then says this:
• Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

So, in conclusion, we have THE FIRST AND THE LAST, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, and ALMIGHTY GOD. And, what do you know...

IT IS JESUS!!

==============================

Yes, Jesus has a God... it is His Father. But His Father calls His Son God, too!

• Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
... a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

It looks like Jesus is God the Son to me!

How many times have we been over this and you fail to see anything but what YOU want to see in those verses.


Bottom line is you can't have a God and be God and Hebrews 1 is absolutely no proof of anything unless you believe satan is God too.


Do you believe that Jim?

Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings.


Thats the truth and you can't seem to accept that.


Jesus's Father is also his God and thats why Jesus prayed to him and knew nothing unless God told him and could do nothing without God.

Just like us.............Too simple but men have distorted the simple and put all kinds of different views they have into who God and Jesus are.

To know who they are look to Jesus and what he declared, start there and only there or you will surely stumble into a hole.
I was given that advice 35 years ago in a trinity church and the advice stuck with me.

[drmilo]

How many times have we been over this and you fail to see anything but what YOU want to see in those verses.


Bottom line is you can't have a God and be God and Hebrews 1 is absolutely no proof of anything unless you believe satan is God too.


Do you believe that Jim?

Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings.


Thats the truth and you can't seem to accept that.


What you seem not to understand, Warrior, is that we, indeed, do understand that the words elohim and theos were used for people, beings, etc OTHER than the one true God -- but it is the context that determines the meaning. For example, when God says to Moses, "You shall be like a god to pharaoh" None of use trinitarians actually believe that God made Moses into a god. We do realize that the word can be used in a metaphorical sense to describe someone of authority.

You look up theos and see that it can mean something other than "the one true God" and ignore the fact that it only means something other than the one true god when it is used in a metaphorical sense -- or when it is used to describe pagan gods (and guess what, we English speakers, when describing pagan gods, also use the word "god" to describe them. But we know that the use of the word does not mean "the one true God" based on the context.) When satan was called "god of this world" it was metaphorical. "When the judges were referred to as "gods" it was metaphorical. When Moses is described as "god to pharoah" it is metaphorical.

You see that the word theos can have a different meaning, ignore the usage of the word in order to achieve that meaning, ignore the context of the passages in order to achieve that meaning, and then use the fact that theos can have more than one meaning as proof that Jesus was not called "God." The problem is, those metaphorical or contextual meanings do not fit in with the context in which Jesus was called God. Thomas' "My Lord and My God" is a case in point. The sentence structure is not metaphorical, so we must ignore the metaphorical meaning of the word theos, and Thomas is definitely not refering to a pagan god. Therefore, Thomas referred to him as "God" but not only that "his God."

You refuse to see this because you have made up your mind that Jesus is not God, and thus anytime the word theos is used in connection to him, it MUST mean something else. You are allowing your preconcieved notion to determing the meaning of the verses -- you are not allowing those verse to affect your preconcieved notion.

[Warrior4God]

What you seem not to understand, Warrior, is that we, indeed, do understand that the words elohim and theos were used for people, beings, etc OTHER than the one true God -- but it is the context that determines the meaning. For example, when God says to Moses, "You shall be like a god to pharaoh" None of use trinitarians actually believe that God made Moses into a god. We do realize that the word can be used in a metaphorical sense to describe someone of authority.

You look up theos and see that it can mean something other than "the one true God" and ignore the fact that it only means something other than the one true god when it is used in a metaphorical sense -- or when it is used to describe pagan gods (and guess what, we English speakers, when describing pagan gods, also use the word "god" to describe them. But we know that the use of the word does not mean "the one true God" based on the context.) When satan was called "god of this world" it was metaphorical. "When the judges were referred to as "gods" it was metaphorical. When Moses is described as "god to pharoah" it is metaphorical.

You see that the word theos can have a different meaning, ignore the usage of the word in order to achieve that meaning, ignore the context of the passages in order to achieve that meaning, and then use the fact that theos can have more than one meaning as proof that Jesus was not called "God." The problem is, those metaphorical or contextual meanings do not fit in with the context in which Jesus was called God. Thomas' "My Lord and My God" is a case in point. The sentence structure is not metaphorical, so we must ignore the metaphorical meaning of the word theos, and Thomas is definitely not refering to a pagan god. Therefore, Thomas referred to him as "God" but not only that "his God."

You refuse to see this because you have made up your mind that Jesus is not God, and thus anytime the word theos is used in connection to him, it MUST mean something else. You are allowing your preconcieved notion to determing the meaning of the verses -- you are not allowing those verse to affect your preconcieved notion.

No the problem is that you see The Son of God as God and even Jesus himself knew this was not so because he does not lie or even hide the truth.


Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


There are many more verses that show this truth but the fact that God revealed this to Peter leaves no doubt.

It wasn't the manpart that God revealed it was simply who Jesus was is and always will be.

The Son of God,The Christ.

I think those who use the phrase "God the Son" are making a mistake far more in error then you can possibly fathom.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

[drmilo]

No the problem is that you see The Son of God as God and even Jesus himself knew this was not so because he does not lie or even hide the truth.


Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


There are many more verses that show this truth but the fact that God revealed this to Peter leaves no doubt.

It wasn't the manpart that God revealed it was simply who Jesus was is and always will be.

The Son of God,The Christ.

I think those who use the phrase "God the Son" are making a mistake far more in error then you can possibly fathom.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

Warrior, why did Christ refer to himself as both the Son of God, and the Son of Man? Don't you realize that this is because he was both God and Man? He is the Son of God by nature -- and if there is only one God, the Son must be God because a Son shares in his father's nature (or substance). He is the Son of Man by virtue of his incaration as a man.

The problem as I see it is, you see the verses where Jesus is described as a man, and believe that is all he is. You then ignore the scriptures that say Jesus is God -- or you try to interpret them away with pages upon pages of explanation that pretty much states that the verse which clearly states the divinity of Jesus cannot be saying what it says.

Jesus is a man. No one here disputes that.

But Jesus is also God, as told to us by scripture.

[Warrior4God]

Warrior, why did Christ refer to himself as both the Son of God, and the Son of Man? Don't you realize that this is because he was both God and Man? He is the Son of God by nature -- and if there is only one God, the Son must be God because a Son shares in his father's nature (or substance). He is the Son of Man by virtue of his incaration as a man.

The problem as I see it is, you see the verses where Jesus is described as a man, and believe that is all he is. You then ignore the scriptures that say Jesus is God -- or you try to interpret them away with pages upon pages of explanation that pretty much states that the verse which clearly states the divinity of Jesus cannot be saying what it says.

Jesus is a man. No one here disputes that.

But Jesus is also God, as told to us by scripture.

Says you but not Jesus.

Its not scripture which says Jesus is God at all that I see.

Scripture does not even hint at the notion and unless you take a scripture from here and there out of the context of the whole of scripture and fit the puzzle together along with discarding the truth Jesus said to get to your view.

You have your opinion and I have mine and in light of the words of Jesus I kinda like the side of the fence I am on.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

Just speaking what I believe and you willcontinue speaking your view.

I mean no disrespect or speak in arrogance here.
I simply am commited to my belief of Jesus and his words and I believe the apostles spoke nothing that was in any way different.

You just interpret differently.

for example .........what was Jesus saying here ?.........


Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandment

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God

Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

[robertroberg]

Warrior, why did Christ refer to himself as both the Son of God, and the Son of Man? Don't you realize that this is because he was both God and Man? He is the Son of God by nature -- and if there is only one God, the Son must be God because a Son shares in his father's nature (or substance). He is the Son of Man by virtue of his incaration as a man.

The problem as I see it is, you see the verses where Jesus is described as a man, and believe that is all he is. You then ignore the scriptures that say Jesus is God -- or you try to interpret them away with pages upon pages of explanation that pretty much states that the verse which clearly states the divinity of Jesus cannot be saying what it says.

Jesus is a man. No one here disputes that.

But Jesus is also God, as told to us by scripture.

Hi Drmilo,
when Jesus was being threatened in the temple by an unruly mob. They said they were the sons of God.

Joh 8:41 ; we have one Father, even God.

They wanted to kill Jesus for saying he was a son of God, but he trapped them into also saying they were the sons of God.

Drmilo as a believer you are also a son of God.

Nowhere is Jesus ever called God the son. You and I and the others who post here are sons of God but we are not God are we?

As Warrior pointed out it is a serious error to call Jesus "God the Son". It is adding to the scriptures.

Peace Irene Shalom

[robertroberg]

What you seem not to understand, Warrior, is that we, indeed, do understand that the words elohim and theos were used for people, beings, etc OTHER than the one true God -- but it is the context that determines the meaning. For example, when God says to Moses, "You shall be like a god to pharaoh" None of use trinitarians actually believe that God made Moses into a god. We do realize that the word can be used in a metaphorical sense to describe someone of authority.

You look up theos and see that it can mean something other than "the one true God" and ignore the fact that it only means something other than the one true god when it is used in a metaphorical sense -- or when it is used to describe pagan gods (and guess what, we English speakers, when describing pagan gods, also use the word "god" to describe them. But we know that the use of the word does not mean "the one true God" based on the context.) When satan was called "god of this world" it was metaphorical. "When the judges were referred to as "gods" it was metaphorical. When Moses is described as "god to pharoah" it is metaphorical.

You see that the word theos can have a different meaning, ignore the usage of the word in order to achieve that meaning, ignore the context of the passages in order to achieve that meaning, and then use the fact that theos can have more than one meaning as proof that Jesus was not called "God." The problem is, those metaphorical or contextual meanings do not fit in with the context in which Jesus was called God. Thomas' "My Lord and My God" is a case in point. The sentence structure is not metaphorical, so we must ignore the metaphorical meaning of the word theos, and Thomas is definitely not refering to a pagan god. Therefore, Thomas referred to him as "God" but not only that "his God."

You refuse to see this because you have made up your mind that Jesus is not God, and thus anytime the word theos is used in connection to him, it MUST mean something else. You are allowing your preconcieved notion to determing the meaning of the verses -- you are not allowing those verse to affect your preconcieved notion.

Drmilo,

Jesus never said "I am God", but he did say "You are Gods." What do you make of that?

[Warrior4God]

Robert I have seen your website and am very impressed at your talent ,is this your profession or something you do on the side.

[Warrior4God]

God sent Jesus the Son of God.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.


Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)


Act 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?



Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Luk 4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

I have seen attempts to make the verse below look like what is said is really not what is said, just like "why call me good" that Jesus was so clear on.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Rom 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

[robertroberg]

Hi Dispensational Jim,

• Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The anonymous writer of Hebrews seems to know of no Pre-existent son. God's message via his son did not come in olden times, but by angels and prophets, so Jesus wasn't popping up in the OT. He doesn't show up until "these last days" (27-30 AD).

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:



Since anonymous is quoting Psalm 45 to get to the meaning of this statement we must look at how it plays out in Hebrew.

I know you are a serious student Jim and so I won't define elohim for you.

כסאך אלהים עולם ועד kisacha Elohim olam vaed.

And unto the son he saith thy throne O elohim is forever and ever.

Now if every time we see the word Elohim we insist that it is referring to God then we have to say that the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus in the temple were God for Jesus said to them "You are Gods. (Elohim)

We now know that the Jews in Jesus day did not speak Aramaic because when Peter spoke to the crowd at the temple that was trying to kill him it says he spoke in "the Hebrew tongue."

So Jesus in the temple would have been speaking Hebrew. Just as Thomas in John 20:28 would have called Jesus my adoni and elohim.

God is adonai
Jesus is adoni
Psal 110:1 Adonai said unto my Adoni.


God is "the" elohim
Jesus is elohim his agent, just as Moses was his elohim to Pharoah and the Judges were elohim to the nation and the Jews were supposed to be god agents (elohim) to the world.

Just as you and I and all who posts are supposed to be his elohim agents (ambassadors) to the world.
None of us are "The" Elohim, just as Jesus was not "the" elohim".

There is only one supreme Elohim and many angelic elohim and many earthly elohim

As your Paul says "there are gods many" (1 Cor. 8:5)
But to us there is but one God, the Father. (1 Cor.8:6)


So to loosely paraphrase :

The Father God (Yah eloah Tesabaoth) the Only supreme God said to his son :
Thy Throne (my beloved) Elohim (viceroy) is forever and ever.

Peace and Shalom Jim

[Ron Jon]

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


Jesus has a God even after he ascends to sit on Gods right hand.

How is this possible that God is a trinity but Jesus talks about his God..........it appears Jesus is left out if there is a trinity.This does not say his Father but his God=trinity from what I have read in this thread.

God is 1 being in 3 persons but Jesus says his God 4 times in 1 verse,that leaves Jesus out of the mix does it not?Not at all, especially when you consider the fact that Jesus took on human nature (became a Man). Speaking as a Man, Jesus would rightfully call the Father, His God. It's all about perspective.

[Ron Jon]

Drmilo,

Jesus never said "I am God", but he did say "You are Gods." What do you make of that?John 10:31-39 and Psalm 82:6. What does the original Hebrew say? Jesus did not call them "Gods" but rather He was quoting Psalm 82:6 and using it against them. They most certainly were NOT "Gods" or "gods" but rather unjust judges. Jesus, by calling Himself the Son of God was equating Himself with God. And the Jews knew this. "The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”"

[Ron Jon]

We now know that the Jews in Jesus day did not speak Aramaic because when Peter spoke to the crowd at the temple that was trying to kill him it says he spoke in "the Hebrew tongue."Do "we" know this? How do YOU know they did not speak Aramaic in the 1st century? As a matter of fact, it is MORE likely that they knew more than one language (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). It is MORE likely that they spoke Aramaic as the "vulger" (common) tongue and Hebrew as the "higher" religious language.

[Warrior4God]

Not at all, especially when you consider the fact that Jesus took on human nature (became a Man). Speaking as a Man, Jesus would rightfully call the Father, His God. It's all about perspective.

Yup and he is STILL a man is he not?

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

It's all about perspective.

perspective is Jesus still has a God and when all things are subdued he will be subject to God.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

It's all about perspective.

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


It's all about perspective.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (which includes Jesus)

Yes it truly is all about perspective and the perspective of scripture and not men.

It's all about perspective.

[robertroberg]

Do "we" know this? How do YOU know they did not speak Aramaic in the 1st century? As a matter of fact, it is MORE likely that they knew more than one language (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). It is MORE likely that they spoke Aramaic as the "vulger" (common) tongue and Hebrew as the "higher" religious language.

I'm sorry RJ,
I shouldn't have said "we" know. The latest research and the discovery of the Bar Kochvah letters make it clear:

“M.H. Segal who in 1909 suggested that the Jewish people in the land of Israel at the time of Jesus used Hebrew as their primary spoken and written language. Segal was an authority on Mishnaic Hebrew. The discovery of the Bar Kochvah letters have since confirmed his conclusions.

Professor Shmuel Safrai, also of the Hebrew University, a founding member of the Jerusalem School, concluded that Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the primary spoken language of Jesus. He has since written several articles on the subject, some of which may be found in the periodical Jerusalem Perspective (www.JerusalemPerspective.com).”

[robertroberg]

John 10:31-39 and Psalm 82:6. What does the original Hebrew say? Jesus did not call them "Gods" but rather He was quoting Psalm 82:6 and using it against them. They most certainly were NOT "Gods" or "gods" but rather unjust judges. Jesus, by calling Himself the Son of God was equating Himself with God. And the Jews knew this. "The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”"

True RJ, David was reminding the Jews that God had chosen them to be elohim to the nations, his judges , messengers, ambassadors, and viceroys."

When Jesus called himself the son of Elohim, the Jews misunderstood him and said "You are making yourself God." He reminded them that they were Elohim (and as you point out RJ they were so unjust that they were unworthy of the name).

His response was (in my words) If you are allowed to call yourselves elohim, as unjust as you are, why do you want to kill me who has only done good for saying I am the son of elohim?"

Jesus never called himself elohim only the son of elohim.

But the Jews that day were in no mood for rational discourse. They wanted blood.

[robertroberg]

Robert I have seen your website and am very impressed at your talent ,is this your profession or something you do on the side.
Hi Warrior 4God,
no it is a side line. I teach Education Classes for the University of Phoenix.

[robertroberg]

Should You Believe in the Trinity?


Taught by Early Christians?




DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."—Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught




THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.



Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead."—The Triune God


Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."

Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.Comments?

Given the preponderance of evidence you have presented Tater, the only way anyone could disagree with you would be on an emotional level.


Your presentation is solid. I copied it for my files. Thanks.

[drmilo]

Hi Drmilo,
when Jesus was being threatened in the temple by an unruly mob. They said they were the sons of God.

Joh 8:41 ; we have one Father, even God.

They wanted to kill Jesus for saying he was a son of God, but he trapped them into also saying they were the sons of God.

Drmilo as a believer you are also a son of God.

Nowhere is Jesus ever called God the son. You and I and the others who post here are sons of God but we are not God are we?

As Warrior pointed out it is a serious error to call Jesus "God the Son". It is adding to the scriptures.

Peace Irene Shalom

The difference between us -- or any believers -- being the sons of God, and Jesus is that Jesus is described as "The Only Begotten Son of God." Because Jesus is of one nature with the Father.

[drmilo]

Drmilo,

Jesus never said "I am God", but he did say "You are Gods." What do you make of that?

No. That is taken out of context. Jesus said,

John 10: 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus did not say "you are gods." He quoted scripture where the judges were condemned for unjust rulings "I have said, ye are gods, but ye shall die like men." Clearly, in the original verse, the term "gods" is used metaphorically to describe the judge's authority. Jesus goes on to say, that if the judges were metaphorically gods because of their authority (for this is the effect of quoting scriptures the Jews who wanted to stone him should know) then how can it be blasphemy for him to make himself equal with God (for that is how the Jews understood the term Son of God, in how Jesus used it, and that is why they wanted to stone him) if it is true -- since he was sanctified and sent into the world by the father.

[ralittlefield]

Hi Drmilo,
when Jesus was being threatened in the temple by an unruly mob. They said they were the sons of God.

Joh 8:41 ; we have one Father, even God.

They wanted to kill Jesus for saying he was a son of God, but he trapped them into also saying they were the sons of God.

Drmilo as a believer you are also a son of God.

Nowhere is Jesus ever called God the son. You and I and the others who post here are sons of God but we are not God are we?

As Warrior pointed out it is a serious error to call Jesus "God the Son". It is adding to the scriptures.

Peace Irene Shalom

As believers, we are God's children by adoption. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus was adopted. Jesus is God's Son by nature. If He is God's Son by nature then I believe that He must be God.

[Warrior4God]

The difference between us -- or any believers -- being the sons of God, and Jesus is that Jesus is described as "The Only Begotten Son of God." Because Jesus is of one nature with the Father.

drmilo I believe you have the comma in the wrong place in your quote...........It should be after today because he was not in paradise with him that day and actually paradise is on earth,there is nowhere that shows paradise being in heaven or above earth.

There were no commas in the greek and placing it in the wrong place can truly make a verse have an error.

[robertroberg]

drmilo I believe you have the comma in the wrong place in your quote...........It should be after today because he was not in paradise with him that day and actually paradise is on earth,there is nowhere that shows paradise being in heaven or above earth.

There were no commas in the greek and placing it in the wrong place can truly make a verse have an error.


Can you say more about Paradise being on the earth.

[Warrior4God]

Can you say more about Paradise being on the earth.

There is no place that I know of that paradise is anywhere but earth.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

In Genesis paradise was on earth and in the new earth paradise will again be on earth.


Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Had Jesus told the person on the cross that he would be with Jesus in heaven would be in error IMO.

[robertroberg]

There is no place that I know of that paradise is anywhere but earth.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

In Genesis paradise was on earth and in the new earth paradise will again be on earth.


Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Had Jesus told the person on the cross that he would be with Jesus in heaven would be in error IMO.

Allon Maxwell of Australia says since both thieves were mocking Jesus, He said something like:
"This day you will be with me and I am as close to paradise as you'll ever get."

[robertroberg]

For those of you who always wondered what the Trinity looks like: three persons in one God:



http://www.robertroberg.com/images/godman.jpg

[drmilo]

The difference between us -- or any believers -- being the sons of God, and Jesus is that Jesus is described as "The Only Begotten Son of God." Because Jesus is of one nature with the Father.
drmilo I believe you have the comma in the wrong place in your quote...........It should be after today because he was not in paradise with him that day and actually paradise is on earth,there is nowhere that shows paradise being in heaven or above earth.

There were no commas in the greek and placing it in the wrong place can truly make a verse have an error.

I'm not sure that you have quoted the correct post to which you addressed this post. If you notice the quote you quoted, I wasn't referencing paradise.

[drmilo]

I'm not sure that you have quoted the correct post to which you addressed this post. If you notice the quote you quoted, I wasn't referencing paradise.

I just realized you are talking about my signature. I copied and pasted that directly out of the Bible Online here -- http://www.carm.org/bibleonline.htm

[Warrior4God]

I just realized you are talking about my signature. I copied and pasted that directly out of the Bible Online here -- http://www.carm.org/bibleonline.htm

The comma is still in the wrong place because the person on the cross was not with Jesus in paradise that day.

The comma creates error and a new doctrine in a way.

[Reeder]

The comma is still in the wrong place because the person on the cross was not with Jesus in paradise that day.

The comma creates error and a new doctrine in a way.

How do you know the thief wasn't with Christ in Paradise that day?

[Reeder]

Allon Maxwell of Australia says since both thieves were mocking Jesus, He said something like:
"This day you will be with me and I am as close to paradise as you'll ever get."

But both thieves weren't mocking Jesus.....only the one thief was. And Jesus didn't say "I am as close to paradise as you'll ever get."

[Angryamerican]

The Incarnation.

Respectfully very weak answer.

Try again because that is not all he said while on the cross .Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

If he was God why didn't he forgive them ?

[Reeder]

Respectfully very weak answer.

Try again because that is not all he said while on the cross .Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

If he was God why didn't he forgive them ?

Matthew Chapter 9

1 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

[CatholicDefender]

Respectfully very weak answer.

Try again because that is not all he said while on the cross .Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

If he was God why didn't he forgive them ?

Jesus did forgive them! The Trinity is in unison here as always!

[RayMan]

Respectfully very weak answer.

Try again because that is not all he said while on the cross .Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

If he was God why didn't he forgive them ?


Some of us believe He did on the basis of 2 Cor 5, and that the message we are to bring the world is that God has already reconciled them to Himself through Jesus.


2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by
us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

[robertroberg]

But both thieves weren't mocking Jesus.....only the one thief was. And Jesus didn't say "I am as close to paradise as you'll ever get."

Mat 27:44 "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."

I said that is how Allon Maxwell translates it.

Both thieves were mocking Jesus. The tone of sarcasm can be heard in this reply

Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom. (right)

[robertroberg]

How do you know the thief wasn't with Christ in Paradise that day?

He wasn't in paradise because dead people don't travel. "The dead know nothing." They are unconscious.

After he saw Mary on Sun. Morning he said I have not yet ascended to my father.

Of course you Mormons don't believe the spirit can die so I guess Jesus didn't die for you, only his body died. That means you were redeemed by a sack of skin.

[CatholicDefender]

He wasn't in paradise because dead people don't travel. "The dead know nothing." They are unconscious.

After he saw Mary on Sun. Morning he said I have not yet ascended to my father.

Of course you Mormons don't believe the spirit can die so I guess Jesus didn't die for you, only his body died. That means you were redeemed by a sack of skin.

The Catholic Church does not believe that the soul dies either! You go to either Heaven or Hell! Purgatory is a state of the saved!

[Constantine the Great]

He wasn't in paradise because dead people don't travel. "The dead know nothing." They are unconscious.

After he saw Mary on Sun. Morning he said I have not yet ascended to my father.

Of course you Mormons don't believe the spirit can die so I guess Jesus didn't die for you, only his body died. That means you were redeemed by a sack of skin.


The soul never dies.

[Reeder]

He wasn't in paradise because dead people don't travel. "The dead know nothing." They are unconscious.

After he saw Mary on Sun. Morning he said I have not yet ascended to my father.

Of course you Mormons don't believe the spirit can die so I guess Jesus didn't die for you, only his body died. That means you were redeemed by a sack of skin.

You obviously don't fully understand what "us Mormons" believe. The Atonement consists of MUCH more than just Jesus dying on the cross. Anyone can die on a cross - not anyone can suffer for all the sins of mankind from the beginning to the end. Jesus suffered in the Garden of Gathsemane in such a way that is unfathomable to the human mind. "His sweat was as great drops of blood" falling to the ground. His suffering in the Garden was part of the great and infinite atonement - as was dying on the cross. Christ endured and overcame all the horrors and destruction and sin that satan could inflict on mankind. He didn't JUST die on a cross.

[Reeder]

He wasn't in paradise because dead people don't travel. "The dead know nothing." They are unconscious.



Where did you get that information? Because I completely and whole-heartedly disagree.

[robertroberg]

Where did you get that information? Because I completely and whole-heartedly disagree.
Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing

[robertroberg]

You obviously don't fully understand what "us Mormons" believe. The Atonement consists of MUCH more than just Jesus dying on the cross. Anyone can die on a cross - not anyone can suffer for all the sins of mankind from the beginning to the end. Jesus suffered in the Garden of Gathsemane in such a way that is unfathomable to the human mind. "His sweat was as great drops of blood" falling to the ground. His suffering in the Garden was part of the great and infinite atonement - as was dying on the cross. Christ endured and overcame all the horrors and destruction and sin that satan could inflict on mankind. He didn't JUST die on a cross.

It's true I know little about Mormons, but now I know you believe in the Atonement.

Jesus rejected the atonement theology. He rejected the notion that God wanted sacrifices.

He said he was "the ransom".

In the atonement a sinful man comes to God and pays something hoping for forgiveness.

In the Ransom an innocent man pays something to a kidnapper (Azazel) to free those held in captivity. Atonement and Ransom are exactly the opposite.

[Reeder]

It's true I know little about Mormons, but now I know you believe in the Atonement.

Jesus rejected the atonement theology. He rejected the notion that God wanted sacrifices.

He said he was "the ransom".

In the atonement a sinful man comes to God and pays something hoping for forgiveness.

In the Ransom an innocent man pays something to a kidnapper (Azazel) to free those held in captivity. Atonement and Ransom are exactly the opposite.

I have no idea where you're getting your information from. Where and when did Jesus say that He "rejected the atonement theology?" The Atonement is the most central and important aspect of Christianity. (Christ's sacrifice, death, and resurrection)

[robertroberg]

I have no idea where you're getting your information from. Where and when did Jesus say that He "rejected the atonement theology?" The Atonement is the most central and important aspect of Christianity. (Christ's sacrifice, death, and resurrection)


To you it is the center of your Christianity. That's why I am not a Mormon.

Jesus said God does not want sacrifice Mt.9:13

If God does not want it, then Jesus cannot be a sacrifice.

No sacrifice means no atonement, and no blood.

[RayMan]

I have no idea where you're getting your information from. Where and when did Jesus say that He "rejected the atonement theology?" The Atonement is the most central and important aspect of Christianity. (Christ's sacrifice, death, and resurrection)

Hi Reeder,
You don't hear a lot about it today but the Ransom Theory has been around for quite a while.

Atonement (ransom view)
The ransom view of the atonement, sometimes called the classical view of atonement,[1] is one of several doctrines in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. The first major theory of the atonement, it originated in the early Church, particularly in the work of Origen. The theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction of his just claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. Robin Collins summarized it as follows:

Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Ransom_view)



Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

ransom - lutron
Thayer Definition:
1) the price for redeeming, ransom
1a) paid for slaves, captives
1b) for the ransom of life
2) to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

ransom - antilutron
Thayer Definition:
1) what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption, ransom

[Reeder]

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing


"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:19-31)

[Reeder]

To you it is the center of your Christianity. That's why I am not a Mormon.

Jesus said God does not want sacrifice Mt.9:13

If God does not want it, then Jesus cannot be a sacrifice.

No sacrifice means no atonement, and no blood.

Jesus WAS the last and greatest sacrifice.

Alma 34: 10-15

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

[robertroberg]

Hi Reeder,
You don't hear a lot about it today but the Ransom Theory has been around for quite a while.

Atonement (ransom view)
The ransom view of the atonement, sometimes called the classical view of atonement,[1] is one of several doctrines in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. The first major theory of the atonement, it originated in the early Church, particularly in the work of Origen. The theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction of his just claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. Robin Collins summarized it as follows:

Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Ransom_view)



Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

ransom - lutron
Thayer Definition:
1) the price for redeeming, ransom
1a) paid for slaves, captives
1b) for the ransom of life
2) to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

ransom - antilutron
Thayer Definition:
1) what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption, ransom

Hi Ray Man,
I agree with all of this accept the part about God tricking the devil, God is no deceiver.

To me the ransom was paid in the garden when Jesus handed himself over to the Powers of darkness. I see it as a living prisoner exchange.

Satan agreed to release his right over the dead ,which he gained when Adam sinned. The wages of sin were Satan's honest claim.

The only way he would release those held in the land of the dead is through the exchange of a sinless man. Since Satan as the great seducer never met a person he could not tempt to sin, he agreed to this exchange fully confident that he would quickly lead Jesus into sin and not lose his rightful claim.

Satan, beat, tortured, ridiculed, false accused and nothing would break Jesus. Finally his final temptation was this.

"I will kill you at the time of the passover and then everyone will think you are a sacrifice and your father is just another tribal monster like all the pagan Gods who demand the blood of the innocent. If you really love your father you can stop this."

Jesus fought the temptation to defend his father's name and never broke.

His last cry was the cry that the gladiators cried when they were victorious "It is finished" (I have won).
At that moment the curse of God fell on Azazel for it is written "cursed is anyone who receives a payment and then kills an innocent man."

Satan has no more power of sin over humans, nor can he hold us in the land of death on the final day, and the curse of God is upon him. The ransom was paid through Yahshuah's final battle, not through his death.

By resurrecting, he proved that Satan's power is broken. He showed that each of us can resist temptation and be victorious, even to the point of a cross.

[robertroberg]

Jesus WAS the last and greatest sacrifice.

Alma 34: 10-15

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

If it doesn't agree with Jesus "it ain't " from God.

[Reeder]

If it doesn't agree with Jesus "it ain't " from God.

You don't believe the Holy Spirit can inspire people to speak and write the things of God?

By the way - it DOES agree with Jesus - just not with your interpretation of His words.

[robertroberg]

You don't believe the Holy Spirit can inspire people to speak and write the things of God?

By the way - it DOES agree with Jesus - just not with your interpretation of His words.

The role of the Spirit/angel of the truth is to affirm Jesus and call to our minds every word Jesus spoke. Anything that disagrees with Jesus is not from God. If people spent more time actually reading the words of Jesus instead of 120 other books, they would know what he spoke and recognize more quickly when things don't harmonize with his words.

You wrote:By the way - it DOES agree with Jesus - just not with your interpretation of His words

That's why we have 11,000 Christian denominations, thousands of non-denominations and two , or three Mormon Churches.

Alas we all think we have the right interpretation. The best we can do is be kind to eachother, which by the way Reeder your posts have always been kind to others. Even if I can't follow your teaching I can admire your kindness.

[drmilo]

Respectfully very weak answer.

Try again because that is not all he said while on the cross .Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

If he was God why didn't he forgive them ?

He called for God the Father to forgive them -- does that not imply that he himself forgave them?

[drmilo]

To you it is the center of your Christianity. That's why I am not a Mormon.

Jesus said God does not want sacrifice Mt.9:13

If God does not want it, then Jesus cannot be a sacrifice.

No sacrifice means no atonement, and no blood.

Jesus is the "ransom sacrafice."

That "ransom sacrafice" bought atonement for humankind -- reconciling us back to God, through the blood, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

[robertroberg]

Jesus is the "ransom sacrafice."

That "ransom sacrafice" bought atonement for humankind -- reconciling us back to God, through the blood, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

It's not good to add words to scripture like "ransom sacrifice".

The ransom goes to a kidnapper.

[robertroberg]

He called for God the Father to forgive them -- does that not imply that he himself forgave them?


You mean all three have to be in agreement before someone is forgiven? Jesus forgave them and then turned to the Father and prayed that the Father would forgive them too. You mean the Trinity can have split decisions, or argue, or try to influence each other?

[Warrior4God]

But both thieves weren't mocking Jesus.....only the one thief was. And Jesus didn't say "I am as close to paradise as you'll ever get."

Maybe I should post something that will get some people riled up on the others crucified with Jesus.

Some believe it is 4 crucified with Jesus when you harmonize the gospels.

Many believe if there were 2 then the Bible has contradictions.

If anyone has E.W Bullingers companion Bible you see some of this in the appendix.

I may start a new thread when I have time.

[HardHammer]

You don't believe the Holy Spirit can inspire people to speak and write the things of God?

By the way - it DOES agree with Jesus - just not with your interpretation of His words.

I think some things don't need interpreting, yet others believe they do, for example:

John 4:24 (New King James Version)
24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Does "God is Spirit" require to be interpreted? Or for your translation, "God is a Spirit". Can't it mean plainly what it says? If so, how can God be made into anything other than a Spirit? Jesus made this statement, do you believe Him?

I believe to read the Bible plainly allows even children to be saved, while adults compromise it to become wealthy and gain power. And those who preach HIS message will indeed receive great rewards.

[RayMan]

Maybe I should post something that will get some people riled up on the others crucified with Jesus.

Some believe it is 4 crucified with Jesus when you harmonize the gospels.

Many believe if there were 2 then the Bible has contradictions.

If anyone has E.W Bullingers companion Bible you see some of this in the appendix.

I may start a new thread when I have time.

Bullinger does make a pretty good case for four.

[Warrior4God]

Bullinger does make a pretty good case for four.

It is very interesting when you study it.

[Tucson Jim]

It is clear to me Warrior4God.

His God is my God. He and I have the same God. Jesus calls him Father, so I call him Father. He never calls him Father/son/holy Ghost so I don't either.

He taught me to hallow the Father's name. His name is Yah the Eloah of Tsebaoth. Yah the God of Hosts.

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, ... for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yah thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. "

So I worship only the father. I honor the son, but worship the father.

Joh 5:23 all men should honour the Son.

You honor the Son but worship only the Father.

What is your interpretation of Rev 5, specifically Verses 11 - 14?

"11Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands,

12saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."

13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

14And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen" And the elders fell down and worshiped. "

[Tucson Jim]

Anything that cannot be explained to a 12 year old, is not the Gospel _Allon Maxwell

Pithy . . . but who says you can't explain the Trinity to a 12 year old? I taught Sunday School to 12 year olds at church and they understood the concept just fine.

[Tucson Jim]

No, it really doesn't.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and God was the Word"

Is the same as:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

One is just more proper English than the other, that is all.

:clap:

[Tucson Jim]

Bout time we stopped beating this horse because neither side will budge.

How bout we drop John 1:1 for a while.

I am the only one with the right view anyway.......just ask me.

Theres only 3 right people in the world and the other 2 send me post cards.

C'mon Warrior - the horse isn't dead yet!

[Tucson Jim]

My God My God Jesus cries from the cross. If he was God why was he crying out to his God?

Because God is Triune. The Son was crying out to the Father.

[Tucson Jim]

What you seem not to understand, Warrior, is that we, indeed, do understand that the words elohim and theos were used for people, beings, etc OTHER than the one true God -- but it is the context that determines the meaning. For example, when God says to Moses, "You shall be like a god to pharaoh" None of use trinitarians actually believe that God made Moses into a god. We do realize that the word can be used in a metaphorical sense to describe someone of authority.

You look up theos and see that it can mean something other than "the one true God" and ignore the fact that it only means something other than the one true god when it is used in a metaphorical sense -- or when it is used to describe pagan gods (and guess what, we English speakers, when describing pagan gods, also use the word "god" to describe them. But we know that the use of the word does not mean "the one true God" based on the context.) When satan was called "god of this world" it was metaphorical. "When the judges were referred to as "gods" it was metaphorical. When Moses is described as "god to pharoah" it is metaphorical.

You see that the word theos can have a different meaning, ignore the usage of the word in order to achieve that meaning, ignore the context of the passages in order to achieve that meaning, and then use the fact that theos can have more than one meaning as proof that Jesus was not called "God." The problem is, those metaphorical or contextual meanings do not fit in with the context in which Jesus was called God. Thomas' "My Lord and My God" is a case in point. The sentence structure is not metaphorical, so we must ignore the metaphorical meaning of the word theos, and Thomas is definitely not refering to a pagan god. Therefore, Thomas referred to him as "God" but not only that "his God."


Excellent explanation drmilo! You must be a teacher in real life.

[Tucson Jim]

Hi Drmilo,
when Jesus was being threatened in the temple by an unruly mob. They said they were the sons of God.

Joh 8:41 ; we have one Father, even God.

They wanted to kill Jesus for saying he was a son of God, but he trapped them into also saying they were the sons of God.

Drmilo as a believer you are also a son of God.

Nowhere is Jesus ever called God the son. You and I and the others who post here are sons of God but we are not God are we?

As Warrior pointed out it is a serious error to call Jesus "God the Son". It is adding to the scriptures.

Peace Irene Shalom

Do you really believe we are "sons of God" in the same sense as God's "only begotten Son"?

[Tucson Jim]

John 10:31-39 and Psalm 82:6. What does the original Hebrew say? Jesus did not call them "Gods" but rather He was quoting Psalm 82:6 and using it against them. They most certainly were NOT "Gods" or "gods" but rather unjust judges. Jesus, by calling Himself the Son of God was equating Himself with God. And the Jews knew this. "The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”"

:clap:

[Tucson Jim]

Given the preponderance of evidence you have presented Tater, the only way anyone could disagree with you would be on an emotional level.


Your presentation is solid. I copied it for my files. Thanks.

If you are impressed by the scholarship of the Watchtower, there's a whole lot more they have published that may interest you . . .

[Tucson Jim]

As believers, we are God's children by adoption. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus was adopted. Jesus is God's Son by nature. If He is God's Son by nature then I believe that He must be God.

Amen!

[Tucson Jim]

He wasn't in paradise because dead people don't travel. "The dead know nothing." They are unconscious.

After he saw Mary on Sun. Morning he said I have not yet ascended to my father.

Of course you Mormons don't believe the spirit can die so I guess Jesus didn't die for you, only his body died. That means you were redeemed by a sack of skin.

Robert, the more I read of your answers, it seems you agree with much of JW theology. They always use the passage in Ecclesiastes you quoted to justify their doctrine of soul sleep.

[Tucson Jim]

The role of the Spirit/angel of the truth is to affirm Jesus and call to our minds every word Jesus spoke. Anything that disagrees with Jesus is not from God. If people spent more time actually reading the words of Jesus instead of 120 other books, they would know what he spoke and recognize more quickly when things don't harmonize with his words.

You wrote:By the way - it DOES agree with Jesus - just not with your interpretation of His words

That's why we have 11,000 Christian denominations, thousands of non-denominations and two , or three Mormon Churches.

Alas we all think we have the right interpretation. The best we can do is be kind to eachother, which by the way Reeder your posts have always been kind to others. Even if I can't follow your teaching I can admire your kindness.

Amen to this last paragraph!

[Tucson Jim]

He called for God the Father to forgive them -- does that not imply that he himself forgave them?

It does to me!

[Tucson Jim]

It's not good to add words to scripture like "ransom sacrifice".

The ransom goes to a kidnapper.

Ah . . . this is one area where you would disagree with our friends at the Watchtower.

[drmilo]

It's not good to add words to scripture like "ransom sacrifice".

The ransom goes to a kidnapper.

If the ransom is the life of an innocent man -- and that innocent man gave his life of his own free will so that all may be freed by their "kidnapper" -- isn't what the innocent man has done considered a sacrifice?

Thus the term "ransom sacrifice."

[Reeder]

I think some things don't need interpreting, yet others believe they do, for example:

John 4:24 (New King James Version)
24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Does "God is Spirit" require to be interpreted? Or for your translation, "God is a Spirit". Can't it mean plainly what it says? If so, how can God be made into anything other than a Spirit? Jesus made this statement, do you believe Him?

I believe to read the Bible plainly allows even children to be saved, while adults compromise it to become wealthy and gain power. And those who preach HIS message will indeed receive great rewards.

HH, I've been over John 4:24 more times than I can count. I'm really not in the mood to respond to it again, today. IMO, that is a weak argument (speaking of John 4:24) to explain that our Heavenly Father is only spirit essence. The scripture, IMHO, isn't even speaking of the corporeal nature of God (or lack thereof). I've explained it in depth before (multiple times), but I'll let you dig it up.

[Warrior4God]

You honor the Son but worship only the Father.

What is your interpretation of Rev 5, specifically Verses 11 - 14?

"11Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands,

12saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."

13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

14And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen" And the elders fell down and worshiped. "

Gotta study worship Jim.

I bow before Jesus,I pray to God.

Jesus never said we should petition him in prayer,at least not how I see it./

[Tucson Jim]

Gotta study worship Jim.

I do study worship and we have covered it extensively in this thread Warrior, as you know.

So I don't know why you would make a comment like that, as if I have never studied, or don't know what worship means.

Reconrick posted a great study on worship, as you may remember.

I could post it again if you like . . .

I bow before Jesus,I pray to God.

Jesus never said we should petition him in prayer,at least not how I see it./

Let me break it down for you a little bit.

Rev 5:13:

"And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

So . . .

To God the Father be blessing forever and ever.
To Jesus be blessing forever and ever.

To God the Father be honor forever and ever
To Jesus be honor forever and ever.

To God the Father be glory forever and ever.
To Jesus be glory forever and ever.

To God the Father be dominion forever and ever.
To Jesus be dominion forever and ever.

Rev 5:14

"And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen" And the elders fell down and worshiped."

It sure sounds like worship to me.

The exact same praises they (we) give the Father, is also given to the Son.

Exactly the same.

Thoughts?

[Tucson Jim]

If the ransom is the life of an innocent man -- and that innocent man gave his life of his own free will so that all may be freed by their "kidnapper" -- isn't what the innocent man has done considered a sacrifice?

Thus the term "ransom sacrifice."

Sounds logical to me drmilo!

[drmilo]

Gotta study worship Jim.

I bow before Jesus,I pray to God.

Jesus never said we should petition him in prayer,at least not how I see it./

Warrior,

Worship does not mean "bow down to."

Proskuneo, in the Greek CAN mean bow down to. Worship, in the English, does not mean "bow down to."


wor·ship Audio Help /ˈwɜrʃɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wur-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -shiped, -ship·ing or (especially British) -shipped, -ship·ping.
–noun 1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
–verb (used with object) 6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
–verb (used without object) 8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
9. to attend services of divine worship.
10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

Any of these ten definitions with the exception of number 5 (a title of honor) is reserved only for God, according to God's Word. Number 7 would be an affront to God -- since it is saying to have adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing), 7 would be the definition used when describing the worship of false gods, idols, or people.

You seem to think that because the greek word proskuneo can mean "bow down to" that the English word "worship" also means this. This is not the case.

[drmilo]

I do study worship and we have covered it extensively in this thread Warrior, as you know.

So I don't know why you would make a comment like that, as if I have never studied, or don't know what worship means.

Reconrick posted a great study on worship, as you may remember.

I could post it again if you like . . .



Let me break it down for you a little bit.

Rev 5:13:

"And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

So . . .

To God the Father be blessing forever and ever.
To Jesus be blessing forever and ever.

To God the Father be honor forever and ever
To Jesus be honor forever and ever.

To God the Father be glory forever and ever.
To Jesus be glory forever and ever.

To God the Father be dominion forever and ever.
To Jesus be dominion forever and ever.

Rev 5:14

"And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen" And the elders fell down and worshiped."

It sure sounds like worship to me.

The exact same praises they (we) give the Father, is also given to the Son.

Exactly the same.

Thoughts?


Also, the word "proskuneo" in Rev 5:14 which is translated as "worship" is rightly translated as "worship" since it is preceeded by "[they] fell down and..." To translate "proskuneo" in that verse to "bow down to" would render the english meaning of the verse to: "And the four living creatures kept saying, 'Amen' And the elders fell down and bowed down." That would be utter nonsense.

[Warrior4God]

I do study worship and we have covered it extensively in this thread Warrior, as you know.

So I don't know why you would make a comment like that, as if I have never studied, or don't know what worship means.

Reconrick posted a great study on worship, as you may remember.

I could post it again if you like . . .



Let me break it down for you a little bit.

Rev 5:13:

"And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

So . . .

To God the Father be blessing forever and ever.
To Jesus be blessing forever and ever.

To God the Father be honor forever and ever
To Jesus be honor forever and ever.

To God the Father be glory forever and ever.
To Jesus be glory forever and ever.

To God the Father be dominion forever and ever.
To Jesus be dominion forever and ever.

Rev 5:14

"And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen" And the elders fell down and worshiped."

It sure sounds like worship to me.

The exact same praises they (we) give the Father, is also given to the Son.

Exactly the same.

Thoughts?

As you know my thought are 180 degrees different then yours and will always be that way unless, you see the words of Jesus differently then you do or at least take into account his words in light of the rest of scripture.(What I mean is, not enough focus is on his words)IMO.

I am not sure what exactly the worship in revelation is about but to hang on that verse for a doctrinal issue is not wise for me to do.
For example who are the elders(not a guess but scriptural proof) I don't know someone here may.

I don't understand revelation enough to change what I believe the Word says.

But if I see that I should worship and pray to Jesus in Gods Word I will change my thinking. There is only one option for me and thats follow the word.
I have changed some views in the past so that my view is in harmony with what the Word says and I always will change when I see the truth.I will never let pride stop me from that.

Should Jesus recieve honor,blessings,glory and dominion?

Without a doubt.

[Tucson Jim]

As you know my thought are 180 degrees different then yours and will always be that way unless, you see the words of Jesus differently then you do or at least take into account his words in light of the rest of scripture.(What I mean is not enough focus is on his words)IMO.

I am not sure what exactly the worship in revelation is about but to hang on that verse for a doctrinal issue is not wise for me to do.
For example who are the elders(not a guess but scriptural proof) I don't know someone here may.

I don't understand revelation enough to change what I believe the Word says.

But if I see that I should worship and pray to Jesus in Gods Word I will change my thinking.

That is a wise position to take. If you see it in God's Word, you will change your thinking. That's what we all should do.

OK, so . . .

1) The Book of Revelation is God's Word, correct?

2. Rev. 5 has the "Lamb" described in Verse 5 as follows: " You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. ".

3. Therefore, the Lamb can only be talking about Jesus.

4. In Verses 13-14, as I noted, the Word of God says every created thing said: "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen " And the elders fell down and worshiped."


There is only one option for me and thats follow the word.

I just showed you that the Word shows a scene in heaven where "every created thing" praises Jesus in EXACTLY the same way they praise the Father. This would be blasphemous, even ridiculous, if Jesus is not God.

Also, we have shown you in God's Word numerous cases of worship, not just "respect", directed to Jesus while He was on the earth, worship He did not refuse.

In God's Word, Jesus also told His Disciples to pray to Him.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. John 14: 12-14

As a follower of Jesus, why don't you do what He said in His Word, and ask Him for something in His name?

I have changed some views in the past so that my view is in harmony with what the Word says and I always will change when I see the truth.I will never let pride stop me from that.

I'm hoping you won't, Warrior.

[Warrior4God]

That is a wise position to take. If you see it in God's Word, you will change your thinking. That's what we all should do.

OK, so . . .

1) The Book of Revelation is God's Word, correct?

2. Rev. 5 has the "Lamb" described in Verse 5 as follows: " You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. ".

3. Therefore, the Lamb can only be talking about Jesus.

4. In Verses 13-14, as I noted, the Word of God says every created thing said: "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen " And the elders fell down and worshiped."




I just showed you that the Word shows a scene in heaven where "every created thing" praises Jesus in EXACTLY the same way they praise the Father. This would be blasphemous, even ridiculous, if Jesus is not God.

Also, we have shown you in God's Word numerous cases of worship, not just "respect", directed to Jesus while He was on the earth, worship He did not refuse.

In God's Word, Jesus also told His Disciples to pray to Him.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. John 14: 12-14

As a follower of Jesus, why don't you do what He said in His Word, and ask Him for something in His name?



I'm hoping you won't, Warrior.
Did you read my post?
I pray for understanding of revelation but to be honest one verse written in a book with so many figures of speech,analogies and symbolism is not enough for me Jim.

Why would you post a verse considering your view that anyone can do greater works then God.

You posted other verses that don't help in proving your point either when we ask the Father in the name of Christ is not praying to Christ.

I hope I am making sense,I am trying my best to be clear.

Christ taught us how to pray in the gospels and it was not to him.

edit to add........... The lamb is not on the throne......God is.

That is a huge point to me.

[DispensationalJim]

Did you read my post?
I pray for understanding of revelation but to be honest one verse written in a book with so many figures of speech,analogies and symbolism is not enough for me Jim.

Why would you post a verse considering your view that anyone can do greater works then God.

You posted other verses that don't help in proving your point either when we ask the Father in the name of Christ is not praying to Christ.

I hope I am making sense,I am trying my best to be clear.

Christ taught us how to pray in the gospels and it was not to him.

edit to add........... The lamb is not on the throne......God is.

That is a huge point to me.

Excuse me for interupting, guys, but I just had to inject a few of my thoughts about prayer.

In my circle of "Pauline Grace dispensationalists" (following 2Tim. 2:15), we do not repeat any prayer, and especially the well known "Lord's Prayer" of Matt. 6, mainly because it was actually taught to His twelve apostles/disciples (to prepare them for "The Tribulation" IMO), NOT to us in the Age of Grace.

Jesus prefaced that specific prayer with these words:
• Matt. 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

So, in order to properly pray according to that passage, you would have to
1) go into your closet and shut the door
2) pray only to God the Father (Jesus was a MAN at the time, and thus did not include Himself as a "prayer receiver") and
3) NOT pray those same words repetitively.

But, then, we need to also remember some other words of Jesus as found in Matthew's account:
• Matt. 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Besides, if you pray that particular prayer, you are:
A) asking for "His kingdom to come" (which obviously means it has not yet come, but it also means that you are asking for the awful "Great Tribulation" to come right away since it must precede the Kingdom)
B) asking Him to forgive your debts AS YOU FORGIVE OTHERS (a very demanding concept -- what happens if you forget to forgive someone else? -- uh oh, it's all over!)

and so on...

=================================

If you want some great examples of prayers for believers in this Age of Grace, I would recommend some of Paul's epistles:

• Col. 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

• 1Cor. 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

• Eph. 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

• 2Th. 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: 12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

• 1Tim. 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; ... 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[CatholicDefender]

I pray prayers from the heart as well as set prayers. I love devotions that help me meditate. The Psalms are good to pray and that is very rewarding. The Monks would sing the Psalms and that is great devotion!

[Tucson Jim]

Did you read my post?

Yes, several times.


I pray for understanding of revelation but to be honest one verse written in a book with so many figures of speech,analogies and symbolism is not enough for me Jim.

It's actually several verses written in the Word of God, which you say you follow.

If several verses, showing Jesus is worshiped in heaven and praised by every created thing in exactly the same way the Father is praised, do not convince you, please tell me, exactly how many verses would?

Why would you post a verse considering your view that anyone can do greater works then God.

Why wouldn't I?

More importantly, why do you ignore the obvious point of the verse, and instead try to redirect attention towards an issue we have already discussed in great detail?

Are you really being open to scripture Warrior? I'm not saying you're not, just a question for you . . .

You posted other verses that don't help in proving your point either when we ask the Father in the name of Christ is not praying to Christ.

I didn't say we are not to pray to the Father. Again, you are avoiding what Jesus plainly said to His Disciples - "ask me anything and I will do it" - and focusing on parts of the verse that are beside the point!

Why not simply address the point I raised directly - why do you not pray to Jesus when you say you give greatest credence to the words of Christ, and in this verse He plainly tells them that when He goes to be with His Father in Heaven they should ask Him for anything?

I hope I am making sense,I am trying my best to be clear.

No offense intended, kind Warrior, but it seems clear to me that, whether you realize it or not, you are doing all you can to avoid the point of the scriptures I have cited - namely, that Christ is worthy of the same honor given to the Father and we should pray to Jesus, a point He made Himself.

Christ taught us how to pray in the gospels and it was not to him.

Well they couldn't exactly pray to Him when He was alive!

And again you are avoiding the point that He also taught His disciples to pray to Him after He went to be with the Father.

edit to add........... The lamb is not on the throne......God is.

That is a huge point to me.

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."

[Tucson Jim]

I pray prayers from the heart as well as set prayers. I love devotions that help me meditate. The Psalms are good to pray and that is very rewarding. The Monks would sing the Psalms and that is great devotion!

Amen CD! I have done the same, though I am such a terrible singer, I'm sure ONLY God would want to hear it! :))

[Tucson Jim]

Wow - a whole day and no response Warrior? I hope that means you're thinking about it . . .:razz:;)

[Tucson Jim]

While you are pondering the worship of Jesus, please consider the worship of Jesus while He was on the earth.

Not the "bowing down" our biblicalunitarian friends are so fond of running to, but the real worship of Jesus evident in the scriptures:

Again, I quote Reconrick's excellent post in part. I would urge you to read carefully and prayerfully consider this post Warrior, for I believe it is meant for you.

"Here's the simple question: How would one distinguish between bowing low to a man in respect, which is allowed, and true worship, which is forbidden? Or more specific to our conversation, did people worship Jesus or did they merely bow low in respect?

There is a type of proskuneo that cannot be mistaken for mere courtesy. In Acts 10:25 Cornelius fell at Peter's feet and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8 John fell at the angel's feet twice and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. Both Cornelius and John were seriously reprimanded. Why?

The reason they were reprimanded is that proskuneo is generally translated to bow down but--read closely--if a person is already down, the addition of proskuneo must indicate worship. Cornelius didn't fall at Peter's feet and then bow down, he was already down. John didn't fall down at the angel's feet and then bow down, he was already down. They both fell down and worshipped. Ergo the strong words of correction: "Worship God, not me."

Remember the words of the devil in the temptation in Matthew 4:9? "And he said to Him, 'All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me.'" No possibility of mistaking that. Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"

There are eight references of worhipful proskuneo to Jesus. Matthew 2:2, 8, 11, "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.'....[Herod says,] 'Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him.'....And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother and they fell down and worshiped Him...." Matthew 28:9, "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

The Magi and the Christ child with the miraculous star overhead, the disciples with the risen Jesus, are not falling down and then bowing down; they're already down. They are falling down and, as the New American Bible accurately translates it, worshipping Jesus Christ.
What of the other cases? Matthew 14:3, Peter gets out of the boat and walks on the water. Peter starts to sink, Jesus reaches out and saves him. And when they got into the boat the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, " You are certainly God's Son!" These people are not just tipping their hats to an esteemed person. In Matthew 28:17 it says, "And when they saw Him, [the risen Jesus Christ whom they knew had been dead and was now alive] they worshipped Him." And then in John 9:38 the man blind from birth is healed. He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. Hebrews 1:6, "And when He again brings the first-born into the world He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

These verses show much more than mere respect, much more than deference, much more than courtesy. Jesus is being worshipped. Yes, there are times when the word proskuneo is used of Jesus and other men and it doesn't refer to worship. The context tells us. "

[Tucson Jim]

Jesus is rightfully worshiped because He is God!

[Tucson Jim]

We know He is God because the Bible says so. Here are a few of the verses supporting the Biblical teaching that jesus is God.

A. Matthew 1:23--"God with us"
B. John 1:1,18--"The Word was God"
C. Romans 9:5 - "God blessed forever"
D. 1 Timothy 3:16--"God in the flesh"
E. Colossians 2:9-- "Fullness of the Godhead "
F. Titus 2:13--"God and Savior"
G. James 2:1--"Lord of Glory"
H. 1 John 5:20--"The true God"
I. Isaiah 9:6--"Mighty God"
J. 2 Peter 1 :1--"God and Savior"
K. Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:12-20;1:17-18--"First and Last"

There are many more.

[Fire Watch]

While you are pondering the worship of Jesus, please consider the worship of Jesus while He was on the earth.

Not the "bowing down" our biblicalunitarian friends are so fond of running to, but the real worship of Jesus evident in the scriptures:

Again, I quote Reconrick's excellent post in part. I would urge you to read carefully and prayerfully consider this post Warrior, for I believe it is meant for you.

"Here's the simple question: How would one distinguish between bowing low to a man in respect, which is allowed, and true worship, which is forbidden? Or more specific to our conversation, did people worship Jesus or did they merely bow low in respect?

There is a type of proskuneo that cannot be mistaken for mere courtesy. In Acts 10:25 Cornelius fell at Peter's feet and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8 John fell at the angel's feet twice and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. Both Cornelius and John were seriously reprimanded. Why?

The reason they were reprimanded is that proskuneo is generally translated to bow down but--read closely--if a person is already down, the addition of proskuneo must indicate worship. Cornelius didn't fall at Peter's feet and then bow down, he was already down. John didn't fall down at the angel's feet and then bow down, he was already down. They both fell down and worshipped. Ergo the strong words of correction: "Worship God, not me."

Remember the words of the devil in the temptation in Matthew 4:9? "And he said to Him, 'All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me.'" No possibility of mistaking that. Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"

There are eight references of worhipful proskuneo to Jesus. Matthew 2:2, 8, 11, "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.'....[Herod says,] 'Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him.'....And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother and they fell down and worshiped Him...." Matthew 28:9, "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

The Magi and the Christ child with the miraculous star overhead, the disciples with the risen Jesus, are not falling down and then bowing down; they're already down. They are falling down and, as the New American Bible accurately translates it, worshipping Jesus Christ.
What of the other cases? Matthew 14:3, Peter gets out of the boat and walks on the water. Peter starts to sink, Jesus reaches out and saves him. And when they got into the boat the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, " You are certainly God's Son!" These people are not just tipping their hats to an esteemed person. In Matthew 28:17 it says, "And when they saw Him, [the risen Jesus Christ whom they knew had been dead and was now alive] they worshipped Him." And then in John 9:38 the man blind from birth is healed. He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. Hebrews 1:6, "And when He again brings the first-born into the world He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

These verses show much more than mere respect, much more than deference, much more than courtesy. Jesus is being worshipped. Yes, there are times when the word proskuneo is used of Jesus and other men and it doesn't refer to worship. The context tells us. "
good post ;)

[Tucson Jim]

In consideration of the scene in heaven we looked at in Revelation where Jesus is praised EXACTLY like the Father, here are some more verses that similarly speak of Jesus in the same terms as the Father.

1. John 5:23--Honor the Son as the Father

2. John 8:19,24--Know the Son / Know the Father

3. John 14:1--Trust in God, in Jesus

4. John 14:9--See Jesus, see the Father

[Tucson Jim]

good post ;)

;)

[CatholicDefender]

Jesus is rightfully worshiped because He is God!

John 20:28!

[Tucson Jim]

John 20:28!

Amen CD!

[Andrew_980]

If you need to give god three faces and name to serve him then so be it.

[CatholicDefender]

If you need to give god three faces and name to serve him then so be it.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! One God in Three Persons!!!

[Tucson Jim]

If you need to give god three faces and name to serve him then so be it.

Puhleazzzzeee!

[Tucson Jim]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! One God in Three Persons!!!

Amen!

[Tucson Jim]

If you need to give god three faces and name to serve him then so be it.

If you need to take cheap shots and misrepresent those who disagree with you then so be it!

[Andrew_980]

Puhleazzzzeee!

That is how i see it, you have a differant veiw.
Whoever is right is up to god not us.
I trust in him alone.

[Andrew_980]

If you need to take cheap shots and misrepresent those who disagree with you then so be it!

It is not a cheap shot, it is my belief.
Who do i misrepresent? I see that that is how you see god, but that you serve him is most important.

[CatholicDefender]

That is how i see it, you have a differant veiw.
Whoever is right is up to god not us.
I trust in him alone.

How did you get hannitized?

[Andrew_980]

How did you get hannitized?

?

[Tucson Jim]

It is not a cheap shot, it is my belief.
Who do i misrepresent? I see that that is how you see god, but that you serve him is most important.

Come on - "three faces"?? That is a misrepresentation and I'm pretty sure you know it.

If not, I could recommend some good books on the Trinity.

Or better yet, read this thread!

[CatholicDefender]

?

hehehe, I finally asked a question that made you speechless!!

[Tucson Jim]

hehehe, I finally asked a question that made you speechless!!

:clap:

[Andrew_980]

hehehe, I finally asked a question that made you speechless!!

Not speechless, simply not understanding what you are attempting to ask. There is a differance.

[CatholicDefender]

Not speechless, simply not understanding what you are attempting to ask. There is a differance.

I noticed your avatar you have been hannitized, do you consider yourself a conservative?

[Tucson Jim]

That is how i see it, you have a differant veiw.
Whoever is right is up to god not us.
I trust in him alone.
If you trust in Him alone, we have something in common.

[Andrew_980]

I noticed your avatar you have been hannitized, do you consider yourself a conservative?

In many arenas i am, guns, borders, death penalty, abortion for the most part, but i know that not all convervative policy, especially if taken to the extreme, is good.

[CatholicDefender]

In many arenas i am, guns, borders, death penalty, abortion for the most part, but i know that not all convervative policy, especially if taken to the extreme, is good.

You are pro-life! That is good!

[Andrew_980]

If you trust in Him alone, we have something in common.

Good, then if we both trust in god and serve him them we have nothing to fight about. Honor god and do good in this world, the details we need not fret over. I have no need to convince you of my beliefs, only to share them. I really meant no harm in my earlier comment, just sharing my side.

[Andrew_980]

You are pro-life! That is good!

I believe there are times that it is ok, mostly just medical reasons. Abortion as birth control is just sick.

[CatholicDefender]

I believe there are times that it is ok, mostly just medical reasons. Abortion as birth control is just sick.

It is the taking of a human life. Made in the image of God!

[Andrew_980]

It is the taking of a human life. Made in the image of God!
Sometimes human life must be taken, if it saves the mothers life it is worthwhile.

[CatholicDefender]

Sometimes human life must be taken, if it saves the mothers life it is worthwhile.

That would be less than 1% of all abortions! It is still wrong.

[Warrior4God]

TJim I appreciate the patience you are displaying with me on worship.

I think you are missing what I am saying.
1.I do talk to Jesus at times.
2.I believe he is to be worshipped yet not in the way we would worship God.
3.I believe he is worthy of honor and reverence.
4.The line between what I consider worship and what the usage in Bible is different.
5.You think I am nuts and don't understand me.

[DispensationalJim]

TJim I appreciate the patience you are displaying with me on worship.

I think you are missing what I am saying.
1.I do talk to Jesus at times.
2.I believe he is to be worshipped yet not in the way we would worship God.
3.I believe he is worthy of honor and reverence.
4.The line between what I consider worship and what the usage in Bible is different.
5.You think I am nuts and don't understand me.

Warrior, how do you talk to Jesus if He is not God? I don't believe a dead person can hear us, but God can.

[CatholicDefender]

Warrior, how do you talk to Jesus if He is not God? I don't believe a dead person can hear us, but God can.

The only possible way that Saint's can hear you is through the power of God. Jesus is God, that is not an issue with Him. It's not like He didn't pay His phone bill!

[Tucson Jim]

Good, then if we both trust in god and serve him them we have nothing to fight about. Honor god and do good in this world, the details we need not fret over. I have no need to convince you of my beliefs, only to share them. I really meant no harm in my earlier comment, just sharing my side.

I didn't know we were fighting. I just thought the "three faces" comment was a little over the top. But since you meant no harm, that's cool.

[Tucson Jim]

In many arenas i am, guns, borders, death penalty, abortion for the most part, but i know that not all convervative policy, especially if taken to the extreme, is good.

I think we have seen some of that with the current administration.

[CatholicDefender]

I think we have seen some of that with the current administration.

I wonder how President Bush would look if he would have had support from the media instead of a 90% negative rating?

[Tucson Jim]

TJim I appreciate the patience you are displaying with me on worship.

I also appreciate your patience with me Warrior. :) And you have displayed much gentleness and respect on this forum lately. Thank you!

I think you are missing what I am saying.
1.I do talk to Jesus at times.
2.I believe he is to be worshipped yet not in the way we would worship God.
3.I believe he is worthy of honor and reverence.
4.The line between what I consider worship and what the usage in Bible is different.
5.You think I am nuts and don't understand me.

To me worship is worship.

But I don't think you're nuts Warrior! I believe you are a sincere seeker of God, as I am.

I don't know if we will ever agree about this. But I want to please Him in our discussions, which to me means speaking the truth in love. That is what I have been trying to do, with His help.

[Tucson Jim]

I wonder how President Bush would look if he would have had support from the media instead of a 90% negative rating?

He would have looked better, no doubt. But I believe he has acted recklessly in some respects, particularly regarding illegal immigration and the border, and as a lifelong conservative Republican I am quite disappointed in him, regardless of the media.

[Tucson Jim]

The only possible way that Saint's can hear you is through the power of God. Jesus is God, that is not an issue with Him. It's not like He didn't pay His phone bill!

:))

[CatholicDefender]

:))

I like that close connection!!! hehehe

[DispensationalJim]

The only possible way that Saint's can hear you is through the power of God. Jesus is God, that is not an issue with Him. It's not like He didn't pay His phone bill!

I realize this is an issue for another thread, but as you are probably aware, most fundamentalists I know do not believe in the concept of praying to anyone other than God (which of course would include the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not anyone else, since we do not believe they can hear us as God can, nor could they have the power to answer our requests for that matter).

I have debated this many times. I have been told that it is like asking a good friend to pray for you, but I don't see the comparison since I can talk directly with my good friend, but not to someone who has passed on. That, IMO, would be like dealing in the occult. And, no, I do not believe they are "up there watching." God is watching, and that is enough for me. Angels are also apparently watching, but I also reject the notion that we become angels when we arrive in Heaven. I think the Bible is clear that angels are specially created beings for special purposes.

So, the way I see it, I know without a doubt that God can hear my prayers, so why deal with someone else who I can't be sure about, anyway?

------------------------------------------------

Oh, yes, and besides that, my apostle Paul wrote that those who have trusted in Christ as Saviour are already saints ... whether we deserve it or not, because we have been given the righteousness of Christ by faith. So I humbly accept that I am a sinner saved by grace, thus I am a saint! But please, when I get to Heaven, don't try to pray to me. The Bible says there will be no crying there, so if you could pray to me about all your problems, it would surely make me cry.

[CatholicDefender]

I realize this is an issue for another thread, but as you are probably aware, most fundamentalists I know do not believe in the concept of praying to anyone other than God (which of course would include the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not anyone else, since we do not believe they can hear us as God can, nor could they have the power to answer our requests for that matter).

I have debated this many times. I have been told that it is like asking a good friend to pray for you, but I don't see the comparison since I can talk directly with my good friend, but not to someone who has passed on. That, IMO, would be like dealing in the occult. And, no, I do not believe they are "up there watching." God is watching, and that is enough for me. Angels are also apparently watching, but I also reject the notion that we become angels when we arrive in Heaven. I think the Bible is clear that angels are specially created beings for special purposes.

So, the way I see it, I know without a doubt that God can hear my prayers, so why deal with someone else who I can't be sure about, anyway?

------------------------------------------------

Oh, yes, and besides that, my apostle Paul wrote that those who have trusted in Christ as Saviour are already saints ... whether we deserve it or not, because we have been given the righteousness of Christ by faith. So I humbly accept that I am a sinner saved by grace, thus I am a saint! But please, when I get to Heaven, don't try to pray to me. The Bible says there will be no crying there, so if you could pray to me about all your problems, it would surely make me cry.

We will not become angels, I love Clarence from the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" but that is fiction. I do believe that the saints do know what is going on, that they can pray for us. That is biblical. It all comes from God.

[Angryamerican]

He called for God the Father to forgive them -- does that not imply that he himself forgave them?

So it is not jesus who forgives ?

And where is the Holy Spirit in all this ?

[CatholicDefender]

So it is not jesus who forgives ?

And where is the Holy Spirit in all this ?

It is a question of unity of will, the Three are one and one in Three, even more close than the three Muskateers!

[Warrior4God]

Warrior, how do you talk to Jesus if He is not God? I don't believe a dead person can hear us, but God can.

Jesus is not dead.

[CatholicDefender]

Jesus is not dead.

Amen!

[Tucson Jim]

We will not become angels, I love Clarence from the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" but that is fiction. I do believe that the saints do know what is going on, that they can pray for us. That is biblical. It all comes from God.

CD, how do you know the saints in heaven know what is going on here and can hear our prayers? As D-Jim said, it is probably a topic for a different thread but I'm just curious.

[Tucson Jim]

Jesus is not dead.

True!

[CatholicDefender]

CD, how do you know the saints in heaven know what is going on here and can hear our prayers? As D-Jim said, it is probably a topic for a different thread but I'm just curious.

This affects the Trinity in that God is the center of all things that flow. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us." That teaches that the saints (the great cloud of witnesses) are capable of not only knowing what is going on, but can pray about it (Revelation 8:3-5). God bless you!

[RayMan]

This affects the Trinity in that God is the center of all things that flow. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us." That teaches that the saints (the great cloud of witnesses) are capable of not only knowing what is going on, but can pray about it (Revelation 8:3-5). God bless you!

The writer of Hebrews is summing up the witness of faith of the elders listed in Heb 11.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.
Heb 11:2 For therein the elders had witness borne to them.

He has already shared the witness their faith provides for ensuing generations and says nothing about them watching us here on earth or being aware of what is going on down here.

[drmilo]

In many arenas i am, guns, borders, death penalty, abortion for the most part, but i know that not all convervative policy, especially if taken to the extreme, is good.

Well, as I see it, NO POLICY taken to the extreme is good.

I guess, then, it comes down to what one views as extreme.

[drmilo]

CD, how do you know the saints in heaven know what is going on here and can hear our prayers? As D-Jim said, it is probably a topic for a different thread but I'm just curious.

It is clear in the Revelation that the Martyrs are quite aware of what is happening, and they cry out to God for vengence when the last of their number joins them. Are the martyrs kept aware of the events on earth, while others who have died and gone to our Lord have not?

[DispensationalJim]

Jesus is not dead.

Amen, Warrior! And we almost all agree that He rose again (although you say God the Father raised Him while many of us say that it was a joint effort of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

However, since you insist that He was a man, and that He is still a man, then how can He hear millions of prayers all at once, and how can He have power to "answer" them if He is not God?

[Tucson Jim]

This affects the Trinity in that God is the center of all things that flow. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us." That teaches that the saints (the great cloud of witnesses) are capable of not only knowing what is going on, but can pray about it (Revelation 8:3-5). God bless you!

God bless you too CD!

I guess I just don't see that as clearly as you, probably because I believe the word "saints" refers to all Christians.

Be that as it may, thank you for sharing your belief CD! I appreciate your posts and am glad you are here!

[Tucson Jim]

Well, as I see it, NO POLICY taken to the extreme is good.

I guess, then, it comes down to what one views as extreme.

True, true . . .

[DispensationalJim]

This affects the Trinity in that God is the center of all things that flow. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us." That teaches that the saints (the great cloud of witnesses) are capable of not only knowing what is going on, but can pray about it (Revelation 8:3-5). God bless you!

CD, that sounds good, except how can you be sure the "saints" mentioned are not saints praying on the earth? You do agree, do you not, that true believers on earth are saints? Paul refers to the believers to whom he is writing as saints in almost every one of his epistles.

===============================

And, IMO, the "cloud of witnesses" of Heb. 12:1 would be angels who are "watching" here on earth: as in the verses below:
• 1Cor. 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
• Heb. 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
• 1Pet. 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

[Tucson Jim]

It is clear in the Revelation that the Martyrs are quite aware of what is happening, and they cry out to God for vengence when the last of their number joins them. Are the martyrs kept aware of the events on earth, while others who have died and gone to our Lord have not?

I don't know drmilo, it seems the scripture is kind of lean on this point. In any event, I appreciate knowing your beliefs on this - thank you!

[Tucson Jim]

CD, that sounds good, except how can you be sure the "saints" mentioned are not saints praying on the earth? You do agree, do you not, that true believers on earth are saints? Paul refers to the believers to whom he is writing as saints in almost every one of his epistles.

===============================

And, IMO, the "cloud of witnesses" of Heb. 12:1 would be angels who are "watching" here on earth: as in the verses below:
• 1Cor. 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
• Heb. 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
• 1Pet. 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Good thoughts D-Jim. Like you said, this might be a good topic for a new thread.

[RayMan]

It is clear in the Revelation that the Martyrs are quite aware of what is happening, and they cry out to God for vengence when the last of their number joins them. Are the martyrs kept aware of the events on earth, while others who have died and gone to our Lord have not?


I believe that passage carries forward the same symbolism used of the blood of Jesus and Abel.

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel.

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Rev 6:9 And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

This is a picture of those martyred for their faith in Jesus. It is their blood crying out to God, not the voices of people who are now alive in heaven.

Biblically blood = life = soul

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Life = nephesh = soul

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.

Life = nephesh = soul
Souls = nephesh = life