Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[Angryamerican]

I am willing to discuss the bible, i rather focus there, i have presented enough of outsider's views and history. But if we agree our views are from God then we should be able to prove our views in the bible.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

[Harmonious]

So you are a christian that thinks the Muslims inteprepation of the Bible...very interesting?

Or are you a Jew?

I have to work at work now I'll be back in a while.:hug:

He's not a Jew.

[HisServant]

Show us where that term is used in the bible please?

God the father appears many times. God the son doesn't appear anywhere in the scriptures . Funny nor does God the holy spirit. Are you now making up terms?

How can you worship what you can't comprehen?

Let's just suppose that verse is mistranslated, you are breaking the law i will have NO gods before me.

Not just the scholars are saying it is mistranslated. It just doesn't fit because the amount of scriptures that contradict the way it is translated in your bible.

Common sense and reasoning can come to that conclusion.

OK I'm lost are you talking about the term Trinity?

2nd God shows up many times in the OT. Notice we don't know if it is God the Son or the Holy Spirit. If no man has seen God at any times and God appears to someone then how do you reconcile the two statements. Who was it that Joshua saw when he went to fight?

So your point is in order to worship God you need to comprehend all there is to know about Him? So it is not enough to know that He is worthy of praise? That He is the Almighty. That He sent His Son for us. You need more, ok. :think:

If John 1:1 is translated wrong and it should be 'a god'. I throw out all my Bibles. Why? Well we have God and a god by my count that is 2 gods. Bible now has a contradiction.

Sir there is no contradiction in scripture because of the Trinity doctrine. All there is are people who don't understand or like it. Just because someone claims to be a scholar does not mean their view is correct. All things being equal there are more schloars that translate John 1:1 as is. Many are not even religious. I gave you an example of how a spanish term can be translated. You ignored the whole post.

You don't have to believe in the Trinity. But neither do we have to believe some of the nonsense that are being proposed. A statement is not a fact because it is quoted. Have a great life.

[HisServant]

Not all Christians are wrong.

Is there a point to this comment?

You didn't read all the others that wasn't muslim?

Why? There are many other post and commentary that already state that rendering John 1:1 any other was is not in keeping with proper translation of the greek rules of grammar. They state anyone keeping the "a" or "the" is not correct. I believe them. I showed an example of a simple spanish term and show how using your rules it would change it's meaning. You never replied or commented. You can continue with you view and I will continue with what the scriptures teach.

[Constantine the Great]

Hmm ok. I am willing to forgive are you?

I have had my morning coffee and my eyes are wide open. I was wrong for saying the mean things i said. I do apologize.

I am not sorry for standing up for what i believe though.

Accepted and I apologize as well for anything mean I may have said.
That having been said, this thread has just become too polarized for my tastes so I most likely will be refraining from further discussion in it.

[HisServant]

Should you believe in the Trinity? I don't see it as a command. I don't see anything in scripture that says anyone who does not believe in the 3 in 1 will be condemned.

What is being argued however is "is the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible".
So at this point we've gone off the OP.

[Angryamerican]

OK I'm lost are you talking about the term Trinity?

2nd God shows up many times in the OT. Notice we don't know if it is God the Son or the Holy Spirit. If no man has seen God at any times and God appears to someone then how do you reconcile the two statements. Who was it that Joshua saw when he went to fight?

So your point is in order to worship God you need to comprehend all there is to know about Him? So it is not enough to know that He is worthy of praise? That He is the Almighty. That He sent His Son for us. You need more, ok. :think:

If John 1:1 is translated wrong and it should be 'a god'. I throw out all my Bibles. Why? Well we have God and a god by my count that is 2 gods. Bible now has a contradiction.

Sir there is no contradiction in scripture because of the Trinity doctrine. All there is are people who don't understand or like it. Just because someone claims to be a scholar does not mean their view is correct. All things being equal there are more schloars that translate John 1:1 as is. Many are not even religious. I gave you an example of how a spanish term can be translated. You ignored the whole post.

You don't have to believe in the Trinity. But neither do we have to believe some of the nonsense that are being proposed. A statement is not a fact because it is quoted. Have a great life.

You keep using the term God the son. That term is only used God the father, no where is that reference in the bible God the son nor is God the holy spirit.

The only way ever that man has seen God is through the Angel of the Lord and visions and dreams.

I never said we will know everything there is to know about God. But we should know who he is and what he expects from us. What i have stated is not that difficult to understand is it?

There is only one God to be worshiped. but there are many gods. I have shown you through scripture there are other gods.

Does the scriptures warn that satan will mislead many? Don't you think he will use religion to mislead?2Co 11:14 Did not even Satan marvelously transform himself into an angel of light?

The early Christians did not believe in the trinity, Thats why the Catholic church had to fight like heck to get the trinity doctrine added to the belief. It took them 295 years to do so.A nd a leader of the church that also believed in the trinity.

Then how do you deal with this contradiction.
Joh 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away and I am coming to you again. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.

The trinity teaches that Jesus God and the holy spirit are all equal. Does this verse i quoted teach that?

[Angryamerican]

Accepted and I apologize as well for anything mean I may have said.
That having been said, this thread has just become too polarized for my tastes so I most likely will be refraining from further discussion in it.

Ok have a great day.

[Angryamerican]

Should you believe in the Trinity? I don't see it as a command. I don't see anything in scripture that says anyone who does not believe in the 3 in 1 will be condemned.

What is being argued however is "is the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible".
So at this point we've gone off the OP.


What does this command mean?

I will have no gods before me.

But first read this carefully.

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am Jehovah your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exo 20:4 You shall not make to yourselves any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I Jehovah your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me,
Exo 20:6 and showing mercy to thousands of those that love Me and keep My commandments.
Exo 20:7 You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain. For Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work.
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God. You shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
Exo 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long upon the land which Jehovah your God gives you.
Exo 20:13 You shall not kill.
Exo 20:14 You shall not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 You shall not steal.
Exo 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exo 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
Exo 20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. And when the people saw, they trembled, and stood afar off.
Exo 20:19 And they said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will hear. But let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, Do not fear, for God has come to test you, and so that His fear may be before your faces, so that you may not sin.
Exo 20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.
Exo 20:22 And Jehovah said to Moses, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, You have seen that I have talked with you from the heavens.
Exo 20:23 You shall not make with Me gods of silver, neither shall you make to you gods of gold.
Exo 20:24 You shall make an altar of earth to Me, and shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In all places where I record My name I will come to you, and I will bless you.
Exo 20:25 And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of cut stone. For if you lift up your tool upon it, you have defiled it.
Exo 20:26 And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness be not uncovered on it.

Some seem to forget what God is. He is a jealous GOD.

Exo 22:20 One sacrificing to a god, except it is to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed

Eze 20:5 And say to them, So says the Lord Jehovah: In the day that I chose Israel, and lifted up My hand to the seed of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt; when I lifted up My hand to them,
saying, I am Jehovah your God;

Eze 20:9 But I worked for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the nations among whom they were, for I made Myself known to them in their eyes, by bringing them out of the land of Egypt

Deu 4:35 It was shown to you so that you might know that Jehovah is God, and no one else beside Him

Psa 83:18 so that men may know that Your name is JEHOVAH, that You alone are the Most High over all the earth

Do you see any exceptions here?Do you see anything about Christ or The Holy spirit?He did make himself known.

All quotes came from the MKJV version.

[HisServant]

What does this command mean?

I will have no gods before me.

But first read this carefully.

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am Jehovah your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exo 20:4 You shall not make to yourselves any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I Jehovah your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me,
Exo 20:6 and showing mercy to thousands of those that love Me and keep My commandments.
Exo 20:7 You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain. For Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work.
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God. You shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
Exo 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long upon the land which Jehovah your God gives you.
Exo 20:13 You shall not kill.
Exo 20:14 You shall not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 You shall not steal.
Exo 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exo 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
Exo 20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. And when the people saw, they trembled, and stood afar off.
Exo 20:19 And they said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will hear. But let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, Do not fear, for God has come to test you, and so that His fear may be before your faces, so that you may not sin.
Exo 20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.
Exo 20:22 And Jehovah said to Moses, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, You have seen that I have talked with you from the heavens.
Exo 20:23 You shall not make with Me gods of silver, neither shall you make to you gods of gold.
Exo 20:24 You shall make an altar of earth to Me, and shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In all places where I record My name I will come to you, and I will bless you.
Exo 20:25 And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of cut stone. For if you lift up your tool upon it, you have defiled it.
Exo 20:26 And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness be not uncovered on it.

Some seem to forget what God is. He is a jealous GOD.

Exo 22:20 One sacrificing to a god, except it is to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed

Deu 4:35 It was shown to you so that you might know that Jehovah is God, and no one else beside Him

Psa 83:18 so that men may know that Your name is JEHOVAH, that You alone are the Most High over all the earth

Do you see any acceptions here?Do you see anything about Christ or The Holy spirit?

Um sir whydo you think the NT is called a revelation of who Jesus is?
Because in the OT He is not revealed in full. In the NT He is. And if John 1:1 is correct as we have rendered it we still don't violate anything you just posted because He is God. That is where you either lack in understanding or your pride prevents you from saying you could be wrong. As opposed to "a god" which now creates 2 gods and violates what you just posted.

[Angryamerican]

Um sir whydo you think the NT is called a revelation of who Jesus is?
Because in the OT He is not revealed in full. In the NT He is. And if John 1:1 is correct as we have rendered it we still don't violate anything you just posted because He is God. That is where you either lack in understanding or your pride prevents you from saying you could be wrong. As opposed to "a god" which now creates 2 gods and violates what you just posted.

Can you show me where he wasn't fully revealed i think i missed that?

Or is that a poor attempt to prove your point?

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve. Who was Jesus speaking about?

And in the new testament JESUS DECLARES in his new revelation.
Joh 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away and I am coming to you again. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.

[HisServant]

Show me Greek terms like i did.

The Greek rules were used properly and thats why it should read a god not was GOD.

I google John 1:1 and came up with a very interesting site: it is too long to cut and paste so go to it and read>

http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

In Short the agreement was that this is the correct interpretation.

Conclusion

While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:


"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."

[Angryamerican]

Um sir whydo you think the NT is called a revelation of who Jesus is?
Because in the OT He is not revealed in full. In the NT He is. And if John 1:1 is correct as we have rendered it we still don't violate anything you just posted because He is God. That is where you either lack in understanding or your pride prevents you from saying you could be wrong. As opposed to "a god" which now creates 2 gods and violates what you just posted.


Well if you can't understand that satan is a god, so that means Jesus clearly is a god.

That must mean that the Almighty is the only one we should worship. Now i know this is gonna take a little common sense and reasoning.

Act 19:8 And going into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Mar 12:28 And coming up one of the scribes heard them reasoning, knowing that He had answered them well, he asked Him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mar 2:6 But some of the scribes were sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

Job 13:6 Hear now my reasoning, and listen to the pleadings of my lips.

So it is ok to reason.

And it is important that we test what we believe.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things, hold fast to the good.

Isn't this clear who Christ is?
Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great High Priest who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

[HisServant]

Can you show me where he wasn't fully revealed i think i missed that?

Or is that a poor attempt to prove your point?

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve. Who was Jesus speaking about?

And in the new testament JESUS DECLARES in his new revelation.
Joh 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away and I am coming to you again. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.

Stop playing games. You said Jesus nor the trinity is found in the OT. And you are correct. Thus revelation is a revealing of something. We can now see Jesus all over the OT because of the NT.

If you believe 1 Col 14:33 then stop causing confusion.

Matt 4:10 God the Father since He is God the Son.

Yep Jesus said exactly that. Your point is meaningless since you have yet to understand as a human God is greater than Jesus.

[HisServant]

Well if you can't understand that satan is a god, so that means Jesus clearly is a god.

That must mean that the Almighty is the only one we should worship. Now i know this is gonna take a little common sense and reasoning.

Act 19:8 And going into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Mar 12:28 And coming up one of the scribes heard them reasoning, knowing that He had answered them well, he asked Him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mar 2:6 But some of the scribes were sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

Job 13:6 Hear now my reasoning, and listen to the pleadings of my lips.

So it is ok to reason.

And it is important that we test what we believe.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things, hold fast to the good.

Isn't this clear who Christ is?
Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great High Priest who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

I guess since you believe satan is a god I can understand why you would think the same about God's Son. I guess zeus is a god and I have heard others say they were gods too so it must be so.

I have no comment on any verse posted. It is the way you use them.
It is like using a shoe to hammer a nail. It may work but that is not the intended purpose of a shoe. but you go right ahead and keep misapplying verses.

[Angryamerican]

I google John 1:1 and came up with a very interesting site: it is too long to cut and paste so go to it and read>

http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

In Short the agreement was that this is the correct interpretation.

Conclusion

While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:


"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."

Interesting but i can give plenty to dispute that, So the only way to prove how it should be interpeted is through other scripture.

But see the word essence also don't appear in the scriptures. That is a word to describe God. How come God's word isn't enough to explain himself?

Why do we need to look to others to prove who God is?

[Angryamerican]

Stop playing games. You said Jesus nor the trinity is found in the OT. And you are correct. Thus revelation is a revealing of something. We can now see Jesus all over the OT because of the NT.

If you believe 1 Col 14:33 then stop causing confusion.

Matt 4:10 God the Father since He is God the Son.

Yep Jesus said exactly that. Your point is meaningless since you have yet to understand as a human God is greater than Jesus.

Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve

I am saying God is greater then Jesus. Jesus is a lesser god. Satan is a lesser god.
2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them

God and Jesus are not equal.

Joh 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away and I am coming to you again. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.

[Angryamerican]

I guess since you believe satan is a god I can understand why you would think the same about God's Son. I guess zeus is a god and I have heard others say they were gods too so it must be so.

I have no comment on any verse posted. It is the way you use them.
It is like using a shoe to hammer a nail. It may work but that is not the intended purpose of a shoe. but you go right ahead and keep misapplying verses.

The scriptures say they are gods why can't you understand that.

I'm just agreeing with the scriptures.

[HisServant]

Interesting but i can give plenty to dispute that, So the only way to prove how it should be interpeted is through other scripture.

But see the word essence also don't appear in the scriptures. That is a word to describe God. How come God's word isn't enough to explain himself?

Why do we need to look to others to prove who God is?

Sir think what you want. Obviously whenever proof is presented to you it is dismissed. You wanted greek you got it. You got a site where several scholars none of which I know, say that John 1:1 is correctly translated. They actually disagree as to why we do translate it that way. But all agree that the translation is correct. Now you dismiss it because it is not your point of view. So please do not post anymore sources since it matters not what anyone says as long as they agree with you.

Now you want to go back to scripture. Ok
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - We now call Him Jesus instead of Logos. He is God the Son.

If your rule of interpreting scripture is you cannot use a word or a phrase not found in scripture it is going to be a very dumb conversation. For there are many words and phrases that are not found in scripture that we use everyday to describe events and periods. Let me ask you show me in scripture where it says "The creation story".

[Harmonious]

What does this command mean?

I will have no gods before me.

But first read this carefully.

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am Jehovah your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exo 20:4 You shall not make to yourselves any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I Jehovah your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me,
Exo 20:6 and showing mercy to thousands of those that love Me and keep My commandments.
Exo 20:7 You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain. For Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work.
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God. You shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
Exo 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long upon the land which Jehovah your God gives you.
Exo 20:13 You shall not kill.
Exo 20:14 You shall not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 You shall not steal.
Exo 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exo 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
Exo 20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. And when the people saw, they trembled, and stood afar off.
Exo 20:19 And they said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will hear. But let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, Do not fear, for God has come to test you, and so that His fear may be before your faces, so that you may not sin.
Exo 20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.
Exo 20:22 And Jehovah said to Moses, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, You have seen that I have talked with you from the heavens.
Exo 20:23 You shall not make with Me gods of silver, neither shall you make to you gods of gold.
Exo 20:24 You shall make an altar of earth to Me, and shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In all places where I record My name I will come to you, and I will bless you.
Exo 20:25 And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of cut stone. For if you lift up your tool upon it, you have defiled it.
Exo 20:26 And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness be not uncovered on it.

Some seem to forget what God is. He is a jealous GOD.

Exo 22:20 One sacrificing to a god, except it is to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed

Eze 20:5 And say to them, So says the Lord Jehovah: In the day that I chose Israel, and lifted up My hand to the seed of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt; when I lifted up My hand to them,
saying, I am Jehovah your God;

Eze 20:9 But I worked for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the nations among whom they were, for I made Myself known to them in their eyes, by bringing them out of the land of Egypt

Deu 4:35 It was shown to you so that you might know that Jehovah is God, and no one else beside Him

Psa 83:18 so that men may know that Your name is JEHOVAH, that You alone are the Most High over all the earthSounds good. No trinity there, anywhere.

Do you see any exceptions here?Do you see anything about Christ or The Holy spirit?Nope. He did make himself known.God most certainly did.

All quotes came from the MKJV version.End.

[HisServant]

The scriptures say they are gods why can't you understand that.

I'm just agreeing with the scriptures.

Your grasp of concepts is very disturbing.
If I say Paul is a god, does that make it so? No.
If I say, John told me Paul is a god, does it make it so? No.
Scripture says, you call them a god, it does not say they are a god. 2 different things. Read what is being said and not what you want it to say.

Let me ask you this. Does God give you something and then take it away?

[Angryamerican]

I google John 1:1 and came up with a very interesting site: it is too long to cut and paste so go to it and read>

http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

In Short the agreement was that this is the correct interpretation.

Conclusion

While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:


"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."



Notice this verse it is similar to when moses saw God. Moses must have seen Christ not God.
Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.

[Angryamerican]

Sir think what you want. Obviously whenever proof is presented to you it is dismissed. You wanted greek you got it. You got a site where several scholars none of which I know, say that John 1:1 is correctly translated. They actually disagree as to why we do translate it that way. But all agree that the translation is correct. Now you dismiss it because it is not your point of view. So please do not post anymore sources since it matters not what anyone says as long as they agree with you.

Now you want to go back to scripture. Ok
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - We now call Him Jesus instead of Logos. He is God the Son.

If your rule of interpreting scripture is you cannot use a word or a phrase not found in scripture it is going to be a very dumb conversation. For there are many words and phrases that are not found in scripture that we use everyday to describe events and periods. Let me ask you show me in scripture where it says "The creation story".

Show me where it says in the bible this term?

God the son.

[Angryamerican]

Your grasp of concepts is very disturbing.
If I say Paul is a god, does that make it so? No.
If I say, John told me Paul is a god, does it make it so? No.
Scripture says, you call them a god, it does not say they are a god. 2 different things. Read what is being said and not what you want it to say.

Let me ask you this. Does God give you something and then take it away?

The words that were spoken by paul were they not the words of Christ or God?

Good we agree.

2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness."

[Angryamerican]

Sounds good. No trinity there, anywhere.

Nope. God most certainly did.

End.

Yes it doesn't get any clearer what God is does it?

Clearly he is not a trinity.

[HisServant]

Show me where it says in the bible this term?

God the son.

So now you are saying that God does not have a son because God the Son is not in the Bible. :think: Your theology is very interesting.

[HisServant]

Yes it doesn't get any clearer what God is does it?

Clearly he is not a trinity.

As usual you ignore everything people say to you. :wall:

[HisServant]

The words that were spoken by paul were they not the words of Christ or God?

Good we agree.

2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness."

Paul is using "the god of this world" as a phrase. You just love being wrong.
He is not saying satan is a god. You are.

[Angryamerican]

Sir think what you want. Obviously whenever proof is presented to you it is dismissed. You wanted greek you got it. You got a site where several scholars none of which I know, say that John 1:1 is correctly translated. They actually disagree as to why we do translate it that way. But all agree that the translation is correct. Now you dismiss it because it is not your point of view. So please do not post anymore sources since it matters not what anyone says as long as they agree with you.

Now you want to go back to scripture. Ok
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - We now call Him Jesus instead of Logos. He is God the Son.

If your rule of interpreting scripture is you cannot use a word or a phrase not found in scripture it is going to be a very dumb conversation. For there are many words and phrases that are not found in scripture that we use everyday to describe events and periods. Let me ask you show me in scripture where it says "The creation story".

What does we mean? It means more then one.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

[Angryamerican]

So now you are saying that God does not have a son because God the Son is not in the Bible. :think: Your theology is very interesting.


You don't understand the difference between God the son which don't appear in the bible and son of God that does appear?

That is twisting scripture.

[Angryamerican]

As usual you ignore everything people say to you. :wall:

Clearly you cannot reason from scripture.

[Angryamerican]

Paul is using "the god of this world" as a phrase. You just love being wrong.
He is not saying satan is a god. You are.

I'm sorry that you are in such denial. I will pray for you.

[Angryamerican]

Paul is using "the god of this world" as a phrase. You just love being wrong.
He is not saying satan is a god. You are.

The heck with talking about Greek with you , You can't even get english right.

[Angryamerican]

As usual you ignore everything people say to you. :wall:

Clear this verse up please?
Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David.

And this one.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne

And this one
Heb 1:8 But to the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

And this one
Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and sat down at the right of the throne of God.

[Angryamerican]

Sir think what you want. Obviously whenever proof is presented to you it is dismissed. You wanted greek you got it. You got a site where several scholars none of which I know, say that John 1:1 is correctly translated. They actually disagree as to why we do translate it that way. But all agree that the translation is correct. Now you dismiss it because it is not your point of view. So please do not post anymore sources since it matters not what anyone says as long as they agree with you.

Now you want to go back to scripture. Ok
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - We now call Him Jesus instead of Logos. He is God the Son.

If your rule of interpreting scripture is you cannot use a word or a phrase not found in scripture it is going to be a very dumb conversation. For there are many words and phrases that are not found in scripture that we use everyday to describe events and periods. Let me ask you show me in scripture where it says "The creation story".

Ok let's go over that verse John 1:1 again i will show you why it is translated wrong.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Another key word in the verse is with. meaning more then one. The verse contradicts itself. Am i to believe that you know what was means but not with? It's that simple of a problem to solve.

[scipio337]

Sir think what you want. Obviously whenever proof is presented to you it is dismissed. You wanted greek you got it. You got a site where several scholars none of which I know, say that John 1:1 is correctly translated. They actually disagree as to why we do translate it that way. But all agree that the translation is correct. Now you dismiss it because it is not your point of view. So please do not post anymore sources since it matters not what anyone says as long as they agree with you.

Now you want to go back to scripture. Ok
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word is God.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - We now call Him Jesus instead of Logos. He is God the Son.

If your rule of interpreting scripture is you cannot use a word or a phrase not found in scripture it is going to be a very dumb conversation. For there are many words and phrases that are not found in scripture that we use everyday to describe events and periods. Let me ask you show me in scripture where it says "The creation story".Pretty much sums it up.

[DRS]

you really believe that don't you? I'll bet you a Dollar that if he were using it to try to prove your interpertation you would not be jolly on the spot with comments like the above.

But I could be wrong.

There are Muslims I have seen who could quote the bible back and forth and hold there own on any theological debate.

You ever heard of a man named Deedat?

You should read up on him, he had an impressive knowledge of the bible.

[HisServant]

What does we mean? It means more then one.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

We in this verse must mean Father, Son and Spirit.

[DRS]

Stop playing games. You said Jesus nor the trinity is found in the OT. And you are correct. Thus revelation is a revealing of something. We can now see Jesus all over the OT because of the NT.

If you believe 1 Col 14:33 then stop causing confusion.

Matt 4:10 God the Father since He is God the Son.

Yep Jesus said exactly that. Your point is meaningless since you have yet to understand as a human God is greater than Jesus.

Was Jesus tried by evil?

[HisServant]

You don't understand the difference between God the son which don't appear in the bible and son of God that does appear?

That is twisting scripture.

No. You are the one insisting that if a word does not exist in scripture then it must not exist. Since God the Son does not exist in scripture then according to your theory God has no Son.

My understanding is we use terms to help us understand things we see in scripture. We use terms such as Son of God, The Trinity, The Rapture, essence to denote things we see or doctrines we believe are being taught.
the words or phrases are not written but the idea is there.

You cannot have it both ways. So either Jesus being called Son of God is a title and thus we call Him God the Son. or he is not.

[DRS]

You cannot have it both ways. So either Jesus being called Son of God is a title and thus we call Him God the Son. or he is not.

You can since God says this is my son, with reference to Jesus.

By calling him god the son you are trying to say he is Almighty which is unbiblical.

Since he could die, had a beginning and refers to fellow humans as corulers with him as joint heirs.

If you believe his getting a period of ruling then you must believe that those who corule with him are God also, in which case you seem to be more in with the LDS thought.

[HisServant]

The heck with talking about Greek with you , You can't even get english right.

Sounds about what you would say. It is clear that Paul is not calling satan a god. It is clear the Bible does not call satan a god. It is a phase. Like saying your the big cheese. Does that really mean you are a big cheese or is the person saying you are the person in charge. But I can see how it fits into how you interpret scripture.

BTW: Get the beam out of your eyes before you criticize another. The "You" after the comma should not be capitalized Mr. I know Greek and English better than you.

[DRS]

Sounds about what you would say. It is clear that Paul is not calling satan a god. It is clear the Bible does not call satan a god. It is a phase. Like saying your the big cheese. Does that really mean you are a big cheese or is the person saying you are the person in charge. But I can see how it fits into how you interpret scripture.

Could it be that you need to study what god means?

Satan is refered to as god and ruler of this system of things.

[HisServant]

You can since God says this is my son, with reference to Jesus.

By calling him god the son you are trying to say he is Almighty which is unbiblical.

Since he could die, had a beginning and refers to fellow humans as corulers with him as joint heirs.

If you believe his getting a period of ruling then you must believe that those who corule with him are God also, in which case you seem to be more in with the LDS thought.

I am not the Bible does and so I believe He is and call Him thus.
And I don't think He is God Almighty, He is God the Son.

The more you post the more your lack of knowing scripture shows.

[DRS]

I am not the Bible does and so I believe He is and call Him thus.
And I don't think He is God Almighty, He is God the Son.

The more you post the more your lack of knowing scripture shows.

Where does the bible say he is God the son?

If you do not believe he is Almighty then He can be part of God since Johvah is described as Almighty.

[HisServant]

Was Jesus tried by evil?

Not sure what you mean? are you trying to ask if He was tempted? if so Yes. The Bible is clear on that. Don't go to the God cannot be tempted. The whole reason Jesus came is to bear our iniquities and be like us. To show us we can with the Fathers help overcome sin. Please try and read the Bible to learn what it says instead of reading it to try and refute theology.
These are the things you learn in Sunday School.

[HisServant]

Could it be that you need to study what god means?

Satan is refered to as god and ruler of this system of things.

Yes he is and it is a phrase. It does not mean that he is literally a god. For there is only One God and beside Him there is no other.

[DRS]

Yes he is and it is a phrase. It does not mean that he is literally a god. For there is only One God and beside Him there is no other.

For the writers who were Jews the tem god is used for those who represent The Almighty, hence why there is a difference in John 1:1 in the original greek between ho theos (The God-Jehovah) and theos (Jesus who represents and speaks on behalf of Jehovah)

The term only begotten son that is used for Jesus denotes the fact that only he alone was created by Jehovah, as all creation after him is through him and for him.

[DRS]

Not sure what you mean? are you trying to ask if He was tempted? if so Yes. The Bible is clear on that. Don't go to the God cannot be tempted. The whole reason Jesus came is to bear our iniquities and be like us. To show us we can with the Fathers help overcome sin. Please try and read the Bible to learn what it says instead of reading it to try and refute theology.
These are the things you learn in Sunday School.

The bible says God can not be tried by evil, Jesus was tried by evil.

[HisServant]

Where does the bible say he is God the son?

If you do not believe he is Almighty then He can be part of God since Johvah is described as Almighty.

Again a lack of understanding of the concept of the Godhead on your part does not constitute the fact that it does not exist.

Father, Son and Spirit. Three in one. Seperate yet one. Distinct yet the same.

[Angryamerican]

I am not the Bible does and so I believe He is and call Him thus.
And I don't think He is God Almighty, He is God the Son.

The more you post the more your lack of knowing scripture shows.

Well goodluck to you , I don't see any point to this any longer.

[Angryamerican]

Where does the bible say he is God the son?

If you do not believe he is Almighty then He can be part of God since Johvah is described as Almighty.

The 100,000 dollar question.

[DRS]

Again a lack of understanding of the concept of the Godhead on your part does not constitute the fact that it does not exist.

Father, Son and Spirit. Three in one. Seperate yet one. Distinct yet the same.

First off if the Holy Spirit were a person it would have a name, but it does not have a name. Every important person in the bible has a name.

Secondly if the Holy spirit was a person than knowledge of him would be important but it is not, we are told we must have knowledge of God and the one he sent forth Jesus Christ.

There is no God head, there is just God who is the head of Jesus and Jesus who is the head of the congreation.

[Angryamerican]

Not sure what you mean? are you trying to ask if He was tempted? if so Yes. The Bible is clear on that. Don't go to the God cannot be tempted. The whole reason Jesus came is to bear our iniquities and be like us. To show us we can with the Fathers help overcome sin. Please try and read the Bible to learn what it says instead of reading it to try and refute theology.
These are the things you learn in Sunday School.

Apparently you missed a lot of sunday school.

[Angryamerican]

Again a lack of understanding of the concept of the Godhead on your part does not constitute the fact that it does not exist.

Father, Son and Spirit. Three in one. Seperate yet one. Distinct yet the same.

That makes a lot of sense.:rolleyes:

[HisServant]

The bible says God can not be tried by evil, Jesus was tried by evil.

Ok drs have a nice day.

[HisServant]

Apparently you missed a lot of sunday school.

Nope I was actually one of the few who went and paid attention. Went home and did my own studying.

But it's comments like this that almost convice me that you are right. :rolleyes:

[DRS]

Ok drs have a nice day.

Thank you, you too.

[HisServant]

For the writers who were Jews the tem god is used for those who represent The Almighty, hence why there is a difference in John 1:1 in the original greek between ho theos (The God-Jehovah) and theos (Jesus who represents and speaks on behalf of Jehovah)

The term only begotten son that is used for Jesus denotes the fact that only he alone was created by Jehovah, as all creation after him is through him and for him.

Yeah ok ... :rolleyes:

[Warrior4God]

I am not the Bible does and so I believe He is and call Him thus.
And I don't think He is God Almighty, He is God the Son.

The more you post the more your lack of knowing scripture shows.

because you dont agree with him or anyone dont attack him by saying things like that.
honestly this name calling and cutting down the other is not right
I will be the first to say I dont know everything never clained to nor did he as I can tell.
.
We can express ourselves in a mature matter or just stop this thread right here
We are christians and what is our heart?to love?to be kind? to be patient?
all are fruit of the spirit
I am guilty of posting things I should not have but have always apologized.

Only by pride comes contention it says in proverbs I believe.
This thread when read looks like a bunch of anger and pride thrown around
I love God his Son his Word all of us do.

Its time to think before we speak and show Love

Im guilty as well and apologize to anyone I offended

[HisServant]

because you dont agree with him or anyone dont attack him by saying things like that.
honestly this name calling and cutting down the other is not right
I will be the first to say I dont know everything never clained to nor did he as I can tell.
.
We can express ourselves in a mature matter or just stop this thread right here
We are christians and what is our heart?to love?to be kind? to be patient?
all are fruit of the spirit
I am guilty of posting things I should not have but have always apologized.

Only by pride comes contention it says in proverbs I believe.
This thread when read looks like a bunch of anger and pride thrown around
I love God his Son his Word all of us do.

Its time to think before we speak and show Love

Im guilty as well and apologize to anyone I offended

Sorry. Now what name did I call him?

[Warrior4God]

Sorry. Now what name did I call him?

didnt say you did I was adressing the whole thread as a whole has leaned that way would you not agree?

[Angryamerican]

Again a lack of understanding of the concept of the Godhead on your part does not constitute the fact that it does not exist.

Father, Son and Spirit. Three in one. Seperate yet one. Distinct yet the same.

The word Godhead appears three times in the new testament. And not once does it mention anything about the trinity.So what is the concept of the Godhead?

The word Godhead means divine or godlike Not trinity.

Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.

Act 17:29 Then being offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone, engraved by art and man's imagination.

[Mathius]

Is this anti Trinity?

John 7:16-18
16
Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not my own but is from the one who sent me.
17
Whoever chooses to do his will 7 shall know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak on my own.
18
Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him is truthful, and there is no wrong in him.

[Harmonious]

Is this anti Trinity?

John 7:16-18
16
Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not my own but is from the one who sent me.
17
Whoever chooses to do his will 7 shall know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak on my own.
18
Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him is truthful, and there is no wrong in him.

I would say so. DRS makes a convincing point about Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was sent, then Jesus cannot also be the sender.

In that case, Jesus cannot be God. (My personal beliefs aside.) According to the verses listed, Jesus is deferring to someone above him. Therefore, if it is above him it cannot be co-equal to him. Whatever Jesus then becomes is less than God.

[HisServant]

didnt say you did I was adressing the whole thread as a whole has leaned that way would you not agree?

OK. In the future when you address everyone don't use a quote from an individual. Usually that means you are addressing your comment to that person.

I have yet to call anyone names. I have disagreed with them and let them know so firmly. but no names.

[HisServant]

The word Godhead appears three times in the new testament. And not once does it mention anything about the trinity.So what is the concept of the Godhead?

The word Godhead means divine or godlike Not trinity.

Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.

Act 17:29 Then being offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone, engraved by art and man's imagination.

If Godhead means as you say then think about the fact the the word Godhead sounds pluristic does it not? Why not just say God is divine. Why Godhead? perhaps because Godhead means more than one person yet same nature all divine. You still don't get the concept of Trinity. Basically means to most the same as Godhead. 3 in 1.

[HisServant]

I would say so. DRS makes a convincing point about Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was sent, then Jesus cannot also be the sender.

In that case, Jesus cannot be God. (My personal beliefs aside.) According to the verses listed, Jesus is deferring to someone above him. Therefore, if it is above him it cannot be co-equal to him. Whatever Jesus then becomes is less than God.

That indeed makes sense if one does not understand that before being Jesus He was the Logos of God. John 1:1. The Word then became flesh and took on bodily form, Jesus. Then He, Jesus (LOGOS) submitted and subjected himself to this form and limited himself for us. Colosians and Philipians.

[DRS]

That indeed makes sense if one does not understand that before being Jesus He was the Logos of God. John 1:1. The Word then became flesh and took on bodily form, Jesus. Then He, Jesus (LOGOS) submitted and subjected himself to this form and limited himself for us. Colosians and Philipians.

Jesus is also called a prophet and an apostle in the NT.

Do you believe Adam was god/man?

[Harmonious]

That indeed makes sense if one does not understand that before being Jesus He was the Logos of God. John 1:1. The Word then became flesh and took on bodily form, Jesus. Then He, Jesus (LOGOS) submitted and subjected himself to this form and limited himself for us. Colosians and Philipians.Don't think I'm giving credence to any of this. I am saying that as per the texts presented, DRS makes more sense than you do.

And even with your logos thing, the logos is a subservient possession of God, not equal to God.
DRS is still winning, here.

And anything that is limited is not all powerful, by definition. Jesus is still not God, since Jesus was limited and God is not.
Another point for DRS.

[Angryamerican]

If Godhead means as you say then think about the fact the the word Godhead sounds pluristic does it not? Why not just say God is divine. Why Godhead? perhaps because Godhead means more than one person yet same nature all divine. You still don't get the concept of Trinity. Basically means to most the same as Godhead. 3 in 1.

I gave you the definition of it.

[Rhonda]

I'm sorry that you are in such denial. I will pray for you.

Yeah...obviously the prince of the air is doing a pretty good job...but it cannot be out done by prayer:)

[HisServant]

Jesus is also called a prophet and an apostle in the NT.

Do you believe Adam was god/man?

Nope. Adam was clearly created from the dust of the ground.
Jesus was not created. He came into being via the Holy Spirit.

[DRS]

Nope. Adam was clearly created from the dust of the ground.
Jesus was not created. He came into being via the Holy Spirit.

Yet in order for Jesus to be a ransom sacrifice that was equal to Adam, he had to be a creation like Adam that was capable of rebelling in the face of temptation or pressure.

Jehovah's law was always about equality, eye for eye tooth for tooth life for life.

[HisServant]

Don't think I'm giving credence to any of this. I am saying that as per the texts presented, DRS makes more sense than you do.

And even with your logos thing, the logos is a subservient possession of God, not equal to God.
DRS is still winning, here.

And anything that is limited is not all powerful, by definition. Jesus is still not God, since Jesus was limited and God is not.
Another point for DRS.

How is the Logos subservient?
Does subservient mean lesser?
If one submits to another than means one is lesser?

I do agree that as a human being Jesus is limited. Again if you read colossians and Philippians it sheds light on why. It does not take away from who He is. He willingly gave up all to be like us and thus God exalted Him.

I don't think it is a matter of winning or losing. Because there are more people who believe something that is wrong does not make it right.

[HisServant]

Yet in order for Jesus to be a ransom sacrifice that was equal to Adam, he had to be a creation like Adam that was capable of rebelling in the face of temptation or pressure.

Jehovah's law was always about equality, eye for eye tooth for tooth life for life.

They were equally perfect and given free will. They both came from God.

[DRS]

They were equally perfect and given free will. They both came from God.

So Jesus could not be God because God can not sin yet Jesus could have sinned at anytime.

[Willbee_Dunn]

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?

Yes, on both counts.

[Willbee_Dunn]

I would say so. DRS makes a convincing point about Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was sent, then Jesus cannot also be the sender.

Jesus, as the Eternally consistent Son of the Father, of the exact same Divine essence or nature, yet distinct in person from the Father was sent, by perfect agreement. Being "sent" denotes relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit. Modes do not have relationships, persons do. That is the point of the words denoting active relationship between the Three Persons of the One Divine Essence(God).

In that case, Jesus cannot be God.(My personal beliefs aside.) According to the verses listed, Jesus is deferring to someone above him. Therefore, if it is above him it cannot be co-equal to him. Whatever Jesus then becomes is less than God.

That is confusing subordination of the human will of Jesus with the ontological equality of the Divine Nature of the Eternal Son with the Father.

For example, you submit to the President of the United States, correct?

Does that make you less human that he is? Of course not. Ontologically, or, by nature, you are both equally human.

Ontologically, the Eternal Son and the Father are ontologically equal in their nature as Divine, even though in His humanity, Jesus willingly submits to the Will of the Father.

[Harmonious]

How is the Logos subservient?Dude, you are playing with suppositions that I think are nonsense to start with.

A possession is less than its owner.
Does subservient mean lesser?Yup. Especially when someone is subservient to GOD.
If one submits to another than means one is lesser?Among humans, no. But compared to God, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is lesser. The comparison doesn't work.

I do agree that as a human being Jesus is limited. Again if you read colossians and Philippians it sheds light on why. It's not necessary - I told you that I think it is all nonsense anyway. It does not take away from who He is. He willingly gave up all to be like us and thus God exalted Him. This is your belief, but it isn't substantiated by the texts that I've read.

If it is important to you for me to see things from Colossians and Philippians, show them to me. I'm not enterprising enough to see why you believe in what I believe to be nonsense.

I don't think it is a matter of winning or losing. Because there are more people who believe something that is wrong does not make it right.We agree on SOMETHING, at least.

[Harmonious]

Jesus, as the Eternally consistent Son of the Father, of the exact same Divine essence or nature, yet distinct in person from the Father was sent, by perfect agreement. Being "sent" denotes relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit. Modes do not have relationships, persons do. That is the point of the words denoting active relationship between the Three Persons of the One Divine Essence(God).You realize that this is nonsense to someone who doesn't believe it to start with, right?

Please be aware... I'm not believing in this. I'm just working with the texts from the NT and seeing how they add up.

You are free to believe whatever you wish. I'm Jewish, and don't believe ANYTHING special about Jesus whatsoever.

The one thing I'm doing is reading the texts I'm presented with and figuring out which version of nonsense makes more sense.

Forgive me for being flip, but that is what I believe about all of this.

DRS stays the most consistent with the texts that I've seen so far.

[Willbee_Dunn]

You realize that this is nonsense to someone who doesn't believe it to start with, right?

Of course I do, the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Please be aware... I'm not believing in this. I'm just working with the texts from the NT and seeing how they add up.

Which is what I've done.

You are free to believe whatever you wish. I'm Jewish, and don't believe ANYTHING special about Jesus whatsoever.

Sorry to hear that, after all, He did come as the Messiah of Israel.

How do you reconcile all the prophecies concerning Messiah, from the Torah and Prophets that are fulfilled in the one Person of Jesus?

The one thing I'm doing is reading the texts I'm presented with and figuring out which version of nonsense makes more sense.

How do you explain Psalm 110:1;

The LORD(Yaweh) said to my Lord(Adonai),“Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

Yahweh and Adonai are both proper names for the Divine Essence of God, yet there is conversation between them and a subject-object distinction based on action of relationship. How do you reconcile that if God is one person?

Forgive me for being flip, but that is what I believe about all of this.
No problem, I've grown used to people on internet boards being flippant.

[DRS]

Jesus, as the Eternally consistent Son of the Father, of the exact same Divine essence or nature, yet distinct in person from the Father was sent, by perfect agreement. Being "sent" denotes relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit. Modes do not have relationships, persons do. That is the point of the words denoting active relationship between the Three Persons of the One Divine Essence(God).


That is confusing subordination of the human will of Jesus with the ontological equality of the Divine Nature of the Eternal Son with the Father.

For example, you submit to the President of the United States, correct?

Does that make you less human that he is? Of course not. Ontologically, or, by nature, you are both equally human.

Ontologically, the Eternal Son and the Father are ontologically equal in their nature as Divine, even though in His humanity, Jesus willingly submits to the Will of the Father.


Except for the fact that we have a scripture in Proverbs decribing his creation.

We also have Jesus in heaven in a subordinate position, and what does Revelation one say, God gave it to Jesus.

[Harmonious]

Of course I do, the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
:rolleyes: Whatever.

Which is what I've done.No, you didn't. You expressed your belief, but it wasn't substantiated by the texts that were presented in this thread. Looking as an objective observer (I have nothing to gain in choosing which version of Christianity wins, as I don't believe in it in either way), I say that DRS makes more sense.

You don't agree with him, and that is fine. But from what I've seen, what DRS says makes more sense than what you've said.

Sorry to hear that, after all, He did come as the Messiah of Israel.Apparently, you are new here. You don't know a single thing about what is required to be Messiah of Israel. This isn't the right post. Maybe I'll follow up for you.

How do you reconcile all the prophecies concerning Messiah, from the Torah and Prophets that are fulfilled in the one Person of Jesus?Not one solitary prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. He was a Jewish man? But so is my brother. That's not very useful. I'll tell you in that follow-up post.

How do you explain Psalm 110:1;

The LORD(Yaweh) said to my Lord(Adonai),“Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”Not Adonai, but AdoNI. It wasn't David who wrote this Psalm, but a soldier who was praising his king and his lord, King David. God said to his lord (King David), "Sit at My right hand, Till I make your enemies your footstool."

[HisServant]

So Jesus could not be God because God can not sin yet Jesus could have sinned at anytime.

Could and did are 2 different things. You really need to do a better job of trying to understand in full why Jesus came. He had to be totally human and yet He was God because He came from God. Hence John 1:1 is attacked by those who don't want to believe it. Hence the nature of Jesus is always under attack. Hence people want to make Him out to be a creation. Instead of studying to refute others just study who Jesus is. Read Colossians and Philippians to gain insight into why He emptied Himself for us. Read Hebrews to learn why He is such an effective High Priest. Read John to see that He is the Light of the World. Read Revelations so you can see Him in all of His Glory.

DRS. We don't agree when it comes to Jesus. Just let it go. You can continue not believing in who Jesus is. And I will continue to believe what the scriptures teach.

[Angryamerican]

Jesus, as the Eternally consistent Son of the Father, of the exact same Divine essence or nature, yet distinct in person from the Father was sent, by perfect agreement. Being "sent" denotes relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit. Modes do not have relationships, persons do. That is the point of the words denoting active relationship between the Three Persons of the One Divine Essence(God).


That is confusing subordination of the human will of Jesus with the ontological equality of the Divine Nature of the Eternal Son with the Father.

For example, you submit to the President of the United States, correct?

Does that make you less human that he is? Of course not. Ontologically, or, by nature, you are both equally human.

Ontologically, the Eternal Son and the Father are ontologically equal in their nature as Divine, even though in His humanity, Jesus willingly submits to the Will of the Father.

Amazing how trinitarians Explain God. It's amazing that some have to leave the word of God to Explain who and what God is.For example.

Trinitarians

1.essence
2.godhead
3.God the son
4.God the Holy Spirit
5.Trinity

The only thing here that is biblical is the word godhead.But in the three places it appears in the bible there is no mention of The Father or the son or the Holy Spirit except in ones mind.

Essence, is another that is nonbiblical and has no support by scriptures it is imagination.

God the son, is nonbiblical and has no support by scriptures it is imagination.

God the Holy Spirit, is nonbiblical has no support by the scriptures it is imagination.

Trinity, is nonbiblical has no support in the scriptures it is imagination.

These 4 terms were thought up to explain God Jesus and the Holy Spirit by man. How come we need to turn to man to explain God? If God was a trinity how come he didn't say so? How come Jesus didn't say so?And where is the voice of the Holy Spirit in all this?

Wasn't the scriptures clear enough to answer this question?

[Harmonious]

For Willbee_Dunn's benefit, I'm posting the list yet again.

Messiah : The Criteria

Judge for yourself:
Did Jesus fulfill ALL these criteria?

The Jewish tradition of "The Messiah" has its foundation in numerous biblical references, and understands "The Messiah" to be a human being - without any overtone of deity or divinity - who will bring about certain changes in the world and fulfill certain criteria before he can be acknowledged as "The Messiah".

First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah.

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

The genealogy of the New Testament is inconsistent. While it gives two accounts of the genealogy of Joseph, it states clearly that he is not the biological father of Jesus. One of the genealogies is through Nathan and not Solomon altogether!

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Are all Jews living in Israel? Have all Jews EVER lived in Israel since the time of Jesus?

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

At last check, there is NO Temple in Jerusalem. And worse, it was shortly after Jesus died that the Temple was DESTROYED! Just the opposite of this prophecy!

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)askyourself...

Have you seen a newspaper lately? Are we living in a state of complete world peace? Has there ever been peace since the time of Jesus?



He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? Christianity, in fact, often discourages observance of the commandments in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy.

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

there are still millions if not billions of people in the world today who adhere to paganistic and polytheistic religions. It is clear that we have not yet seen this period of human history unfold.

All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37 verses 24-28:

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore.

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.

Certainly NOT Jesus.

Source (http://jewsforjudaism.org/jews-jesus/jews-jesus-index.html)

[DRS]

Could and did are 2 different things. You really need to do a better job of trying to understand in full why Jesus came. He had to be totally human and yet He was God because He came from God. Hence John 1:1 is attacked by those who don't want to believe it. Hence the nature of Jesus is always under attack. Hence people want to make Him out to be a creation. Instead of studying to refute others just study who Jesus is. Read Colossians and Philippians to gain insight into why He emptied Himself for us. Read Hebrews to learn why He is such an effective High Priest. Read John to see that He is the Light of the World. Read Revelations so you can see Him in all of His Glory.

DRS. We don't agree when it comes to Jesus. Just let it go. You can continue not believing in who Jesus is. And I will continue to believe what the scriptures teach.

John 1:1 is not attacked, it is mistranslated.

Phillipians again is one that comes under closer examination, because Jesus did not try to grab or seize equality with God, but again in an effort to try and make Jesus equal there is a mistranslation in an effort to make it see like he was equal and just holding on to it.


Since angels are higher than humans it was a slaves postion Jesus took.

[Angryamerican]

Could and did are 2 different things. You really need to do a better job of trying to understand in full why Jesus came. He had to be totally human and yet He was God because He came from God. Hence John 1:1 is attacked by those who don't want to believe it. Hence the nature of Jesus is always under attack. Hence people want to make Him out to be a creation. Instead of studying to refute others just study who Jesus is. Read Colossians and Philippians to gain insight into why He emptied Himself for us. Read Hebrews to learn why He is such an effective High Priest. Read John to see that He is the Light of the World. Read Revelations so you can see Him in all of His Glory.

DRS. We don't agree when it comes to Jesus. Just let it go. You can continue not believing in who Jesus is. And I will continue to believe what the scriptures teach.

You keep hanging on to 1 scripture to support your doctrine. And the way it is translated in your bible it contradicts itself.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

First off notice the word was in the beginning, God has always been there is no beginning for God. Then the word with means more then one.

Then in verse 2 why did it say again the word was in the beginning and that word with appears again?

The writer or God was making that very clear which proves your version is a mistranslation.

[HisServant]

Dude, you are playing with suppositions that I think are nonsense to start with.

A possession is less than its owner.
Yup. Especially when someone is subservient to GOD.
Among humans, no. But compared to God, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is lesser. The comparison doesn't work.

It's not necessary - I told you that I think it is all nonsense anyway.This is your belief, but it isn't substantiated by the texts that I've read.

If it is important to you for me to see things from Colossians and Philippians, show them to me. I'm not enterprising enough to see why you believe in what I believe to be nonsense.

We agree on SOMETHING, at least.



I understand your point my friend. For someone who does not acknowledge who Jesus is what DRS says makes perfect sense. Hence most of the disagreement is on who Jesus really is. He is not some possession. He is not a slave. He is not lesser because He willingly subjected Himself to the Father.
When a wife submits to her husband it does not make her lesser to him. They merely have a relationship in which one differs to the other.

When the Logos became man he let go of all His power and limited himself willingly. He did this because He wanted to go through everything we go through so He would be able to be our High Priest and bear our burdens. The verse below gives but a glimpse. I don't expect you to be persuaded one way or the other just thought I'd give you the courtesy of a reply since you have been so kind.

Heb 4:14-16

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin. NIV

Col 1:15-20

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. NIV

John 17:4-5
4 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. NIV

Phil 2:6-11

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NIV

[Mathius]

You keep hanging on to 1 scripture to support your doctrine. And the way it is translated in your bible contradicts itself.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

First off notice the word has a beginning, God has always been. Then the word with means more then one.

Then in verse 2 why did it say again the word was in the beginning and that word with again?

The writer or God was making that very clear which proves your version is a mistranslation.


The rig veda's have the phrase as in John 1:1-14. This is one of the underlining messages in all religions that everyone interprets different ways. The Apocryphon of John (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html) (link) also says a more elaborate version of these verses.

[HisServant]

You keep hanging on to 1 scripture to support your doctrine. And the way it is translated in your bible it contradicts itself.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

First off notice the word was in the beginning, God has always been there is no beginning for God. Then the word with means more then one.

Then in verse 2 why did it say again the word was in the beginning and that word with appears again?

The writer or God was making that very clear which proves your version is a mistranslation.

In the beginning was the Word does not mean the Word had a beginning.
It establishes a fact that God and the Word already existed before anything.
It also establishes the fact that God and the Word are one. Hence which is why it is mentioned twice to drive the point home.

Look believe what you want. I tire of this. You are not going to convince me because I know who my God is. You act as if you are going to say something that I can't answer and I'm supposed to then fall apart and acknowledge that your right about Jesus. It is not going to happen. You are much smarter than I am. You are better at taking verses apart and misapplying them. I am just a simple person who believes what the Word of God says. So have a great life.

[DRS]

In the beginning was the Word does not mean the Word had a beginning.
It establishes a fact that God and the Word already existed before anything.
It also establishes the fact that God and the Word are one. Hence which is why it is mentioned twice to drive the point home.

Look believe what you want. I tire of this. You are not going to convince me because I know who my God is. You act as if you are going to say something that I can't answer and I'm supposed to then fall apart and acknowledge that your right about Jesus. It is not going to happen. You are much smarter than I am. You are better at taking verses apart and misapplying them. I am just a simple person who believes what the Word of God says. So have a great life.

So you are not curious as to why a the was left out of the translation?

Showing the word with The God.

[HisServant]

So you are not curious as to why a the was left out of the translation?

Showing the word with The God.

DRS. IT was not left out. It was not necessary. End of discussion.

[DRS]

DRS. IT was not left out. It was not necessary. End of discussion.

Except when you go into greek versision of Ot texts and you see The God only refering to one person.

[Angryamerican]

In the beginning was the Word does not mean the Word had a beginning.
It establishes a fact that God and the Word already existed before anything.
It also establishes the fact that God and the Word are one. Hence which is why it is mentioned twice to drive the point home.

Look believe what you want. I tire of this. You are not going to convince me because I know who my God is. You act as if you are going to say something that I can't answer and I'm supposed to then fall apart and acknowledge that your right about Jesus. It is not going to happen. You are much smarter than I am. You are better at taking verses apart and misapplying them. I am just a simple person who believes what the Word of God says. So have a great life.

You have the wrong opinion of me, but you are entitled to your opinion of me. I am discussing an issue that you brought up by replying to this thread. You give your opinion and i give mine it is a forum and thats what happens in forums.

[Mathius]

I'm sorry but when your whole argument is based on one scripture that distinguishes you between a monotheist and a polytheist religion your house isn't built on a very strong foundation.

Luke 6:48-49
(48) That one is like a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when the flood came, the river burst against that house but could not shake it because it had been well built. (49) But the one who listens and does not act is like a person who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, it collapsed at once and was completely destroyed."

[Harmonious]

I understand your point my friend. For someone who does not acknowledge who Jesus is what DRS says makes perfect sense. Hence most of the disagreement is on who Jesus really is. He is not some possession. He is not a slave. He is not lesser because He willingly subjected Himself to the Father.
When a wife submits to her husband it does not make her lesser to him. They merely have a relationship in which one differs to the other.

When the Logos became man he let go of all His power and limited himself willingly. He did this because He wanted to go through everything we go through so He would be able to be our High Priest and bear our burdens. The verse below gives but a glimpse. I don't expect you to be persuaded one way or the other just thought I'd give you the courtesy of a reply since you have been so kind.

Heb 4:14-16

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin. NIV

Col 1:15-20

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. NIV

John 17:4-5
4 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. NIV

Phil 2:6-11

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NIV
Okay.

I still liked what DRS said better.

[HisServant]

You have the wrong opinion of me, but you are entitled to your opinion of me. I am discussing an issue that you brought up by replying to this thread. You give your opinion and i give mine it is a forum and thats what happens in forums.

Yes. And we go round and round and you may enjoy it but nothing is being gained.

[Angryamerican]

In the beginning was the Word does not mean the Word had a beginning.
It establishes a fact that God and the Word already existed before anything.
It also establishes the fact that God and the Word are one. Hence which is why it is mentioned twice to drive the point home.

Look believe what you want. I tire of this. You are not going to convince me because I know who my God is. You act as if you are going to say something that I can't answer and I'm supposed to then fall apart and acknowledge that your right about Jesus. It is not going to happen. You are much smarter than I am. You are better at taking verses apart and misapplying them. I am just a simple person who believes what the Word of God says. So have a great life.

Oh did it say the word was God twice?
Look at it this way if God was a trinity, it should be firmly established in the scriptures don't you think?

Now show us scripture where it is?

We have been over John 1:1 enough, which we see also in the very next verse, why your version is translated wrong.

I'm sure if you would stop using terms by a man to explain God. You would see that God does a pretty good job explaining himself to all.

The term son of God appears over 50 times in the New Testament why would he drive that home if it wasn't so?

[HisServant]

Okay.

I still liked what DRS said better.

I am not suprised. :surprised

[HisServant]

Oh did it say the word was God twice?
Look at it this way if God was a trinity, it should be firmly established in the scriptures don't you think?

Now show us scripture where it is?

We have been over John 1:1 enough, which we see also in the very next verse, why your version is translated wrong.

I'm sure if you would stop using terms by a man to explain God. You would see that God does a pretty good job explaining himself to all.

The term son of God appears over 50 times in the New Testament why would he drive that home if it wasn't so?

Let's not have another conversation because you refuse to stop saying God is a trinity. Which no one but you says. And it makes no sense. It also shows your lack of understanding. So I am done.

[Angryamerican]

Yes. And we go round and round and you may enjoy it but nothing is being gained.

I'm planting a seed. :think:

[Angryamerican]

Let's not have another conversation because you refuse to stop saying God is a trinity. Which no one but you says. And it makes no sense. It also shows your lack of understanding. So I am done.

Did i miss something?

[DRS]

Let's not have another conversation because you refuse to stop saying God is a trinity. Which no one but you says. And it makes no sense. It also shows your lack of understanding. So I am done.

So is this like when Bugs and Daffy keep arguing over Duck season rabbit season and then Bugs says not it is rabbit season, to get Daffy saying duck season?

[Mathius]

Did i miss something?

No you didn't. There is no other scripture but a quote from the vedas in John's Gospel. I have searched all of the gospels and found several verses where Jesus says he is separate from God. i.e.


(18) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 9 because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, (19)and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."

[Angryamerican]

Let's not have another conversation because you refuse to stop saying God is a trinity. Which no one but you says. And it makes no sense. It also shows your lack of understanding. So I am done.

Well i do apologize if you don't believe in the trinity, I thought you did, but my opinion hasn't changed Jesus isn't God either.

That was the point of my opinion. Everything i posted points that out.

And you do use the same terms as people use to believe in the trinity.

[Angryamerican]

No you didn't. There is no other scripture but a quote from the vedas in John's Gospel. I have searched all of the gospels and found several verses where Jesus says he is separate from God. i.e.


Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah i have been going round and round with several in this thread .

I think thats what boggles my mind, Some can base their belief on one scripture, totally disregarding the rest of the bible.

Bottomline whether some say Jesus is God or a trinity the answer is no he isn't.

[rsuhls]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah i have been going round and round with several in this thread .

I think thats what boggles my mind, Some can base their belief on one scripture, totally disregarding the rest of the bible.

Bottomline whether some say Jesus is God or a trinity the answer is no he isn't.

Why do people speak so matter of factly like they, and only they, can determine the truth.

I don't believe in the "trinity" either but I would submit to you that what you are stating is your opinion.

[HisServant]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah i have been going round and round with several in this thread .

I think thats what boggles my mind, Some can base their belief on one scripture, totally disregarding the rest of the bible.

Bottomline whether some say Jesus is God or a trinity the answer is no he isn't.

That is because no matter what is said you either don't get it, refuse to get it or say it wrong. God is not a Trinity. I have said this repeatedly. The Trinity is a doctrine. God is not a doctrine. The Doctrine of the Trinity is that there are 3 in 1. Not 3 gods but 1 God in Three persons. Father Son Spirit. But you continue to insist on saying God is a Trinity. And no matter what is presented you are not going to believe so what's the point. All of your scholars are right. All of the other scholoars that refute them are wrong. The Bible according to you is wrong unless it says what you want it to say. Only when you approve of a translation is it correct even if there are others that say the translation is correct. So you have your view and others have their.

[Angryamerican]

Why do people speak so matter of factly like they, and only they, can determine the truth.

I don't believe in the "trinity" either but I would submit to you that what you are stating is your opinion.


Opinion that came from God's word.

I have all the reason in the world to be so confident .

[Angryamerican]

That is because no matter what is said you either don't get it, refuse to get it or say it wrong. God is not a Trinity. I have said this repeatedly. The Trinity is a doctrine. God is not a doctrine. The Doctrine of the Trinity is that there are 3 in 1. Not 3 gods but 1 God in Three persons. Father Son Spirit. But you continue to insist on saying God is a Trinity. And no matter what is presented you are not going to believe so what's the point. All of your scholars are right. All of the other scholoars that refute them are wrong. The Bible according to you is wrong unless it says what you want it to say. Only when you approve of a translation is it correct even if there are others that say the translation is correct. So you have your view and others have their.

Not true i have many versions of the bible. I read mostly from MKJV.

Which says this.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

But i do believe that one paticular verse is mistranslated.

[rsuhls]

Opinion that came from God's word.

I have all the reason in the world to be so confident .

No it is your opinion that comes from your interpretation of God's word.

Do you not underestand that?

[rsuhls]

Opinion that came from God's word.

I have all the reason in the world to be so confident .

dude you not understand that people are trying to nicely say that you have a closed mind and refuse to admit that all you are doing here is stating your OPINION and acting like your is the only true and correct version.

[HisServant]

dude you not understand that people are trying to nicely say that you have a closed mind and refuse to admit that all you are doing here is stating your OPINION and acting like your is the only true and correct version.

Thanks. Not only that but then he either misrepresents what is said or says it differently. Everyone has the right to disagree. But at least have the decency of not misquoted and changing what someone else says thus making you look better.

[Angryamerican]

No it is your opinion that comes from your interpretation of God's word.

Do you not underestand that?

I don't buy in to that excuse.

Joh 3:21 But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.

How come you and i, can read the same math book and agree what it say's but we can't agree on what the bible say's?

[Angryamerican]

Thanks. Not only that but then he either misrepresents what is said or says it differently. Everyone has the right to disagree. But at least have the decency of not misquoted and changing what someone else says thus making you look better.

You are being dishonest everyone can clearly read what i said.

[Angryamerican]

dude you not understand that people are trying to nicely say that you have a closed mind and refuse to admit that all you are doing here is stating your OPINION and acting like your is the only true and correct version.

Are you upset with me, because you read that article where the muslim man quickly dismissed the Joseph Smith version of the bible?

Be honest now.

[Angryamerican]

dude you not understand that people are trying to nicely say that you have a closed mind and refuse to admit that all you are doing here is stating your OPINION and acting like your is the only true and correct version.

Closed minded, on Jesus being God or a trinity yes you are right.

[rsuhls]

I don't buy in to that excuse.

Joh 3:21 But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.

How come you and i, can read the same math book and agree what it say's but we can't agree on what the bible say's?

Thank you for proving our point.

I didn't put my statment forth as an excuse what I said was dead on fact. You are posting your Version, or interpretataion, and stating it as fact.

People do not, and don't, have to agree with you.

God Bless.

[rsuhls]

Closed minded, on Jesus being God or a trinity yes you are right.

Thus everyone must agree with your version right? No matter what they see and interprete fro,m scripture it is your version and only your version right.

[rsuhls]

You are being dishonest everyone can clearly read what i said.

yep and he is dead on thank you for proving him correct.

Interesting how anyone that holds a view other than your is either making a "excuse" or is "dishonest."

[rsuhls]

Are you upset with me, because you read that article where the muslim man quickly dismissed the Joseph Smith version of the bible?

Be honest now.

I could careless what a Muslim thinks about the bible. I read the bible and have one interpretation; you can have another.

Your problem is that you want everyone to agree with you, you put yourself out as the one, and only person, to decide truth.

Foregive me if I see that as closedmined and arrogant.

God Bless.

[Angryamerican]

Thank you for proving our point.

I didn't put my statment forth as an excuse what I said was dead on fact. You are posting your Version, or interpretataion, and stating it as fact.

People do not, and don't, have to agree with you.

God Bless.

Where did i say they do?

[Angryamerican]

Thus everyone must agree with your version right? No matter what they see and interprete fro,m scripture it is your version and only your version right.

I have said it is my opinion.

[Angryamerican]

I could careless what a Muslim thinks about the bible. I read the bible and have one interpretation; you can have another.

Your problem is that you want everyone to agree with you, you put yourself out as the one, and only person, to decide truth.

Foregive me if I see that as closedmined and arrogant.

God Bless.

Look i gave the reasons, why i believe what i do, just like others here.

If people have a hard time with the evidence ,then maybe they should take it up with the Almighty.

[Warrior4God]

Nope. Adam was clearly created from the dust of the ground.
Jesus was not created. He came into being via the Holy Spirit.

I believe you might be wrong there Jesus was created
revelation 3:14

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

why would you think he wasnt created?

[Warrior4God]

Could and did are 2 different things. You really need to do a better job of trying to understand in full why Jesus came. He had to be totally human and yet He was God because He came from God. Hence John 1:1 is attacked by those who don't want to believe it. Hence the nature of Jesus is always under attack. Hence people want to make Him out to be a creation. Instead of studying to refute others just study who Jesus is. Read Colossians and Philippians to gain insight into why He emptied Himself for us. Read Hebrews to learn why He is such an effective High Priest. Read John to see that He is the Light of the World. Read Revelations so you can see Him in all of His Glory.

DRS. We don't agree when it comes to Jesus. Just let it go. You can continue not believing in who Jesus is. And I will continue to believe what the scriptures teach.

You expect him to let it go because hes not believing who Jesus is and you continue to believe what the scripture says?

if DRS is anything hes not about to let it go
especially when hes proven your theory wrong according to the Word
in light of Jesus being less then God

Because Christ is stated to be “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15.

Because he is said to be “the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. 3: 14.

Because the Scriptures affirm, in so many words, that “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels,” Heb. 2:9. Can God become lower than his creatures?

Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

Because he speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49.

Because he is represented as obeying the Father, and as having been “obedient unto death,” Phil. 2:8. “Even as the Father said unto me, so I speak,” John 12:50. “I have kept my Father’s commandments,” John 15:10.

Honestly do any of these scripture show Jesus as God Almighty

[Tater]

You expect him to let it go because hes not believing who Jesus is and you continue to believe what the scripture says?

if DRS is anything hes not about to let it go
especially when hes proven your theory wrong according to the Word
in light of Jesus being less then God

Because Christ is stated to be “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15.

Because he is said to be “the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. 3: 14.

Because the Scriptures affirm, in so many words, that “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels,” Heb. 2:9. Can God become lower than his creatures?

Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

Because he speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49.

Because he is represented as obeying the Father, and as having been “obedient unto death,” Phil. 2:8. “Even as the Father said unto me, so I speak,” John 12:50. “I have kept my Father’s commandments,” John 15:10.

Honestly do any of these scripture show Jesus as God Almighty

:clap:

[Mathius]

You expect him to let it go because hes not believing who Jesus is and you continue to believe what the scripture says?

if DRS is anything hes not about to let it go
especially when hes proven your theory wrong according to the Word
in light of Jesus being less then God

Because Christ is stated to be “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15.

Because he is said to be “the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. 3: 14.

Because the Scriptures affirm, in so many words, that “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels,” Heb. 2:9. Can God become lower than his creatures?

Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

Because he speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49.

Because he is represented as obeying the Father, and as having been “obedient unto death,” Phil. 2:8. “Even as the Father said unto me, so I speak,” John 12:50. “I have kept my Father’s commandments,” John 15:10.

Honestly do any of these scripture show Jesus as God Almighty

This is why I can no longer call myself Catholic. The Trinity just doesn't work and I am not a polytheist.

[Christian Voter]

I like very much the original post by tater about the trinity. I hope the Christian world will start re-thinking the idea that three separate beings are one being, and return to the doctrine that the apostles and the early church believed: that Jesus was (and is) the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is the third, separate being of the three that make up God, one in unity of purpose and united in the effort to save us despite our flaws and stubbornness.
I have one more statement of my own belief: That Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of the OT.John 1-3 seems to show this, as the statement: "Before Abraham was, I AM.

[HisServant]

I believe you might be wrong there Jesus was created
revelation 3:14

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

why would you think he wasnt created?

If I take a piece of paper and cut it in half did I just create 2 pieces?

[HisServant]

I like very much the original post by tater about the trinity. I hope the Christian world will start re-thinking the idea that three separate beings are one being, and return to the doctrine that the apostles and the early church believed: that Jesus was (and is) the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is the third, separate being of the three that make up God, one in unity of purpose and united in the effort to save us despite our flaws and stubbornness.
I have one more statement of my own belief: That Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of the OT.John 1-3 seems to show this, as the statement: "Before Abraham was, I AM.

Could be me but I don't see a difference between what you said and what you are claiming the Trinity says.

[HisServant]

You expect him to let it go because hes not believing who Jesus is and you continue to believe what the scripture says?

if DRS is anything hes not about to let it go
especially when hes proven your theory wrong according to the Word
in light of Jesus being less then God

Because Christ is stated to be “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15.

Because he is said to be “the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. 3: 14.

Because the Scriptures affirm, in so many words, that “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels,” Heb. 2:9. Can God become lower than his creatures?

Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

Because he speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49.

Because he is represented as obeying the Father, and as having been “obedient unto death,” Phil. 2:8. “Even as the Father said unto me, so I speak,” John 12:50. “I have kept my Father’s commandments,” John 15:10.

Honestly do any of these scripture show Jesus as God Almighty

Tell you what. Show me one place where I said that Jesus is God Almighty.
No spin, no nonsense show me. Paste a statement by me that says so. If you cannot find it then say I'm sorry I said something you never said and don't believe. I have misrepresented you.

I will say it one more time Jesus is the Logos, He is God the Son. Then their is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Somehow they are 3 in 1. IMO.

[Angryamerican]

Tell you what. Show me one place where I said that Jesus is God Almighty.
No spin, no nonsense show me. Paste a statement by me that says so. If you cannot find it then say I'm sorry I said something you never said and don't believe. I have misrepresented you.

I will say it one more time Jesus is the Logos, He is God the Son. Then their is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Somehow they are 3 in 1. IMO.

Why don't you answer what you believe?

Is Jesus God or not? Is Jesus the Trinity or not? Is Jesus the actual son of God or not?

Those are your choices.

The Greek Text

enarch hn o logoV,kai ologoV hnproV tonqeon, kai qeoVhn ologoV.



Pay close attention to the words in the bold text. I will translate these texts below:



Transliteration,Pronunciation and Translation



· Greek word: o

Transliteration: ho

Pronunciation: ho

Translation: the



· Greek word: logoV

Transliteration: logos

Pronunciation: log’-os

Translation: word



The Mistranslated Word ‘qeoV’

In the above example, ‘ho’ is basically an article. In the English language there are 2 articles, ‘the’ which is a definite article and ‘a’ which is an indefinite article. In Greek however there is only 1 article which is definite.

When ‘logos’ is put after ‘ho’ it becomes ‘the word’ and with the absence of ‘ho’, it remains as ‘word’. However this is not where the great deception really is. The part with the great deception will come below.

Greek word: qeoV

Transliterated: theos

Pronounced: theh’-os


This word ‘theos’ does not only mean ‘God’ with a capital ‘G’. According to the “Thayer’s Greek Definitions”, the first meaning of this word ‘theos’ is written to be:


“A god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”

One of the meanings of this word as explained by Strong’s Greek Dictionary is:


“A deity.”

As seen above, ‘theos’ also means ‘god’ i.e. any god. Greek has no such law like English where we can differentiate between ‘god’ and ‘God’ by the use of the capital letter or small letter. Hence to indicate whether ‘theos’ is referring to any ‘god’ or ‘God’, the language uses ‘articles’.

Depending on whether a word is the ‘subject’ or the ‘direct object (accusative)’ in a sentence, ‘o’ (ho) or ‘ton’ (ton) is used respectively.




Verifying the English Translation



Do note that when ‘theos’ is the subject, then it is written as ‘qeoV’ (theos) and when it is the direct object (accusative) then it is written as ‘qeon’ (theon). In the Greek text of the verse John 1:1, it can be seen that there is an article before ‘qeon’ and the text is thus written as ‘tonqeon’ which is transliterated to be ‘ton theon’ and should be translated as ‘the God’ or one can even translate it as only ‘God’. The point is that using the definite article, the word refers to God and not to the other meanings of the word ‘theos’ i.e. ‘a god’ or any god or goddess.

In the second instance where we see ‘theos’, it is written as ‘qeoV’ and there is no article before it. If this word would have been referring to ‘God’, then we would have seen the article ‘o’ (ho) before it. The article ‘ho’ is used before the word if it is the subject. However we see that there is an absence of a definite article. Thus it means that in this place, ‘theos’ should be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god’ and not as ‘God’.




Correct Translation



The correct translation for John 1:1 would then be as such:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

However we find that Christendom tries to put a veil over this problem in the Bible and all of them falsely translate the verses in a way to imply by hook or crook that the Word was also God.

http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/the-truth-about-john-11/

[Warrior4God]

Tell you what. Show me one place where I said that Jesus is God Almighty.
No spin, no nonsense show me. Paste a statement by me that says so. If you cannot find it then say I'm sorry I said something you never said and don't believe. I have misrepresented you.

I will say it one more time Jesus is the Logos, He is God the Son. Then their is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Somehow they are 3 in 1. IMO.

I see no difference God is Almighty and omnipotent and if Jesus was 1 of the three that make up God then he would be Almighty as would the holy spirit
and was not created as Jesus was created by God like Adam was created by God
If you call Jesus God the Son how then is any part of the 3 that make 1 not Almighty as God is truly Almighty and powerful

IMO any and all parts of 1 God if there are 3 parts have ALL the attributes of the 1
Yet the Word declares Jesus was subject to what? himself?
I dont think so tim
It doesnt fit

You say Jesus is God he has to be Almighty
but we both know the truth of this dont we? way down deep in your heart you know God did not die on a cross,God the Son did not die on a cross did he?
Who died on that cross?
Who raised him 3 days later?
God raised the Son of God not God the Son.
But whether you admit it I know deep in your heart you know

[Fire Watch]

IMO any and all parts of 1 God if there are 3 parts have ALL the attributes of the 1

Let's ccompare the attributes of Jesus with the attributes of God. In doing so we find that Jesus possesses all the attributes and prerogatives of God, particularly those that can belong only to God. In His humanity, Jesus is visible, confined to a physical body, weak, imperfect in power, and so on. In His divine nature, however, Jesus is a Spirit; for Romans 8:9 speaks of the Spirit of Christ. In His divinity, Jesus was and is omnipresent. For example, in John 3:13 Jesus referred to "the Son of man which is in heaven" even though He was still on earth. His omnipresence explains why He could say in the present tense while on earth, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). In other words, while the fulness of God's character was located in the human body of Jesus, the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus could not be so confined. While Jesus walked this earth as a man, His Spirit was still everywhere at the same time.


Jesus is also omniscient; for He could read thoughts (Mark 2:6-12). He knew Nathanael before He met him (John 1:47-50). He knows all things (John 21:17), and all wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3).

Jesus is omnipotent; He has all power, is the head of all principality and power, and is the Almighty (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 2:10; Revelation 1:8).

Jesus is immutable and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). He is also eternal and immortal (Hebrews 1:8-12; Revelation 1:8, 18).

Only God should receive worship (Exodus 20:1-5; 34:14), yet Jesus received worship on many occasions and will receive worship from all creation (Luke 24:52; Philippians 2:10; Hebrews 1:6). Only God can forgive sin (Isaiah 43:25), yet Jesus has power to forgive sin (Mark 2:5). God receives the spirits of men (Ecclesiastes 12:7), yet Jesus received the spirit of Stephen (Acts 7:59). God is the preparer of heaven (Hebrews 11:10), yet Jesus is the preparer of heaven (John 14:3). Therefore, we find that Jesus has all the attributes and prerogatives that belong to God alone.


Who raised him 3 days later?

Jesus prophesied that He would resurrect His own body from the dead in three days (John 2:19-21), yet Peter preached that God raised up Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24)....so..was Jesus lying?

[Warrior4God]

Let's ccompare the attributes of Jesus with the attributes of God. In doing so we find that Jesus possesses all the attributes and prerogatives of God, particularly those that can belong only to God. In His humanity, Jesus is visible, confined to a physical body, weak, imperfect in power, and so on. In His divine nature, however, Jesus is a Spirit; for Romans 8:9 speaks of the Spirit of Christ. In His divinity, Jesus was and is omnipresent. For example, in John 3:13 Jesus referred to "the Son of man which is in heaven" even though He was still on earth. His omnipresence explains why He could say in the present tense while on earth, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). In other words, while the fulness of God's character was located in the human body of Jesus, the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus could not be so confined. While Jesus walked this earth as a man, His Spirit was still everywhere at the same time.


Jesus is also omniscient; for He could read thoughts (Mark 2:6-12). He knew Nathanael before He met him (John 1:47-50). He knows all things (John 21:17), and all wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3).

Jesus is omnipotent; He has all power, is the head of all principality and power, and is the Almighty (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 2:10; Revelation 1:8).

Jesus is immutable and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). He is also eternal and immortal (Hebrews 1:8-12; Revelation 1:8, 18).

Only God should receive worship (Exodus 20:1-5; 34:14), yet Jesus received worship on many occasions and will receive worship from all creation (Luke 24:52; Philippians 2:10; Hebrews 1:6). Only God can forgive sin (Isaiah 43:25), yet Jesus has power to forgive sin (Mark 2:5). God receives the spirits of men (Ecclesiastes 12:7), yet Jesus received the spirit of Stephen (Acts 7:59). God is the preparer of heaven (Hebrews 11:10), yet Jesus is the preparer of heaven (John 14:3). Therefore, we find that Jesus has all the attributes and prerogatives that belong to God alone.



Jesus prophesied that He would resurrect His own body from the dead in three days (John 2:19-21), yet Peter preached that God raised up Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24)....so..was Jesus lying?

Most of these verses are mishandled in my opinion
I will try to adress some if I can as my day is busy

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. (NIV)




The Jews would not have taken John’s words to mean that Christ “incarnated.” It was common for them to say that something “came from heaven” if God were its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. Most Christians experience the Lord blessing them by way of other people or events, but realize that the ultimate source of the blessings was the Lord. We should apply John’s words the same way we understand James’ words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God’s plan, and then God directly fathered Jesus.

There are also verses that say Jesus was “sent from God,” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus “comes from above” and “comes from heaven” (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of “heaven” and pour out a blessing (Mal. 3:10 - KJV). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven. They knew that the phrase meant that God was the origin of the blessings they received. Still another example is when Christ was speaking and said, “John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:25). Of course, the way that John’s baptism would have been “from heaven” was if God was the source of the revelation. John did not get the idea on his own, it came “from heaven.” The verse makes the idiom clear: things could be “from heaven,” i.e., from God, or they could be “from men.” The idiom is the same when used of Jesus. Jesus is “from God,” “from heaven” or “from above” in the sense that God is his Father and thus his origin.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=93

read the rest as alot of these verses need some understanding of culture and translation problems from one language to another

[Warrior4God]

I would like to adress your last statement about Jesus raising himself
John 2:19
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. (NASB)

1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.

2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21 - NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.

3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: “By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead.” Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.

4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev. 22:17-20; Mal. 1:6-8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he “just felt like it.” John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”

5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

6. Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”

As for Acts 2:24
This proves God raised him up

[Fire Watch]

read the rest as alot of these verses need some understanding of culture and translation problems from one language to another
You're right, the Jews do not believe Jesus was/is the Messiah, or God. However, on many other occasions they did understand His claim to be God. Once when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath and credited the work to His Father, the Jews sought to kill Him - not only because He had broken the Sabbath but because He said God was His Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:17-18). Another time Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see His day. When the Jews asked how this could be, Jesus replied, "Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews immediately recognized that He claimed to be I AM - the name by which Jehovah had identified Himself in Exodus 3:14 (I understand the literal translation is "I will be what I will be", but they knew he was claiming to BE God, as a couple of Jewish posters here have verified)- so they took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy (John 8:56-59).


When Jesus said, "I and my Father are one," the Jews sought to stone him for blasphemy, because He being a man made Himself God the Father (John 10:30-33). They sought to kill Him when He said the Father was in Him, again because He was claiming to be the Father (John 10:38-39).
When Jesus forgave a palsied man of His sins, the Jews thought He had blasphemed because they knew that only God could forgive sin (Isaiah 43:25). Jesus, knowing their thoughts, healed the man; thereby showing His divine power and proving His deity (Luke 5:20-26). The Jews were right in believing that there was one God, in believing that only God could forgive sin, and in understanding that Jesus claimed to be the one God (the Father and Jehovah). They were wrong only because they refused to believe Jesus' claim.
It is amazing that some people today not only reject the Lord's assertion of His true identity, but even fail to realize what He did assert. Even the Jewish opponents of Jesus realized that Jesus claimed to be God, Jehovah, some today cannot see what the Scriptures so plainly declare.

[Angryamerican]

I think harmonious or one of our Jewish members can give us opinion on the Jewish perspective. On whether the Jews thought Jesus claimed to be God ,or the son. But you have to remember claiming to be the son of God you are claiming to be Godlike.

[Warrior4God]

Jesus was ABLOLUTELY NOT all knowing
those verses show he got revelation from his Father

Because he represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28.

Because he acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20.

Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32

Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

Because Christ “Learned obedience by the things he suffered,” and through sufferings was made perfect by God, Heb. 5:8.

Because, in a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support.

There is only one who is “good,” and that is God. In Luke 18:19, Jesus spoke to a man who had called Him “good,” asking him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man on his perception, just as he complimented Peter when Peter said he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Instead, Christ gave him a mild rebuke. Christ was not teaching the people that he was God.

[Fire Watch]

You still fail to realize the simple fact that he was 100%God, and 100% man.

There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.

Revelation 1:1 tells us the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Greek for revelation is apokalupsis, from which we get the word apocalypse. It literally means an unveiling or an uncovering. Certainly the book is a prophecy of things to come, but one of the main reasons for this prophecy is to reveal Christ - to show who He really is.

The Book of Revelation presents Jesus both in His humanity and in His deity. He is the Lamb slain for our sins but He is also the Almighty God on the throne

[Angryamerican]

You're right, the Jews do not believe Jesus was/is the Messiah, or God. However, on many other occasions they did understand His claim to be God. Once when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath and credited the work to His Father, the Jews sought to kill Him - not only because He had broken the Sabbath but because He said God was His Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:17-18). Another time Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see His day. When the Jews asked how this could be, Jesus replied, "Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews immediately recognized that He claimed to be I AM - the name by which Jehovah had identified Himself in Exodus 3:14 (I understand the literal translation is "I will be what I will be", but they knew he was claiming to BE God, as a couple of Jewish posters here have verified)- so they took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy (John 8:56-59).


When Jesus said, "I and my Father are one," the Jews sought to stone him for blasphemy, because He being a man made Himself God the Father (John 10:30-33). They sought to kill Him when He said the Father was in Him, again because He was claiming to be the Father (John 10:38-39).
When Jesus forgave a palsied man of His sins, the Jews thought He had blasphemed because they knew that only God could forgive sin (Isaiah 43:25). Jesus, knowing their thoughts, healed the man; thereby showing His divine power and proving His deity (Luke 5:20-26). The Jews were right in believing that there was one God, in believing that only God could forgive sin, and in understanding that Jesus claimed to be the one God (the Father and Jehovah). They were wrong only because they refused to believe Jesus' claim.
It is amazing that some people today not only reject the Lord's assertion of His true identity, but even fail to realize what He did assert. Even the Jewish opponents of Jesus realized that Jesus claimed to be God, Jehovah, some today cannot see what the Scriptures so plainly declare.

Was that really what Jesus was trying to say?

Joh 14:20 At that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
Joh 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.
Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, Lord, how is it that You will reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He who does not love Me does not keep My Words, and the Word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
Joh 14:25 I have spoken these things to you, being present with you.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.

[Angryamerican]

You still fail to realize the simple fact that he was 100%God, and 100% man.

100 % Percent man that performed miracles.

[Angryamerican]

You still fail to realize the simple fact that he was 100%God, and 100% man.

There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.

Revelation 1:1 tells us the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Greek for revelation is apokalupsis, from which we get the word apocalypse. It literally means an unveiling or an uncovering. Certainly the book is a prophecy of things to come, but one of the main reasons for this prophecy is to reveal Christ - to show who He really is.

The Book of Revelation presents Jesus both in His humanity and in His deity. He is the Lamb slain for our sins but He is also the Almighty God on the throne

In all of our bibles it say's he is not all knowing.
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father.

That the Father is Greater.Joh 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away and I am coming to you again. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.

If Jesus was 100 percent man who was performing the miracles?

[Fire Watch]

You still fail to realize the simple fact that he was 100%God, and 100% man.

There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.

Revelation 1:1 tells us the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Greek for revelation is apokalupsis, from which we get the word apocalypse. It literally means an unveiling or an uncovering. Certainly the book is a prophecy of things to come, but one of the main reasons for this prophecy is to reveal Christ - to show who He really is.

The Book of Revelation presents Jesus both in His humanity and in His deity. He is the Lamb slain for our sins but He is also the Almighty God on the throne


Revelation 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.

Who is verse 8 referring to? Let's read on...

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

So there's someone behind John speaking...let's see who it is....

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...

Apparantly it's the same person that was speaking in verse 8, because in the above passage, he also claims to be the first and the last...there can only be ONE first and last....let's see who was speaking...

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Hmmm.....who is the son of man...is it Jehovah?????

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

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:

Above in verse 17 he again claims to be the first and the last...there can be only 1 first and last....WHO IS SPEAKING????

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Who was it?? Who was the one that lives, yet was dead...and is alive for evermore????? JESUS!!!!!!

[Angryamerican]

You still fail to realize the simple fact that he was 100%God, and 100% man.

There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.

Revelation 1:1 tells us the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Greek for revelation is apokalupsis, from which we get the word apocalypse. It literally means an unveiling or an uncovering. Certainly the book is a prophecy of things to come, but one of the main reasons for this prophecy is to reveal Christ - to show who He really is.

The Book of Revelation presents Jesus both in His humanity and in His deity. He is the Lamb slain for our sins but He is also the Almighty God on the throne

I'm am sorry for being rude to you and others in this thread. And i am trying not to be rude now. But the theory of Christ being God just doesn't fit with the scriptures.

[Fire Watch]

I'm am sorry for being rude to you and others in this thread. And i am trying not to be rude now. But the theory of Christ being God just doesn't fit with the scriptures.
It most certainly does, and I have shown ample evidence. I am not a trinitarian in any sense..but I do believe Jesus is God. The scriptures in Revelation that I just posted and commented upon clearly show this.

[DRS]

Revelation 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.

Who is verse 8 referring to? Let's read on...

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

So there's someone behind John speaking...let's see who it is....

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...

Apparantly it's the same person that was speaking in verse 8, because in the above passage, he also claims to be the first and the last...there can only be ONE first and last....let's see who was speaking...

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Hmmm.....who is the son of man...is it Jehovah?????

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

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:

Above in verse 17 he again claims to be the first and the last...there can be only 1 first and last....WHO IS SPEAKING????

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Who was it?? Who was the one that lives, yet was dead...and is alive for evermore????? JESUS!!!!!!


You have to remember there are four speakers in Revelation.

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2*who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw. 3*Happy is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it; for the appointed time is near.

Now verse 8 of chapter one tells us the Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty.

We know this is Jehovah because of the OT scriptures.

(Genesis 17:1) When A′bram got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to A′bram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless.



(Exodus 6:3) And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them

[Angryamerican]

Revelation 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.

Who is verse 8 referring to? Let's read on...

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

So there's someone behind John speaking...let's see who it is....

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...

Apparantly it's the same person that was speaking in verse 8, because in the above passage, he also claims to be the first and the last...there can only be ONE first and last....let's see who was speaking...

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Hmmm.....who is the son of man...is it Jehovah?????

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

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:

Above in verse 17 he again claims to be the first and the last...there can be only 1 first and last....WHO IS SPEAKING????

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Who was it?? Who was the one that lives, yet was dead...and is alive for evermore????? JESUS!!!!!!

There are three that are speaking in Revelation John Jesus and JEHOVAH It is critical we know who is speaking.

And i will be honest the Alpha Omega i don't fully understand, i am currently studying that. But i do know God has no beginning,and there is nothing wrong with Jesus taking on the term as the Alpha and Omega, since he was the only thing Created by God Directly.

He was the very first thing created .Rev 3:14 And to the angel of the church of the Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God, says these things:

[Fire Watch]

You have to remember there are four speakers in Revelation.

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2*who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw. 3*Happy is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it; for the appointed time is near.

Now verse 8 of chapter one tells us the Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty.

We know this because of the OT scriptures.

(Genesis 17:1) When A′bram got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to A′bram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless.



(Exodus 6:3) And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them

Only according to your personal interpretation. Simply reading comprehension reveals who the speaker is, as I have demonstrated with elementary terms above.

[DRS]

Only according to your personal interpretation. Simply reading comprehension reveals who the speaker is, as I have demonstrated with elementary terms above.

It is nothing to do with personal interpretation, it is about going back and forth over the bible in an effort to gain understanding, all scripture is inspired.

So by going from the opening we know God gave the revelation to Jesus who gave it to his angel who gave it to John.

The other thing of interest about 5 bible manuscripts have I am the Firstborn and Last instead of First and Last.

[Fire Watch]

It is nothing to do with personal interpretation, it is about going back and forth over the bible in an effort to gain understanding, all scripture is inspired.

So by going from the opening we know God gave the revelation to Jesus who gave it to his angel who gave it to John.
Sorry no. It's the revelation OF Jesus, given to John.

Rev 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=1&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:


denoting who the speaker is.

[HisServant]

I see no difference God is Almighty and omnipotent and if Jesus was 1 of the three that make up God then he would be Almighty as would the holy spirit
and was not created as Jesus was created by God like Adam was created by God
If you call Jesus God the Son how then is any part of the 3 that make 1 not Almighty as God is truly Almighty and powerful

IMO any and all parts of 1 God if there are 3 parts have ALL the attributes of the 1
Yet the Word declares Jesus was subject to what? himself?
I dont think so tim
It doesnt fit

You say Jesus is God he has to be Almighty
but we both know the truth of this dont we? way down deep in your heart you know God did not die on a cross,God the Son did not die on a cross did he?
Who died on that cross?
Who raised him 3 days later?
God raised the Son of God not God the Son.
But whether you admit it I know deep in your heart you know

I will answer no more questions until my post is answered.

Where did I ever say Jesus is God Almighty? I have been accused of saying this and want an answer or apology. This is called misquoting and misrepresenting.

Then answer my second question: If I take a piece of paper and cut it in half did I just create 2 pieces?

[DRS]

Sorry no. It's the revelation OF Jesus, given to John.

Rev 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=1&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:


denoting who the speaker is.

Who gave the Revelation to Jesus?

[Fire Watch]

Who gave the Revelation to Jesus?
Deflection. What was the Revelation OF?? It was a Revelation of WHO Jesus IS.

[matt1618]

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?




Why don't you come out & say that this is part of a tract given out by Jehovah Witnesses and you are one. Now, you give no references, no context to the references so it is practically impossible to rebut, since no sources are cited with specific references. I mean titles may be given in some cases, but few if any chapter, verses, from what books can they taken from show a lack of true scholarship. In my experience Lots of times JWs will quote something to make an argument totally at odds. I doubt that these statements from Catholic sources would agree with your conclusions of what they say. The context in many cases probably gives a rounder context to see what they actually mean.

Question, if because the word Trinity is not used in the Bible means it is not true, does that mean that becaue the word theocracy is not used in the Bible, does that mean that the society's theory of its own organization as being a 'theocracy' mean that it is unbiblical?

And as another has written, why don't you come out & say what you believe, not what you disbelieve. I'd love to see the proof that Jesus is the archangel Michael & Jesus proclaiming that that is who he was.

BTW, although not these specific citations given above, here is a site that shows how the pamphlet'Should you Believe in the Trinity?' does miscite authors in that very pamphlet this is taken from:

http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/examtrin/examintrinity.html
I can't vouch for the web site, but the jws do seem to miscite guys.

[HisServant]

Why don't you answer what you believe?

Is Jesus God or not? Is Jesus the Trinity or not? Is Jesus the actual son of God or not?

Those are your choices.

The Greek Text

enarch hn o logoV,kai ologoV hnproV tonqeon, kai qeoVhn ologoV.



Pay close attention to the words in the bold text. I will translate these texts below:



Transliteration,Pronunciation and Translation



· Greek word: o

Transliteration: ho

Pronunciation: ho

Translation: the



· Greek word: logoV

Transliteration: logos

Pronunciation: log’-os

Translation: word



The Mistranslated Word ‘qeoV’

In the above example, ‘ho’ is basically an article. In the English language there are 2 articles, ‘the’ which is a definite article and ‘a’ which is an indefinite article. In Greek however there is only 1 article which is definite.

When ‘logos’ is put after ‘ho’ it becomes ‘the word’ and with the absence of ‘ho’, it remains as ‘word’. However this is not where the great deception really is. The part with the great deception will come below.

Greek word: qeoV

Transliterated: theos

Pronounced: theh’-os


This word ‘theos’ does not only mean ‘God’ with a capital ‘G’. According to the “Thayer’s Greek Definitions”, the first meaning of this word ‘theos’ is written to be:


“A god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”

One of the meanings of this word as explained by Strong’s Greek Dictionary is:


“A deity.”

As seen above, ‘theos’ also means ‘god’ i.e. any god. Greek has no such law like English where we can differentiate between ‘god’ and ‘God’ by the use of the capital letter or small letter. Hence to indicate whether ‘theos’ is referring to any ‘god’ or ‘God’, the language uses ‘articles’.

Depending on whether a word is the ‘subject’ or the ‘direct object (accusative)’ in a sentence, ‘o’ (ho) or ‘ton’ (ton) is used respectively.




Verifying the English Translation



Do note that when ‘theos’ is the subject, then it is written as ‘qeoV’ (theos) and when it is the direct object (accusative) then it is written as ‘qeon’ (theon). In the Greek text of the verse John 1:1, it can be seen that there is an article before ‘qeon’ and the text is thus written as ‘tonqeon’ which is transliterated to be ‘ton theon’ and should be translated as ‘the God’ or one can even translate it as only ‘God’. The point is that using the definite article, the word refers to God and not to the other meanings of the word ‘theos’ i.e. ‘a god’ or any god or goddess.

In the second instance where we see ‘theos’, it is written as ‘qeoV’ and there is no article before it. If this word would have been referring to ‘God’, then we would have seen the article ‘o’ (ho) before it. The article ‘ho’ is used before the word if it is the subject. However we see that there is an absence of a definite article. Thus it means that in this place, ‘theos’ should be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god’ and not as ‘God’.




Correct Translation



The correct translation for John 1:1 would then be as such:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

However we find that Christendom tries to put a veil over this problem in the Bible and all of them falsely translate the verses in a way to imply by hook or crook that the Word was also God.

http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/the-truth-about-john-11/

Why? I have several times. Each time misquoted. And now I posted for proof of what someone claims I have said and none is given and no apology offered. That is wrong.

We can disagree on the doctrine of the Trinity. But DO NOT attribute to me statements I did not make. That is decietful and wrong. I understand your point and disagree with it. I have never misrepresented your position not once. I have only disagreed and maintained my position.

[DRS]

Deflection. What was the Revelation OF?? It was a Revelation of WHO Jesus IS.

It is not deflection, it was the revelation that God gave to Jesus, it was the totality of the scriptures, everything that was to happen was now revealed, the end of Satan the end of suffering how everything was to play out.

[Fire Watch]

It is not deflection, it was the revelation that God gave to Jesus, it was the totality of the scriptures, everything that was to happen was now revealed, the end of Satan the end of suffering how everything was to play out.
But most importantly of all, a Revelation of WHO Jesus IS.

[HisServant]

But most importantly of all, a Revelation of WHO Jesus IS.

Rick are they serious about the fact that Jesus did not know who he is and thus God the Father had to tell Him? :doh:

They can't honestly believe that please tell me I'm not reading it right. Clearly it is a Revelation to us, showing us who Jesus really is in all His Glory and in His rightful place.

[DRS]

But most importantly of all, a Revelation of WHO Jesus IS.

We already knew who Jesus was this was all laid out in the Gospels and prophecies of the OT.

[Warrior4God]

I will answer no more questions until my post is answered.

Where did I ever say Jesus is God Almighty? I have been accused of saying this and want an answer or apology. This is called misquoting and misrepresenting.

Then answer my second question: If I take a piece of paper and cut it in half did I just create 2 pieces?

You have yet to answer 1 question properly IMO
accused you of nothing
1 God is Almighty fact
2Jesus=GOD he then is Almighty
3because you say he is God and not put Almighty in front is spinning the what you claim Jesus is In my opinion,not saying your doing it intentionally but doing it none the less
I see nothing to apologize for I cant think of God as anything but Almighty God the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ

[Warrior4God]

tear a piece of paper in half you have ruined a good piece of paper

What in tarnation (lol never type that before come think about it not sure its a word that applies here) are you talking about????????????

[Angryamerican]

Sorry no. It's the revelation OF Jesus, given to John.

Rev 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=1&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:


denoting who the speaker is.

Which God gave to Jesus.

[Angryamerican]

I will answer no more questions until my post is answered.

Where did I ever say Jesus is God Almighty? I have been accused of saying this and want an answer or apology. This is called misquoting and misrepresenting.

Then answer my second question: If I take a piece of paper and cut it in half did I just create 2 pieces?

Are you not saying Jesus is God?

[Angryamerican]

Deflection. What was the Revelation OF?? It was a Revelation of WHO Jesus IS.

If something was given it was never his before that correct?

It's really not that hard to see if you think about what being said. No offense now.

[Angryamerican]

Deflection. What was the Revelation OF?? It was a Revelation of WHO Jesus IS.

No it was a Revelation by God through Jesus Christ. Remember he was here not to do his will, but to do the will of the one that sent him.

He also is being sent in the second coming by God, he is still serving his Father.

[Angryamerican]

Why don't you come out & say that this is part of a tract given out by Jehovah Witnesses and you are one. Now, you give no references, no context to the references so it is practically impossible to rebut, since no sources are cited with specific references. I mean titles may be given in some cases, but few if any chapter, verses, from what books can they taken from show a lack of true scholarship. In my experience Lots of times JWs will quote something to make an argument totally at odds. I doubt that these statements from Catholic sources would agree with your conclusions of what they say. The context in many cases probably gives a rounder context to see what they actually mean.

Question, if because the word Trinity is not used in the Bible means it is not true, does that mean that becaue the word theocracy is not used in the Bible, does that mean that the society's theory of its own organization as being a 'theocracy' mean that it is unbiblical?

And as another has written, why don't you come out & say what you believe, not what you disbelieve. I'd love to see the proof that Jesus is the archangel Michael & Jesus proclaiming that that is who he was.

BTW, although not these specific citations given above, here is a site that shows how the pamphlet'Should you Believe in the Trinity?' does miscite authors in that very pamphlet this is taken from:

http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/examtrin/examintrinity.html
I can't vouch for the web site, but the jws do seem to miscite guys.

Are we all here JEHOVAH Witnesses?

Nope. We happen to agree about this issue. And if you want to dispute whats being said please use scripture.

[Angryamerican]

Why don't you come out & say that this is part of a tract given out by Jehovah Witnesses and you are one. Now, you give no references, no context to the references so it is practically impossible to rebut, since no sources are cited with specific references. I mean titles may be given in some cases, but few if any chapter, verses, from what books can they taken from show a lack of true scholarship. In my experience Lots of times JWs will quote something to make an argument totally at odds. I doubt that these statements from Catholic sources would agree with your conclusions of what they say. The context in many cases probably gives a rounder context to see what they actually mean.

Question, if because the word Trinity is not used in the Bible means it is not true, does that mean that becaue the word theocracy is not used in the Bible, does that mean that the society's theory of its own organization as being a 'theocracy' mean that it is unbiblical?

And as another has written, why don't you come out & say what you believe, not what you disbelieve. I'd love to see the proof that Jesus is the archangel Michael & Jesus proclaiming that that is who he was.

BTW, although not these specific citations given above, here is a site that shows how the pamphlet'Should you Believe in the Trinity?' does miscite authors in that very pamphlet this is taken from:

http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/examtrin/examintrinity.html
I can't vouch for the web site, but the jws do seem to miscite guys.

It is clear you have not read all the evidence presented here.

[Angryamerican]

Why? I have several times. Each time misquoted. And now I posted for proof of what someone claims I have said and none is given and no apology offered. That is wrong.

We can disagree on the doctrine of the Trinity. But DO NOT attribute to me statements I did not make. That is decietful and wrong. I understand your point and disagree with it. I have never misrepresented your position not once. I have only disagreed and maintained my position.

Nor have i. And i am done getting dragged in to the mud , I will no longer respond the way you did in this thread. I will continue to add my opinion though.

[Angryamerican]

Rick are they serious about the fact that Jesus did not know who he is and thus God the Father had to tell Him? :doh:

They can't honestly believe that please tell me I'm not reading it right. Clearly it is a Revelation to us, showing us who Jesus really is in all His Glory and in His rightful place.

According to you it happened in John 1:1 Didn't it?

[matt1618]

Are we all here JEHOVAH Witnesses?

Nope. We happen to agree about this issue. And if you want to dispute whats being said please use scripture.
I was responding to the original citation and the original citation is from a tract that said 'Should you believe in the Trinity'? Which other specific anti-Trinitarian do you expect me to respond to?

[HisServant]

Nor have i. And i am done getting dragged in to the mud , I will no longer respond the way you did in this thread. I will continue to add my opinion though.

Excuse me? How did I respond? please be specific. If I said something out of line I will apologize. If however I was defending myself because I have been misquoted then I will not. So show me unless this is more of the same, make a statement that cannot be proven.

[Angryamerican]

I was responding to the original citation and the original citation is from a tract that said 'Should you believe in the Trinity'? Which other specific anti-Trinitarian do you expect me to respond to?

Ok i see, But this isn't just a JW issue.

But there are many .

[Angryamerican]

Excuse me? How did I respond? please be specific. If I said something out of line I will apologize. If however I was defending myself because I have been misquoted then I will not. So show me unless this is more of the same, make a statement that cannot be proven.

Show me where i misquoted you? and i assure you i will apologize.

[HisServant]

Show me where i misquoted you? and i assure you i will apologize.

Originally Posted by HisServant
Let's not have another conversation because you refuse to stop saying God is a trinity. Which no one but you says. And it makes no sense. It also shows your lack of understanding. So I am done.

Angryamerican:
Well i do apologize if you don't believe in the trinity, I thought you did, but my opinion hasn't changed Jesus isn't God either.

I have said over and over again that Trinity is a term. God is not a Trinity. Jesus is not a Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not a Trinity. Not once did you stop.
So I can only assume you don't care, you don't understand the doctrine, you don't understand what is being said. Then you respond by saying that my post somehow says I don't believe in the Trinity.

[Angryamerican]

Originally Posted by HisServant
Let's not have another conversation because you refuse to stop saying God is a trinity. Which no one but you says. And it makes no sense. It also shows your lack of understanding. So I am done.

Angryamerican:
Well i do apologize if you don't believe in the trinity, I thought you did, but my opinion hasn't changed Jesus isn't God either.

I have said over and over again that Trinity is a term. God is not a Trinity. Jesus is not a Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not a Trinity. Not once did you stop.
So I can only assume you don't care, you don't understand the doctrine, you don't understand what is being said. Then you respond by saying that my post somehow says I don't believe in the Trinity.

I was only going off what you said. But i do apologize.

[HisServant]

I was only going off what you said. But i do apologize.

If you were show me where I said God is a Trinity. Then show me where I said I don't believe in the Trinity.

[Angryamerican]

If you were show me where I said God is a Trinity. Then show me where I said I don't believe in the Trinity.


LOOK WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE!!

[DRS]

Let's not have another conversation because you refuse to stop saying God is a trinity. Which no one but you says. And it makes no sense. It also shows your lack of understanding. So I am done.

Are you asking about this post?

[Harmonious]

I think harmonious or one of our Jewish members can give us opinion on the Jewish perspective. On whether the Jews thought Jesus claimed to be God ,or the son. But you have to remember claiming to be the son of God you are claiming to be Godlike.
Jews who are true to the Torah, especially in Jesus' time, knew that Jesus WAS NOT God. By calling himself God, Jesus was guilty of blasphemy.

He was warned against this behavior, but he did it anyway. Jesus deserved to die.

That is what Torah true Jews believe.

[HisServant]

LOOK WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE!!

No. You said you are going off of what I said so show me where I made the 2 statements you are aledging.

[HisServant]

Are you asking about this post?

Yes.
BTW: We finally agree on something. It is like daffy and bugs. :))

[DRS]

Jews who are true to the Torah, especially in Jesus' time, knew that Jesus WAS NOT God. By calling himself God, Jesus was guilty of blasphemy.

He was warned against this behavior, but he did it anyway. Jesus deserved to die.

That is what Torah true Jews believe.

You do have to admit that some of your ancestors did have a nasty habit of getting rid of some of those whose message they did not like.

[Harmonious]

You do have to admit that some of your ancestors did have a nasty habit of getting rid of some of those whose message they did not like.
More to the point, my ancestors had the habit of killing the gods of other people. In ancient Egypt, it was the goats. It was the fish. It was all kinds of things.

But mostly, they didn't kill people randomly without God commanding it expressly.

But when it came to people claiming to be deities... Jesus' message wasn't particularly new or interesting. He suggested (according to some of the passages brought here) that he was God. He certainly suggested (or it might have been Paul, but I've had difficulty keeping everything straight) that Torah was too hard to keep, so it wasn't necessary for Jews to follow it, and that Jews only had to follow him.

Declaring himself God, and telling Jews to leave the Torah way of life... Hm. These are things that are punishable by death in Jewish law.

The other things, like about love, was already in the Torah. It is true, that the Jews could always have done more of that. We believe that baseless hatred among the Jews was the reason God allowed the Second Temple to be destroyed. Jesus had a point, but it was being spoken about by the Pharisees, as well. As I said, Jesus didn't say anything new or interesting.

Except that he was God (or the Son of God) and that Jews were supposed to stop following the Torah.

[DRS]

More to the point, my ancestors had the habit of killing the gods of other people. In ancient Egypt, it was the goats. It was the fish. It was all kinds of things.

But mostly, they didn't kill people randomly without God commanding it expressly.

But when it came to people claiming to be deities... Jesus' message wasn't particularly new or interesting. He suggested (according to some of the passages brought here) that he was God. He certainly suggested (or it might have been Paul, but I've had difficulty keeping everything straight) that Torah was too hard to keep, so it wasn't necessary for Jews to follow it, and that Jews only had to follow him.

Declaring himself God, and telling Jews to leave the Torah way of life... Hm. These are things that are punishable by death in Jewish law.

The other things, like about love, was already in the Torah. It is true, that the Jews could always have done more of that. We believe that baseless hatred among the Jews was the reason God allowed the Second Temple to be destroyed. Jesus had a point, but it was being spoken about by the Pharisees, as well. As I said, Jesus didn't say anything new or interesting.

Except that he was God (or the Son of God) and that Jews were supposed to stop following the Torah.


Actually you would be hard pressed to find a verse where Jesus says to not keep the law, in fact he told his followers with regards to what the Pharisees say, do.

[Harmonious]

Actually you would be hard pressed to find a verse where Jesus says to not keep the law, in fact he told his followers with regards to what the Pharisees say, do.That whole violating the Sabbath thing and picking grain, and the stupid answer he gave the Rabbis when they asked him why he directed his students to do what he did.

He could have simply stated that they were starving, and this was the only way they could get something to eat. (That would have been a serious condemnation of the Jews at the time, because if that were the case, that meant that the Jews didn't care enough, if asked to take in the hungry, to feed them.) But instead, he used a bogus snippy answer, comparing the situation to David eating food he shouldn't have.

[DRS]

That whole violating the Sabbath thing and picking grain, and the stupid answer he gave the Rabbis when they asked him why he directed his students to do what he did.

He could have simply stated that they were starving, and this was the only way they could get something to eat. (That would have been a serious condemnation of the Jews at the time, because if that were the case, that meant that the Jews didn't care enough, if asked to take in the hungry, to feed them.) But instead, he used a bogus snippy answer, comparing the situation to David eating food he shouldn't have.

So I am out for a walk and pluck an apple and it on the Sabbath and it is a violation of Sabbath law?

Was not the show bread for priests only?

[Warrior4God]

That whole violating the Sabbath thing and picking grain, and the stupid answer he gave the Rabbis when they asked him why he directed his students to do what he did.

He could have simply stated that they were starving, and this was the only way they could get something to eat. (That would have been a serious condemnation of the Jews at the time, because if that were the case, that meant that the Jews didn't care enough, if asked to take in the hungry, to feed them.) But instead, he used a bogus snippy answer, comparing the situation to David eating food he shouldn't have.

that would be your opinion God did and used men through the Bible to do and say stupid stuff in our eyes think about it 100's of things
You may not like Jesus I love him for what he said and did for me and you even if you reject him.
Now he is the only way to God

[Angryamerican]

No. You said you are going off of what I said so show me where I made the 2 statements you are aledging.

Look at your opinion, you could go either way, Jesus is God or part of a trinity.

[Christian Voter]

Originally Posted by Christian Voter
I like very much the original post by tater about the trinity. I hope the Christian world will start re-thinking the idea that three separate beings are one being, and return to the doctrine that the apostles and the early church believed: that Jesus was (and is) the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is the third, separate being of the three that make up God, one in unity of purpose and united in the effort to save us despite our flaws and stubbornness.
I have one more statement of my own belief: That Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of the OT.John 1-3 seems to show this, as the statement: "Before Abraham was, I AM.

Could be me but I don't see a difference between what you said and what you are claiming the Trinity says.
I am saying that the trinity says there is only one being, 3 in one, that noone understands and the early church did not believe.
I am saying that the three beings are each God, separate individuals the same as the nine justices together make up the Supreme Court.
God the Father is God, and Jesus as the Son of God is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God. I see God as a group of three beings working together.
I think the best way to understand the trinity is that God is one person with a split personality. Doesn't make sense. :think:

[Ron Jon]

I am saying that the trinity says there is only one being, 3 in one, that noone understands and the early church did not believe.
I am saying that the three beings are each God, separate individuals the same as the nine justices together make up the Supreme Court.
God the Father is God, and Jesus as the Son of God is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God. I see God as a group of three beings working together.
I think the best way to understand the trinity is that God is one person with a split personality. Doesn't make sense. :think:That's because you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Clearly you don't know the difference between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the belief in modelism. If you really want to know the differences, ask Reconrick about his beliefs (he freely admits to NOT being a Trinitarian) or you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

[Harmonious]

So I am out for a walk and pluck an apple and it on the Sabbath and it is a violation of Sabbath law?For a Jew, it would be. But you are not a Jew, so it isn't a Sabbath law violation for you.

But if there are extenuating circumstances, such as a Jew would starve to death if he didn't eat right away, then he could pick an apple.

I am diabetic. If I don't eat when my blood sugar is low, I could be endangering my life by not eating. Therefore, I was directed by my rabbi to carry food with me on Shabbat, even though carrying outside of one's house (without the help of an Eruv, and I may talk about that later) is a violation of Shabbat. If I don't carry the food, my blood sugar may get too low, and I may cause a life or death issue. It is far better that I carry something and violate the Sabbath in this one way then it is to lose my life for not carrying food if I was in dire need of it.

But Jesus and his buddies were not diabetic that we know about, so they had no such out for him. Jesus should have given the Rabbis a far better answer than he did for why they were out in the field picking grains on Shabbat.

Was not the show bread for priests only?Yup. But David was running for his life, and he needed provisions. He was running for his life, and he had NOTHING to eat. It was a life or death situation, so the Cohen Gadol was permitted to give David food to eat. In a city of only Cohanim, there was all kinds of food that might have been forbidden for a non-Cohen to eat, and the least problematic food was the show bread. So it was given to David.

[Harmonious]

that would be your opinion God did and used men through the Bible to do and say stupid stuff in our eyes think about it 100's of thingsHuh? I just explained Jewish law. That isn't my opinion. That is hard fact and law.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with your "stupid stuff" and "hundreds of things." :think:
You may not like Jesus I love him for what he said and did for me and you even if you reject him.
Now he is the only way to God
You are free to believe what you want, no matter how wrong I think you are.

[rsuhls]

That's because you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Clearly you don't know the difference between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the belief in modelism. If you really want to know the differences, ask Reconrick about his beliefs (he freely admits to NOT being a Trinitarian) or you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Well clearly Christian Voter stated his/her beliefs. As have I and they agree with Cristian Voter.

You are welcome to believe what ever you like.

edit to add: thanks for the website.

[rsuhls]

That's because you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Clearly you don't know the difference between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the belief in modelism. If you really want to know the differences, ask Reconrick about his beliefs (he freely admits to NOT being a Trinitarian) or you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

tell me what is the differnce between Christian Voter saying that the trinity saying there is only one being, 3 in 1 and your website saying, and I quote, "In Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), Sabellianism (also known as modalism or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian) belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself). God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Grk. prosopa)?"

Seems like your Web site used more words to say exactly what Christian Voter said.

[HisServant]

I am saying that the trinity says there is only one being, 3 in one, that noone understands and the early church did not believe.
I am saying that the three beings are each God, separate individuals the same as the nine justices together make up the Supreme Court.
God the Father is God, and Jesus as the Son of God is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God. I see God as a group of three beings working together.
I think the best way to understand the trinity is that God is one person with a split personality. Doesn't make sense. :think:

I don't think that is what those who believe the Trinity doctrine think. God does not have a split personality. The belief is there is only one God. Yet somehow He is in Three distinct persons Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Each seperate and yet each the same. It is a hard concept to graps, no question. But does it make it false when someone does not understand or finds it confusing no. The way I learned it was by using water as an example. Water in its natural state is a liquid. When frozen it turns to ice. When heated is turns to vapor. Yet it is still the same body of water but it manifest itself in 3 different forms. Thus we have Father, Son and Spirit. All God together and yet distinct.

[matt1618]

I am diabetic. If I don't eat when my blood sugar is low, I could be endangering my life by not eating. Therefore, I was directed by my rabbi to carry food with me on Shabbat, even though carrying outside of one's house (without the help of an Eruv, and I may talk about that later) is a violation of Shabbat. If I don't carry the food, my blood sugar may get too low, and I may cause a life or death issue. It is far better that I carry something and violate the Sabbath in this one way then it is to lose my life for not carrying food if I was in dire need of it.

But Jesus and his buddies were not diabetic that we know about, so they had no such out for him. Jesus should have given the Rabbis a far better answer than he did for why they were out in the field picking grains on Shabbat.

Yup. But David was running for his life, and he needed provisions. He was running for his life, and he had NOTHING to eat. It was a life or death situation, so the Cohen Gadol was permitted to give David food to eat. In a city of only Cohanim, there was all kinds of food that might have been forbidden for a non-Cohen to eat, and the least problematic food was the show bread. So it was given to David.

This is obviously not on the subject of the Trinity, but I'm a Catholic diabetic. During lent at least we have 2 days of abstinence, on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. If my score goes low, I now have those glucose tablets, that are not food per se, but have some carbohydrates. Take a couple of those and that'll get your score up. Of course in those instances if I didn't have it, I'd grab a candy bar or drink juice or something, but those glucose tablets might be an alternative for you. I got some at Shoppers Food Warehouse (a grocery store) and at CVS, a drug store where I live. I usually carry them around whether I'm fasting or not, because the blood sugar can go low not only when you are fasting per se.

[swampthing]

The Word of God displays the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That's three. That's a Trinity.

Why is this so difficult?

[matt1618]

tell me what is the differnce between Christian Voter saying that the trinity saying there is only one being, 3 in 1 and your website saying, and I quote, "In Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), Sabellianism (also known as modalism or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian) belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself). God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Grk. prosopa)?"

Seems like your Web site used more words to say exactly what Christian Voter said.

Modalism says that there is only one person, who will have 3 manifestations. In other words the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person. The Trinity says that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, though one being, are 3 persons, who have a relationship with each other.

[HisServant]

Modalism says that there is only one person, who will have 3 manifestations. In other words the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person. The Trinity says that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, though one being, are 3 persons, who have a relationship with each other.

Great explaination I hope others read this and stop saying that God is a trinity or that Jesus is God the Father.

[Fire Watch]

That's because you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Clearly you don't know the difference between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the belief in modelism. If you really want to know the differences, ask Reconrick about his beliefs (he freely admits to NOT being a Trinitarian) or you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism
I am neither a Modelist or a believer in Sabellianism.

Modalism rightly rejected an eternal and personal distinction in God's essence as does Oneness theology, but wrongly ignored the temporal distinction of existence between the Father and Son that arose in the incarnation because of the addition of humanity to God's previously unmitigated existence as exclusive deity.

I admit though that historically speaking Oneness theology has tended to mimic Modalism's explanation of Father and Son as being mere nominal devices to refer to the same person of God, seeing no real distinction between the terms. This in turn has caused Oneness believers to use "Father" and "Son" as synonymous equivalents, exchanging one appellation for the other, and thus eliminating any real referential distinction between Father and Son. The reason for such a practice is typically the fear of violating the strict monotheism of Scripture. Such caution is well founded, but it has caused some Oneness believers to adopt a hermeneutic which denies any real distinction between Father and Son, and thus ignores or explains away the hundreds of passages that make such a distinction. The fault does not lie in the caution to protect God's oneness, but in the fact that some feel the need to explain away the Biblical distinctions to protect monotheism rather than explain why the distinctions exist.

A Chalcedonian Christology is central to my theology/Christology, as it should be to anyone’s as far as I am concerned. Only a Chalcedonian understanding of Christ, coupled with a proper understanding of the limitation of the exercising of Christ's deity (Phil 2:5-11) can explain the Biblical presentation of Jesus Christ as being fully God and a genuine human being simultaneously from conception, and His inferiority to the Father, all the while maintaining Biblical monotheism. All other attempts at explaining the Biblical data are doomed to failure.

I am a thoroughgoing Oneness believer, placing no distinctions of personality in the Godhead, and yet I can hold to a Chalcedonian Christology that unites Christ's two natures into one inseparable person. What makes my understanding opposed to the Trinitarian understanding is that they say the second Person became a man, while Oneness believers maintain that the uni-personal God, the Father, became a man, known to us as Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The fundamental difference between the Oneness concept of God, and the Trinitarian concept is where the Biblical distinctions are placed. Trinitarians place an eternal distinction in person-hood between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Oneness maintains that there is no distinction of personality in the Godhead.

I do not advocate Sabellianism in the least sense. There are no successive revelations of God, and neither is Jesus Christ only a temporary existence of God. The incarnation is permanent. Jesus, in His flesh, is in heaven right now right alongside of the Father.

[Harmonious]

This is obviously not on the subject of the Trinity, but I'm a Catholic diabetic. During lent at least we have 2 days of abstinence, on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. If my score goes low, I now have those glucose tablets, that are not food per se, but have some carbohydrates. Take a couple of those and that'll get your score up. Of course in those instances if I didn't have it, I'd grab a candy bar or drink juice or something, but those glucose tablets might be an alternative for you. I got some at Shoppers Food Warehouse (a grocery store) and at CVS, a drug store where I live. I usually carry them around whether I'm fasting or not, because the blood sugar can go low not only when you are fasting per se.

Thank you for your suggestion. I usually have those on hand, too.

[Angryamerican]

[QUOTE=swampthing;8681261]The Word of God displays the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That's three. That's a Trinity.

Why is this so difficult?[/QUOTE

What is the trinity teaching?

[HisServant]

I am neither a Modelist or a believer in Sabellianism.

Modalism rightly rejected an eternal and personal distinction in God's essence as does Oneness theology, but wrongly ignored the temporal distinction of existence between the Father and Son that arose in the incarnation because of the addition of humanity to God's previously unmitigated existence as exclusive deity.

I admit though that historically speaking Oneness theology has tended to mimic Modalism's explanation of Father and Son as being mere nominal devices to refer to the same person of God, seeing no real distinction between the terms. This in turn has caused Oneness believers to use "Father" and "Son" as synonymous equivalents, exchanging one appellation for the other, and thus eliminating any real referential distinction between Father and Son. The reason for such a practice is typically the fear of violating the strict monotheism of Scripture. Such caution is well founded, but it has caused some Oneness believers to adopt a hermeneutic which denies any real distinction between Father and Son, and thus ignores or explains away the hundreds of passages that make such a distinction. The fault does not lie in the caution to protect God's oneness, but in the fact that some feel the need to explain away the Biblical distinctions to protect monotheism rather than explain why the distinctions exist.

A Chalcedonian Christology is central to my theology/Christology, as it should be to anyone’s as far as I am concerned. Only a Chalcedonian understanding of Christ, coupled with a proper understanding of the limitation of the exercising of Christ's deity (Phil 2:5-11) can explain the Biblical presentation of Jesus Christ as being fully God and a genuine human being simultaneously from conception, and His inferiority to the Father, all the while maintaining Biblical monotheism. All other attempts at explaining the Biblical data are doomed to failure.

I am a thoroughgoing Oneness believer, placing no distinctions of personality in the Godhead, and yet I can hold to a Chalcedonian Christology that unites Christ's two natures into one inseparable person. What makes my understanding opposed to the Trinitarian understanding is that they say the second Person became a man, while Oneness believers maintain that the uni-personal God, the Father, became a man, known to us as Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The fundamental difference between the Oneness concept of God, and the Trinitarian concept is where the Biblical distinctions are placed. Trinitarians place an eternal distinction in person-hood between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Oneness maintains that there is no distinction of personality in the Godhead.

I do not advocate Sabellianism in the least sense. There are no successive revelations of God, and neither is Jesus Christ only a temporary existence of God. The incarnation is permanent. Jesus, in His flesh, is in heaven right now right alongside of the Father.

Rick great explaination. I understand what you believe and why. We can agree to disagree but well thought out. I think the distinction is so minor that it does not take away from who Jesus is or what He has done. It does not take away from His diety. I do have problems with those who don't see Jesus as divine or God and only see Him as another creation of God. Well put my Brother.

[Angryamerican]

Modalism says that there is only one person, who will have 3 manifestations. In other words the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person. The Trinity says that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, though one being, are 3 persons, who have a relationship with each other.

The trinity teaching is.

The Father The son And The Holy Spirit


Are Co Equal And Co eternal They are all God Almighty and the scriptures don't show that.

[DRS]

For a Jew, it would be. But you are not a Jew, so it isn't a Sabbath law violation for you.

But if there are extenuating circumstances, such as a Jew would starve to death if he didn't eat right away, then he could pick an apple.

I am diabetic. If I don't eat when my blood sugar is low, I could be endangering my life by not eating. Therefore, I was directed by my rabbi to carry food with me on Shabbat, even though carrying outside of one's house (without the help of an Eruv, and I may talk about that later) is a violation of Shabbat. If I don't carry the food, my blood sugar may get too low, and I may cause a life or death issue. It is far better that I carry something and violate the Sabbath in this one way then it is to lose my life for not carrying food if I was in dire need of it.

But Jesus and his buddies were not diabetic that we know about, so they had no such out for him. Jesus should have given the Rabbis a far better answer than he did for why they were out in the field picking grains on Shabbat.

Yup. But David was running for his life, and he needed provisions. He was running for his life, and he had NOTHING to eat. It was a life or death situation, so the Cohen Gadol was permitted to give David food to eat. In a city of only Cohanim, there was all kinds of food that might have been forbidden for a non-Cohen to eat, and the least problematic food was the show bread. So it was given to David.

While in exhile, did the Jews always keep the Sabbath?

Secondly seeing as there are examples of times when there were attempts on Jesus's life and he was travelling all the time, grabbing a piece of food for immediate consumption would be like eating out or is that against the law too?

[HisServant]

The trinity teaching is.

The Father The son And The Holy Spirit


Are Co Equal And Co eternal They are all God Almighty and the scriptures don't show that.

They are not all God Almighty. Someone has misinformed you.
The Father is God Almighty. Thus if that is your thinking your understanding is faulty.

[DRS]

They are not all God Almighty. Someone has misinformed you.
The Father is God Almighty. Thus if that is your thinking your understanding is faulty.

If only one is Almighty then there is not a co-equal nature, and hence not triune.

Hence why in the greek manuscript you have The God and god in John 1:1, denoting only one Almighty.

[matt1618]

The trinity teaching is.

The Father The son And The Holy Spirit


Are Co Equal And Co eternal They are all God Almighty and the scriptures don't show that.

Right, and they are all God, but of the same essence. Scriptures do point to that. Why does Jesus pray to the Father, if he is the same person as the Father, Jn 17. See John 14:.

16 'I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whome the world cannot receive.'

He doesn't pray to Himself, he prays to the Father, another person, who He will give you another counselor, Not I will send myself in another manifestation.

Matt 3:16-17, the Spirt of God descends like a dove upon the person Jesus, another person, and the Father says 'this is my Beloved Son, whith whom I am well pleased.'
The Spirit comes to the Son, another person, the Father says 'this is my beloved Son', another person. Three persons, one God. He did not say I am my beloved son, how can the Son be the same person as the Father?
He is another person. As is the Holy Spirit.

[HisServant]

If only one is Almighty then there is not a co-equal nature, and hence not triune.

Hence why in the greek manuscript you have The God and god in John 1:1, denoting only one Almighty.

How many times can a person be wrong, wow.

Of course they are still co-equal and co-eternal. If I take a body of water and call it say "the Hudon". Then I take a Bucket and pull some water out. Did I create a new body of water? No. And yet they are distinct. One exist now outside the other. The body in the bucket is equal. If you do an analysis they will be of the same substance. Taste the same. They will both have the same properties. Now are they the same size. No. But they are the same nonetheless. Let's call the water in the bucket "little Hudson". So when I talk about this water I can now say. Hudson or little Hudson. now you know who specifically I am talking about. But both have the same substance and yet Little Hudson came from Hudson and yet was not created because it always existed until it was taken out of Hudson.

Finally the greek John 1:1 does not say "the God or "a god". That is our english attempt at translating it. The proper translation is God. No "the" or "a". As has been told to you over and over again.

[HisServant]

Right, and they are all God, but of the same essence. Scriptures do point to that. Why does Jesus pray to the Father, if he is the same person as the Father, Jn 17. See John 14:.

16 'I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whome the world cannot receive.'

He doesn't pray to Himself, he prays to the Father, another person, who He will give you another counselor, Not I will send myself in another manifestation.

Matt 3:16-17, the Spirt of God descends like a dove upon the person Jesus, another person, and the Father says 'this is my Beloved Son, whith whom I am well pleased.'
The Spirit comes to the Son, another person, the Father says 'this is my beloved Son', another person. Three persons, one God. He did not say I am my beloved son, how can the Son be the same person as the Father?
He is another person. As is the Holy Spirit.

Matt is it your understanding that God Almighty is Jesus and The Holy Spirit?

Or that God Almighty is God the Father. Jesus is God the Son and the Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit and the Three are one.

[matt1618]

Matt is it your understanding that God Almighty is Jesus and The Holy Spirit?

Or that God Almighty is God the Father. Jesus is God the Son and the Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit and the Three are one.

No, God the Father is not God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit. They are 3 different persons, as I tried to explain in the above post, even if I might have said it unclearly. Now, to whether specific claim whether Jesus is God 'Almighty' per se, I'm not sure whether he is given that specific title, and haven't looked at that. I just know he is not any less than God the Father.

[Harmonious]

While in exhile, did the Jews always keep the Sabbath?Most, yes. But life got complicated, and Jews were often drawn away from Torah observation.

There are Jews who don't observe the Sabbath. But Jews who are true to the Torah have always managed to observe the Sabbath, throughout the long exile.

So the answer to your question is both yes and no. (Do not go to the elves for confirmation, for they will say both no and yes.)

Secondly seeing as there are examples of times when there were attempts on Jesus's life and he was travelling all the time, grabbing a piece of food for immediate consumption would be like eating out or is that against the law too?No, that would have been against the law. He should have sought company with the Jews, and ask to be invited for Shabbat. He didn't bother. Further, they might have stolen from whoever the field belonged to.

But let's focus one issue at a time.

It is a commandment in the Torah to invite guests. If Jesus and company were in need, they should have come to the nearest town to look for Shabbat hospitality. There is hospitality, and there are inns. There are all kinds of ways that Jesus could have solved his issue of lack of food. There was no need for him and his crew to head to the middle of a field, when Jews would have taken him in.

[HisServant]

No, God the Father is not God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit. They are 3 different persons, as I tried to explain in the above post, even if I might have said it unclearly. Now, to whether specific claim whether Jesus is God 'Almighty' per se, I'm not sure whether he is given that specific title, and haven't looked at that. I just know he is not any less than God the Father.

Ok. If you see the post where you agreed with Angryamerican, he makes the case that Jesus, the father and the Holy Spirit is God Almighty and you agreed with him. That is the reason with my questioning you. You may want to reanswer his post. Because what you said earlier is different from what you said you agree with in his post.

I agree that they are different and distinct and yet one. God the Father, is God Almighty always. Then God the Son is Jesus. And God the Holy Spirit. All coequal coeternal coexistant.

[DRS]

Most, yes. But life got complicated, and Jews were often drawn away from Torah observation.

There are Jews who don't observe the Sabbath. But Jews who are true to the Torah have always managed to observe the Sabbath, throughout the long exile.

So the answer to your question is both yes and no. (Do not go to the elves for confirmation, for they will say both no and yes.)

No, that would have been against the law. He should have sought company with the Jews, and ask to be invited for Shabbat. He didn't bother. Further, they might have stolen from whoever the field belonged to.

But let's focus one issue at a time.

It is a commandment in the Torah to invite guests. If Jesus and company were in need, they should have come to the nearest town to look for Shabbat hospitality. There is hospitality, and there are inns. There are all kinds of ways that Jesus could have solved his issue of lack of food. There was no need for him and his crew to head to the middle of a field, when Jews would have taken him in.


Apparently there were Pharisees there to see him and his followers pluck a head of grain, so they could have invited him in.

Secondly since the law also stated you were not to harvest an entire field but leave some behind for those in need, they could have simply been taking from that portion.

[DRS]

How many times can a person be wrong, wow.

Of course they are still co-equal and co-eternal. If I take a body of water and call it say "the Hudon". Then I take a Bucket and pull some water out. Did I create a new body of water? No. And yet they are distinct. One exist now outside the other. The body in the bucket is equal. If you do an analysis they will be of the same substance. Taste the same. They will both have the same properties. Now are they the same size. No. But they are the same nonetheless. Let's call the water in the bucket "little Hudson". So when I talk about this water I can now say. Hudson or little Hudson. now you know who specifically I am talking about. But both have the same substance and yet Little Hudson came from Hudson and yet was not created because it always existed until it was taken out of Hudson.

Finally the greek John 1:1 does not say "the God or "a god". That is our english attempt at translating it. The proper translation is God. No "the" or "a". As has been told to you over and over again.

Since I have shown through bibles with cross reference that show the beginning of Christ before creation, he had a beginning, and since he died for 3 days he had an end.

[Harmonious]

Apparently there were Pharisees there to see him and his followers pluck a head of grain, so they could have invited him in.Yeah, but where was Jesus BEFORE the Sabbath began?

Let me tell you, I don't have a lot of money. I often spend Shabbat with friends. I try to make sure that I have my plans established by Wednesday. But when I can't, there are friends I have that gave me open invitations. And there was one time that a fellow was supposed to pick me up to go somewhere I'd never gone before and didn't have the address. The Rabbi saw me waiting, and offered to take me home with him, so I wouldn't be alone and without a Shabbat meal. My friend showed up shortly afterwards.

The Pharisees could have invited Jesus and company, but Jesus didn't say that they were in desperate need, or that they were in need at all. Jesus just said that Shabbat was made for man, and mouthed off to the Pharisees. I wouldn't want to invite someone like that to my home, either.

Secondly since the law also stated you were not to harvest an entire field but leave some behind for those in need, they could have simply been taking from that portion.
They could harvest them WHEN IT WASN'T the Sabbath. But I noticed that the text doesn't say that they were picking from Leket (dropped sheaves) or Shichicha (forgotten stalks). Or even Pe'ah (a whole section of the field left for beggars and the poor to harvest from). They were just "in the field." If they were following Jewish law, it would have been important for the writers of said text to announce that they were doing something lawful.

I have no reason to believe that they did ANYTHING lawful.

[HisServant]

Since I have shown through bibles with cross reference that show the beginning of Christ before creation, he had a beginning, and since he died for 3 days he had an end.

Actually you have stated so and have been told otherwise. The Logos always was with the Father. Jesus came into being in human form. Death is not the end. For the Body dies the Spirit does not.

[Angryamerican]

Ok. If you see the post where you agreed with Angryamerican, he makes the case that Jesus, the father and the Holy Spirit is God Almighty and you agreed with him. That is the reason with my questioning you. You may want to reanswer his post. Because what you said earlier is different from what you said you agree with in his post.

I agree that they are different and distinct and yet one. God the Father, is God Almighty always. Then God the Son is Jesus. And God the Holy Spirit. All coequal coeternal coexistant.

If you to look at the throne of God, how many beings would you see?

Rev 7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.
Rev 7:16 They will not hunger any more, nor thirst any more, nor will the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feed them and will lead them to the fountains of living waters. And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Notice it say's God is sitting on the Throne and the Lamb= Jesus who is in the midst of the throne.

Revelation 7:15

ASV) Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them.

(ESV) "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.


(KJV) Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

(KJV+) Therefore1223, 5124 are1526 they before1799 the3588 throne2362 of God,2316 and2532 serve3000 him846 day2250 and2532 night3571 in1722 his848 temple:3485 and2532 he that sitteth2521 on1909 the3588 throne2362 shall dwell4637 among1909 them.846

(MKJV) Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.

Revelation 7:17

Rev 7:17

(ASV) for the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.

(ESV) For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."


(KJV) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

(KJV+) For3754 the3588 Lamb721 which3588 is in303 the midst3319 of the3588 throne2362 shall feed4165 them,846 and2532 shall lead3594 them846 unto1909 living2198 fountains4077 of waters:5204 and2532 God2316 shall wipe away1813 all3956 tears1144 from575 their848 eyes.3788

(MKJV) For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feed them and will lead them to the fountains of living waters. And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes

[HisServant]

If you to look at the throne of God, how many beings would you see?

Rev 7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.
Rev 7:16 They will not hunger any more, nor thirst any more, nor will the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feed them and will lead them to the fountains of living waters. And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Notice it say's God is sitting on the Throne and the Lamb= Jesus who is in the midst of the throne.

Revelation 7:15

ASV) Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them.

(ESV) "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.


(KJV) Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

(KJV+) Therefore1223, 5124 are1526 they before1799 the3588 throne2362 of God,2316 and2532 serve3000 him846 day2250 and2532 night3571 in1722 his848 temple:3485 and2532 he that sitteth2521 on1909 the3588 throne2362 shall dwell4637 among1909 them.846

(MKJV) Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.

Revelation 7:17

Rev 7:17

(ASV) for the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.

(ESV) For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."


(KJV) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

(KJV+) For3754 the3588 Lamb721 which3588 is in303 the midst3319 of the3588 throne2362 shall feed4165 them,846 and2532 shall lead3594 them846 unto1909 living2198 fountains4077 of waters:5204 and2532 God2316 shall wipe away1813 all3956 tears1144 from575 their848 eyes.3788

(MKJV) For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feed them and will lead them to the fountains of living waters. And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes

Just a question since we are not going to agree. If you sat on a throne and you had a son and he sat on your lap. Would I be correct to say AngryAmerican sat on the throne and his son was in the midst of the throne.
Now I am not trying to be absolutely technical about it. But could you at least see that the description could fit the event.

[Fire Watch]

If you to look at the throne of God, how many beings would you see?

Rev 7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.
Rev 7:16 They will not hunger any more, nor thirst any more, nor will the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feed them and will lead them to the fountains of living waters. And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Notice it say's God is sitting on the Throne and the Lamb= Jesus who is in the midst of the throne.

Revelation 7:15

ASV) Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them.

(ESV) "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.


(KJV) Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

(KJV+) Therefore1223, 5124 are1526 they before1799 the3588 throne2362 of God,2316 and2532 serve3000 him846 day2250 and2532 night3571 in1722 his848 temple:3485 and2532 he that sitteth2521 on1909 the3588 throne2362 shall dwell4637 among1909 them.846

(MKJV) Therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple. And He sitting on the throne will dwell among them.

Revelation 7:17

Rev 7:17

(ASV) for the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.

(ESV) For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."


(KJV) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

(KJV+) For3754 the3588 Lamb721 which3588 is in303 the midst3319 of the3588 throne2362 shall feed4165 them,846 and2532 shall lead3594 them846 unto1909 living2198 fountains4077 of waters:5204 and2532 God2316 shall wipe away1813 all3956 tears1144 from575 their848 eyes.3788

(MKJV) For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feed them and will lead them to the fountains of living waters. And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes

:naughty: What you posted is a picture perfect case of pure eisigesis.


There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it, that part you got right. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8), THAT you got right also. However AI, when we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11).

[Angryamerican]

Actually you have stated so and have been told otherwise. The Logos always was with the Father. Jesus came into being in human form. Death is not the end. For the Body dies the Spirit does not.

No mention of the spirit liviing on here.

Psa 146:4

(ASV) His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.

(ESV) When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.

(JPS) His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish.

(KJV) His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

(KJV+) His breath7307 goeth forth,3318 he returneth7725 to his earth;127 in that very1931 day3117 his thoughts6250 perish.6

(MKJV) His breath goes forth; he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.


The soul dies at death because we all sin.

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are Mine. As the soul of the father, also the soul of the son, they are Mine. The soul that sins, it shall die.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.

Spirit translated means wind or Breath.

[DRS]

Actually you have stated so and have been told otherwise. The Logos always was with the Father. Jesus came into being in human form. Death is not the end. For the Body dies the Spirit does not.

Since Ruach is an impersonal force as has been explained even by Mimi, it is not a person it ceases to be as the person does not breath nor do they have the force of life in them.

[Angryamerican]

Just a question since we are not going to agree. If you sat on a throne and you had a son and he sat on your lap. Would I be correct to say AngryAmerican sat on the throne and his son was in the midst of the throne.
Now I am not trying to be absolutely technical about it. But could you at least see that the description could fit the event.

Well God is sitting and Jesus was standing. There is no other way for me to look at that.

But there was no mention of Jesus sitting at all. We finally have them both in the same place doing different things it shows there is two.

[Angryamerican]

Just a question since we are not going to agree. If you sat on a throne and you had a son and he sat on your lap. Would I be correct to say AngryAmerican sat on the throne and his son was in the midst of the throne.
Now I am not trying to be absolutely technical about it. But could you at least see that the description could fit the event.

But it does say, Jesus when he sits, he sits at the right hand of God.

[DRS]

:naughty: What you posted is a picture perfect case of pure eisigesis.


There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it, that part you got right. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8), THAT you got right also. However AI, when we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11).

But, there are things to consider there is more than Jesus judging, those who are in the covenant relationship with Jesus also judge.

Luke 22:28*“However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; 29*and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30*that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus does not judge of his own accord

John 5:30*I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

The above scripture can not be referring to any judgement at that time since earlier in John 3 Jesus said this.

17*For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. 18*He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

[Angryamerican]

:naughty: What you posted is a picture perfect case of pure eisigesis.


There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it, that part you got right. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8), THAT you got right also. However AI, when we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11).

Who is the AI?

You are cherry picking, to make your belief fit. And that was explained to you yesterday.

[Fire Watch]

But it does say, Jesus when he sits, he sits at the right hand of God.

The "right hand of God" is not indicative of a locale or physical reality. This is an anthropomorphic expression speaking of exaltation, power, prestige, honor, and strength. Anthropomorphisms are figures of speech, speaking of God in human terminology for the purpose of understanding aspects of His infinity that could not otherwise be expressed to and understood by finite human minds. God does not have a body, thus He cannot have a right hand. The language is only figurative.

Psalm 16:8 demonstrates this well when the psalmist said, "I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved." Was the Lord actually at David's right hand? If David would have turned around, would God have moved to his other side, or would He have then been at David's left hand? God is omnipresent and cannot merely be in one locale. This would include being specifically at someone's right hand.

If we are going to view the right hand of God as a physical hand, then we must change our view of God considerably to fit the rest of the Biblical descriptions of Him into our picture too. God must have large feet that He rests on the earth (The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool--Isaiah 66:1), innumerable eyes (The eyes of the Lord are in every place--Proverbs 15:3), a big nose (with the blast of God's nostrils the waters of the Red Sea were parted--Exodus 15:8), and feathers on His wings (He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust--Psalm 91:4). Obviously these are not literal descriptions of God. They are anthropomorphisms, relating God in human terms with the use of poetic language.

[Fire Watch]

Who is the AI?

You are cherry picking, to make your belief fit. And that was explained to you yesterday.
I mean AA. Cherry picking? Not hardly..it's proper exegesis and reading comprehension. I dont care what someone tried to "explain", if they're wrong, they're wrong:)) .

[Angryamerican]

:naughty: What you posted is a picture perfect case of pure eisigesis.


There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it, that part you got right. John described this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8), THAT you got right also. However AI, when we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "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" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.

Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11).

I have a few question's , How come you don't accept God's explanation of Christ the son of GOD?

Since you have a father does that mean you are him?

You are similar but different right?

How come that same rule don't apply to God?

So in the beginning God created himself?Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
Rev 3:14 And to the angel of the church of the Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God, says these things:

Now with Christ being created he can't be God Almighty.

[Angryamerican]

I mean AA. Cherry picking? Not hardly..it's proper exegesis and reading comprehension. I dont care what someone tried to "explain", if they're wrong, they're wrong:)) .

Thanks for clearing that up.:))

But where is your proof i am wrong? you havn't shown me that.

[Angryamerican]

I mean AA. Cherry picking? Not hardly..it's proper exegesis and reading comprehension. I dont care what someone tried to "explain", if they're wrong, they're wrong:)) .

Well it's a pretty big throne since it mentions 144.000 are present as well.

So i could see Jesus in the midst of the throne standing, at the same time God sitting.

[Fire Watch]

Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
The Greek word translated "image" in the King James Version is eikon. Its root is eiko, meaning likeness, resemblance, or representation. Eikon denotes both the representation and manifestation of a substance. Notice that Paul contrasted Jesus' image to that of the invisible God. The point Paul was trying to get across to his readers was that Jesus is the visible representation of God to man. That is why Jesus could say, "he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9; also 12:45).

The author of Hebrews said that Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person" (1:3). The English phrase translated "express image" is from the Greek word charakter. It is this word from which we get our English word "character." This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It means "to impress upon, or stamp." It denotes an engravement from a tool, which impresses an image into that which is being engraved. This impression, then, is a characteristic of the instrument used to do produce it. What is produced corresponds precisely with the instrument.

Jesus' being the image of God is not the same thing as our being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6; I Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10). God's image in us seems to be one of moral, mental, and spiritual capabilities, rather than a representation of His essence. Only Jesus holds that role. Whereas Jesus was God made flesh, we are merely the dust of the earth made flesh (Genesis 2:7). Our very being is different from Jesus' being, and therefore the image of God in which we were made must of necessity be different from the image of God found in Jesus Christ.

In another place, Paul said, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9) The New International Version translates this verse as, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." "Dwelleth" is the translation from the Greek word katoikeo, meaning "to permanently settle down in a dwelling." "Fullness" is from the Greek word pleroma indicating that which "is filled up." It is the fullness of the Godhead that dwells in Jesus, but what is the Godhead? The word is translated from theotes, meaning "divine essence, or the very person of God." Considering the Greek behind this verse, then, Paul said that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Jesus' body.

This verse gives us some very important truths concerning Christ's deity in relation to His humanity. First of all, we know the fullness of deity in Jesus consisted of a completeness of divine attributes and characteristics, lacking nothing. Jesus did not merely possess some divine attributes, but rather He possessed every aspect of deity. This verse also demonstrates the permanence of the incarnation. Lastly, this verse declares that the deity resident in Jesus was resident bodily. This indicates a specific and defined form.....


Well it's a pretty big throne since it mentions 144.000 are present as well.

So i could Jesus in the midst of the throne standing, at the same time God sitting.

Is God a spirit, or does he have a rump to sit upon?

[Angryamerican]

I mean AA. Cherry picking? Not hardly..it's proper exegesis and reading comprehension. I dont care what someone tried to "explain", if they're wrong, they're wrong:)) .

Even the bad angels new who he was.

Mar 1:24 saying, What is to us and to You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know You, who You are, the Holy One of God

Luk 4:34 saying, Let us alone! What is to us and to You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know You, who You are, the Holy One of God

[Fire Watch]

Even the bad angels new who he was.

Mar 1:24 saying, What is to us and to You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know You, who You are, the Holy One of God

Luk 4:34 saying, Let us alone! What is to us and to You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know You, who You are, the Holy One of God
I agree with you here also..

Holy One here is from the Greek hagios, which means:

Most Holy thing, religious awe and reverence, to venerate (see worship), revere. You make my case for me. Thank you.

[Angryamerican]

The Greek word translated "image" in the King James Version is eikon. Its root is eiko, meaning likeness, resemblance, or representation. Eikon denotes both the representation and manifestation of a substance. Notice that Paul contrasted Jesus' image to that of the invisible God. The point Paul was trying to get across to his readers was that Jesus is the visible representation of God to man. That is why Jesus could say, "he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9; also 12:45).

The author of Hebrews said that Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person" (1:3). The English phrase translated "express image" is from the Greek word charakter. It is this word from which we get our English word "character." This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It means "to impress upon, or stamp." It denotes an engravement from a tool, which impresses an image into that which is being engraved. This impression, then, is a characteristic of the instrument used to do produce it. What is produced corresponds precisely with the instrument.

Jesus' being the image of God is not the same thing as our being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6; I Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10). God's image in us seems to be one of moral, mental, and spiritual capabilities, rather than a representation of His essence. Only Jesus holds that role. Whereas Jesus was God made flesh, we are merely the dust of the earth made flesh (Genesis 2:7). Our very being is different from Jesus' being, and therefore the image of God in which we were made must of necessity be different from the image of God found in Jesus Christ.

In another place, Paul said, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9) The New International Version translates this verse as, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." "Dwelleth" is the translation from the Greek word katoikeo, meaning "to permanently settle down in a dwelling." "Fullness" is from the Greek word pleroma indicating that which "is filled up." It is the fullness of the Godhead that dwells in Jesus, but what is the Godhead? The word is translated from theotes, meaning "divine essence, or the very person of God." Considering the Greek behind this verse, then, Paul said that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Jesus' body.

This verse gives us some very important truths concerning Christ's deity in relation to His humanity. First of all, we know the fullness of deity in Jesus consisted of a completeness of divine attributes and characteristics, lacking nothing. Jesus did not merely possess some divine attributes, but rather He possessed every aspect of deity. This verse also demonstrates the permanence of the incarnation. Lastly, this verse declares that the deity resident in Jesus was resident bodily. This indicates a specific and defined form.....




Is God a spirit, or does he have a rump to sit upon?

I would say he is spirit. But he could materialize in bodily form i guess . Since thats what angels did when they bread women of the earth. Or when they appeared to lot.And three days after Jesus was crucified angels appeared as men.

Luk 24:4 And as they were much perplexed about it, it happened that, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
Luk 24:5 And as they were afraid, and bowed their faces down to the earth, they said to them, Why do you seek the living among the dead?
Luk 24:6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee,
Luk 24:7 saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and the third day rise again

[Fire Watch]

I would say he is spirit. But he could materialize in bodily form i guess . Since thats what angels did when they bread women of the earth. Or when they appeared to lot.And three days after Jesus was crucified angels appeared as men.

Luk 24:4 And as they were much perplexed about it, it happened that, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
Luk 24:5 And as they were afraid, and bowed their faces down to the earth, they said to them, Why do you seek the living among the dead?
Luk 24:6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee,
Luk 24:7 saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and the third day rise again
But one of the favored verses by those that believe as you do is John 1:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#18)
No man hath seen God at any time;


So which is it..who did John the Revelator see? How about Stephen? Either God has a body and has been seen by men, or he is a spirit, has no body, and has not been seen.

[Angryamerican]

I agree with you here also..

Holy One here is from the Greek hagios, which means:

Most Holy thing, religious awe and reverence, to venerate (see worship), revere. You make my case for me. Thank you.

KJV dictionary.

Holy one =means saint, morally blameless,sacred.

Of God= a deity,a magistrate,godly or godward.

[Angryamerican]

But one of the favored verses by those that believe as you do is John 1:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#18)
No man hath seen God at any time;


So which is it..who did John the Revelator see? How about Stephen? Either God has a body and has been seen by men, or he is a spirit, has no body, and has not been seen.

I will be on later , Family matters.

[Angryamerican]

But one of the favored verses by those that believe as you do is John 1:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#18)
No man hath seen God at any time;


So which is it..who did John the Revelator see? How about Stephen? Either God has a body and has been seen by men, or he is a spirit, has no body, and has not been seen.

The only way man has seen God is through visions and dreams. Is the book of Revelation a dream or vision?

Which i stated earlier.

[Fire Watch]

KJV dictionary.

Holy one =means saint, morally blameless,sacred.

Of God= a deity,a magistrate,godly or godward.
If the KJV dictionary and the original Greek definitions are different..which one do you think we should go with? Strange though how you left off the very 1st entry in the Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count, which is simply: AV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/av.html) - God (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?show_strongs=yes&word=God*+2316) 1320. I'm sure it was simple oversight.

[Fire Watch]

The only way man has seen God is through visions and dreams. Is the book of Revelation a dream or vision?

Which i stated earlier.

John 1:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#18)
No man hath seen God at any time;

Do we have to break this down also?

[HisServant]

Well God is sitting and Jesus was standing. There is no other way for me to look at that.

But there was no mention of Jesus sitting at all. We finally have them both in the same place doing different things it shows there is two.

First you did not answer my question. I notice when you wish not to agree with something you ignore it.

Second show me where the verse says God is sitting and Jesus is standing. Please be specific and don't make it up. Show me in the verse where it says the Lamb was standing. Thank you.

[HisServant]

But it does say, Jesus when he sits, he sits at the right hand of God.

You just contradicted yourself. Is Jesus standing your first post or is He sitting your answer on this post? This is what happens when we read things into scripture that does not exist. We create Biblical contradictions.

You still did not answer my question. Would it be understandable to say in the midst based on the scenario I posed?

[HisServant]

John 1:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#18)
No man hath seen God at any time;

Do we have to break this down also?

Rick I have been going back and forth for a while with AA and DRS. It is kind of funny watching you have the same argument. A word can have many meanings. So you have to read the text and make sure you use the meaning of a word that goes with the text. This is called keeping things in context. What amazes me is out of every word that has multiple meanings they always use the wrong definition of the word which changes the meaning of the text.

[Fire Watch]

Rick I have been going back and forth for a while with AA and DRS. It is kind of funny watching you have the same argument. A word can have many meanings. So you have to read the text and make sure you use the meaning of a word that goes with the text. This is called keeping things in context. What amazes me is out of every word that has multiple meanings they always use the wrong definition of the word which changes the meaning of the text.
Yea, you and AA are fairly new..this is a dance DRS and I have been having for a couple of years now.

[Angryamerican]

John 1:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#18)
No man hath seen God at any time;

Do we have to break this down also?

Of God means he is God?

You are reaching.