Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[Fire Watch]

You have given an impressive list of actions that are credited to both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I would add to that list the fact that God is called the Creator in the Gen, yet Jesus is shown to be the Creator in John 1 & Col 1.


But how does this prove that they can't be 3 separate persons?

To me, these verses support the doctrine of the Trinity rather than argue against it.

The facts are that "Jesus will send the Holy Spirit" , "God raised Jesus" , "God gave His Son", "Jesus prayed to the Father" etc.

All of these required two persons. A subject and an object. A person acting, and a person being acted on.

Your missing the obvious..where one manifestion identifies themself as another. IE, John 14:16 says the Father would send another Comforter, namely the Holy Ghost, yet in John 14:18 Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." In other words, the other Comforter is Jesus in another form - in the Spirit rather than the flesh. Jesus explained this in verse 17, saying that the Comforter was with the disciples already, but He would soon be in them. In other words, the Holy Ghost was with them in the person of Jesus Christ, but the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, soon would be in them. Jesus further explained this point in John 16:7, saying that He had to go away or else the Comforter wouldnt come. Why? As long as Jesus was present with them in the flesh He wouldnt he present spiritually in their hearts, but after He physically departed He would send back His own Spirit to he with them.
ect..

These arent separate personages, but seperate manifestations of the One God of the Old Testament, YHWH. A Unipersonal being, the God of the strict Monotheist.

We should note that these three titles arent the only ones God has. Many other titles or names for God are very significant and appear frequently in the Bible, including terms such as LORD (Jehovah), Lord, Word, God Almighty, and Holy One of Israel. The oneness view does not deny Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, but it does refute the view that these terms designate persons in the Godhead. God has many titles, but He is one being. He is indivisible as to His existence, but His revelation of Himself to mankind has been expressed through many channels, including His revelation as the Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Ghost.


We cant confine God to three or any other number of specific roles and titles. Neither can we sharply divide Him because He is one. Even His titles and roles overlap. He may manifest Himself in many ways, but He is one and only one being.
How then can we address God in a way that describes everything He is? What name includes the many roles and attributes of God? Of course, we could simply use the term God or the Old Testament name Jehovah. However, we have a new name revealed to us - the name of Jesus. When we use the name of Jesus, we encompass everything that God is. Jesus is Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus summarizes all the compound names of Jehovah. Jesus is everything that God is. Whatever roles or manifestations God has, they are all in Jesus (Colossians 2:9). We can use the name Jesus for God Himself, for it denotes the totality of God's character, attributes, and self-revelation.

[Fire Watch]

To me, trying to define the Holy Ghost as a separate personage raises some rather obvious questions and contradictions.

1.) Jesus said that ONLY His Father knew the day of the second coming, not the Son (Mark 13:32). What about the Spirit? Apparently he doesnt know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the Father knows that the Spirit doesnt? If so, in what sense can the persons of the Trinity be co-equal, and of the same essence?

2.) If the Son and Spirit are coequal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit (Luke 12:10)?

3.) Why, if Jesus was conceived by the person of the Holy Spirit is God the Father considered His father instead of the Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35)? Isnt the one who conceived you your father? If the Spirit accomplished the conception, then He alone should be the Father. If its argued that the Father and Spirit conceived, then why does the Scripture not say that? It only says the Spirit conceived, and it only says that God the Father is Jesus' father. If it was the Spirit that overshadowed Mary to conceive in her womb, why wouldn't it be the Holy Spirit who was incarnated?

4.) If Jesus is the second person incarnate (God the Son) as Trinitarians claim, why wasnt it God the Son who conceived in Mary's womb, He Himself becoming incarnate? Isnt the second person the logos who became flesh (John 1:1, 14)? Unless we identify the Spirit who caused the conception with the logos, the incarnation doesnt make sense..but to make such a connection is tantamount to a Oneness conception of God.

5.) How could only the second person of the Trinity become a man, and not the other two persons in light of the Trinitarian doctrine of the perichoresis of persons? How can the Father and Spirit only indwell Jesus (as it is commonly stated), while the eternal Son is actually Jesus' essential deity? How can one separate the persons like that without confessing three gods, only one of which became incarnated, and the other two just tag along?

6.) If it was the eternal Son who became a man, and not the Father or Spirit, then why did Jesus not state this? Paul said Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus said that those who saw Him saw the Father (obviously not the essence of the Father, for no man can see God's essence no matter if He is one or three persons). Never does He state that they were seeing the image of the incarnated eternal Son.. If Jesus is the 'second person' made flesh, then why didnt He ever say "he who has seen me has seen the Son"? Why not "he who has seen me has seen the Holy Spirit"? Why is it only the Father? If Jesus' deity is the eternal Son, in contradistinction to the Father and Spirit, why would Jesus say that they have seen the Father by seeing Him, rather than seeing the Son? Jesus indicated that to see Him was to see the person who sent Him..the Father (John 12:45).

7.) The Spirit is mentioned 240 times in the OT, and never once was it understood to refer to a distinct person from God, but rather to refer to a distinct aspect of God's person, or the nature of God Himself. "Spirit of the LORD" appears twenty-six times and never once indicates a distinct person from the LORD. Why is this if the Spirit is indeed a distinct person from YHWH?

8.) If God is an eternal triunity of persons, each person being distinct from the others, and each capable of giving and receiving love one to another, then why, if man is made in God's image, dont we mirror our Maker? We may have distinct aspects to our person (body, soul, spirit), but these aspects arent distinct persons, each capable of thought and interaction with one another. There is no love between my spirit and soul, or body and spirit. We are a unified monad, and so is God. As our love must be directed outward, so does His love.

[DRS]

God is a person. That does not mean He is human.

God has a name

God has a personality

No one controls God

God does not serve anyone

The holy spirit is given and taken away is seen throughout the bible

it is funny and disturbing how people think God and the tools used changed, spiritual armour is even present in books like Isaiah

[ralittlefield]

FireWatch gave an excellent answer. I would only like to try to simplify a little more.
In the Hebrew and Greek texts usually there is one of a miriad of names used for God, but usually translated in English as simply LORD or God, but each Hebrew or Greek word has a specific reason for being used.
Examples are EL, Shaddai, Adonai, YHVH...etc..

So when you read those passages, don't just glance at them:

"Jesus will send the Holy Spirit" = God as the Saviour will send the Holy Spirit to comfort us when He ascends and is no longer with us in the flesh.

"God raised Jesus" = God the Father in Spirit defeated death by resurrecting His flesh body that was killed. When Jesus was killed He returned to the Spirit, just as we do. But, God transfigured that flesh body and he arose and ascended.

"God gave His Son"= God as the Father, in Spirit, sent "Himself" to be born into flesh just like we are. Begotten means He was born of woman, He came through the womb.
No scripture is better at telling us this than this:
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;


"Jesus prayed to the Father"- God in the flesh talked to God as the Father in the Spirit.

I will say it again, there is a dimensional element to all this.

If I can give a corny old analogy;
Think of a glass of Water.

The Holy Spirit Being the water, kind of "invisible" no shape or form on its own.

Now, think of that water becoming an ice cube. It is the same water, but has taken on a specific form. Think of that ice cube floating in that glass of water. If it wanted to "dwell" with other ice cubes, the Water could form other ice cubes in the same image.

Now, think of dimensions. Think of the glass itself as being the "veil" or a dimensional barrier.
Think of condensation and the water now forming on the outside of that glass, or if you will, the other side of the veil.

In my analogy, Heaven is the inside of the glass where the Water and ice are (Holy Spirit and Father) and outside the glass is the Earth where the Spirit took form as condensation (flesh)

Maybe I went too far with that, I don't know.

Somehow both you and FireWatch see only one person in all those examples.

I see more than one person.

I don't send myself. I go. Why did The Father, in Spirit send Himself? Why didn't He just go?

What was the purpose for Jesus praying to the Father? Was he just sending himself a memo?

I am not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't see it the way you do.

[Reeder]

somehow both you and firewatch see only one person in all those examples.

I see more than one person.


+1

[ralittlefield]

God has a name

God has a personality

No one controls God

God does not serve anyone

The holy spirit is given and taken away is seen throughout the bible

it is funny and disturbing how people think God and the tools used changed, spiritual armour is even present in books like Isaiah

I guess that your point is that it would be demeaning for God to cooperate with anyone.

My wife and I are equals, but we frequently do the bidding of one another.

I see no reason it would be different within the Trinity.

[DRS]

I guess that your point is that it would be demeaning for God to cooperate with anyone.

My wife and I are equals, but we frequently do the bidding of one another.

I see no reason it would be different within the Trinity.

God does nobodies bidding that is why He is the Almighty, Jesus does as instructed and the Holy Spirit being a thing and not a person does what it should as tool

Did you create the person you are married to?

The bible says Jehovah alone is Most High Jesus is called son of the Most High, I guess you are not the head of your house

[ralittlefield]

God does nobodies bidding that is why He is the Almighty, Jesus does as instructed and the Holy Spirit being a thing and not a person does what it should as tool

Did you create the person you are married to?

The bible says Jehovah alone is Most High Jesus is called son of the Most High, I guess you are not the head of your house


I am not sure you understand what it means to be the head of a home.

3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

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.

[Reeder]

God does nobodies bidding that is why He is the Almighty, Jesus does as instructed and the Holy Spirit being a thing and not a person does what it should as tool

Did you create the person you are married to?

The bible says Jehovah alone is Most High Jesus is called son of the Most High, I guess you are not the head of your house

:confused:

Too.........many.........disagreements!..........

[ralittlefield]

:confused:

Too.........many.........disagreements!..........


+1

[ralittlefield]

Do you understand that God's purpose for being born in the flesh as Jesus the Saviour was so that He could be killed and thereby rise again and defeat Death. THat was His mission.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The Father is in the Spirit Body. A spirit body cannot be killed.
He had to take on flesh in order to die. The Spirit lives forever unless God snuffs it out.

Why did Jesus pray to the Father? As I said before, the Spirit is on the other side of the veil. Just like yours is. You can't see your own spirit, yet it is there on the other side of the veil. You know, Satan isn't here dejeur anymore, but his evil spirit is allowed to influence people. He does that where? You guessed it, on the other side of the veil he appeals to your spirit.
Same thing with the Comforter.

Okay.

The veil has two sides. Jesus is on one side of the veil. The Father is on the other side. There is someone on each side. How many people would that require? You say one?

But I think that you missed my point. Does my spirit need me to tell it my thoughts? No. I do not talk to my spirit. That is what I was getting at when I asked why Jesus prayed to the Father.

Jesus prayed to the Father as a form of fellowship/communication.

Think about this. 1 John 4 that tells us that God is love. God does not change, so God has always been love.

Who did God love before the Creation?

[Fire Watch]

Somehow both you and FireWatch see only one person in all those examples.

Because the Bible does not teach a trinity of persons.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I (not we) have chosen: that ye may know and believe me (not us), and understand that I (not us) am he (not them): before me (not us) there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me (not us).

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (not "we" are)

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself (not themselves) that formed the earth and made it; he (not they) hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I (not we are) am the LORD; and there is none else.

ect
ect
ect..

I see more than one person.
Because that's what you've been taught to look for.

Strange isnt it...throughout the entire OT, God absolutely declares himself to be an absolute monad...but then decides that he was just kidding in the NT? I just dont think so.

I don't send myself. I go. Why did The Father, in Spirit send Himself? Why didn't He just go?

He DID go. That's the point exactly. He came. When Jesus was manifested in the flesh, it wasnt a second person of the Godhead come down to earth. God didnt so love the world that he said, "Come Son, I love them down there so much, you go down and die for them!" God did not give the blood of his son, but rather he gave his own blood exactly as Paul wrote in Acts 20:28 "...GOD, WHICH HE HATH PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD"

If God, sent a son, the second person in the godhead, to die on the cross, then He instituted CHILD SACRIFICE. This is in total disharmony with anything Biblical concerning the nature of God. God didnt send his son, a second person in the godhead to die for mankind, He came Himself in the body of Jesus Christ. The body of Jesus Christ is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see... because God is a Spirit. The incarnation provided a 'body' for that Spirit to visibly dwell in - ie., Emmanuel, God with us in the Flesh... Colossians 2:9 states it so PERFECTLY: "For in Him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

John 14:9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

What was the purpose for Jesus praying to the Father? Was he just sending himself a memo?

Such an understanding is no different in principle than the Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation wherein God the Son comes to exist as man, and yet continues to exist as God the Son beyond the incarnation, all the while without becoming two persons. Where Oneness and Trinitarian theologies differ isnt in our confession of a dual existence for one personal divine Being, but on the identity of that one Being. Trinitarian theology maintains that Being to be the second person of a tri-personal God, whereas Oneness theology maintains that Being to be the one uni-personal God, YHWH.


Jesus' existence is distinct from the Father's, not in the identity of His deity, but in the personal union of His deity and humanity in one new existence--an existence which is distinct from God's manner of existence beyond the incarnation. Because the distinction is bound up in the incarnation it is not eternal, and neither is it rooted in God's essential deity as in Trinitarian theology. The deity of the Son and the deity of the Father are not two distinct divine persons in the Godhead, but the same person in two distinct modes of existence. There is a distinction, then, between God as He exists in Himself, and God as He has come to exist as man. The distinction is not between God and God (Trinitarianism), or God and an individual man (Nestorianism, Adoptionism), or a divine nature and a human nature (Nestorianism), but between God's two modes of existence (Oneness).

The incarnation is God's one person coming to exist in a new way. God didnt change, but His manner of existence did. When God became a man in the incarnation He began to exist as man in addition to His existence as exclusive Spirit. God didnt come to exist as another "he," however. There was no creation of another person. Rather YHWH, the only divine "he," came to exist in another manner than He had existed for all eternity. Because God is the only personal subject in Christ, the "he" in Christ is the same "he" as the "he" of the Father, but existing in a new manner. The Father and Son, then, is the same "he," but "he" is existing in two distinct ways. As Father "he" exists as God, while as Son the same "he" has come to exist as man.

The reason for Jesus' prayers becomes clear when we understand that the incarnation isnt a mere indwelling of God in a human shell, but God coming to be a genuine man. God didnt pretend to be man, but came to be man. God now exists as a man in addition to His continued existence as God because He incorporated human nature into His one divine person, utilizing the human nature to personally exist as man. As God came to exist as a genuine man, complete with a genuine human consciousness/mind, Jesus had the capacity for, and the need for relationships. Because of the reality and genuineness of His humanity Jesus even had need of a relationship with God. As man Jesus experienced the same limitations all humans experience, occasioning His dependence on God as all men have need of such. Surely Jesus did not pray because He was God, but because He was man. Only humans have need of prayer. If it wasnt for Christ's genuine human existence He would have had no reason to pray.

Trinitarians and Oneness believers are in agreement that Jesus' prayers are due to the incarnation. Trinitarians confess that God the Son didnt pray to God the Father prior to, or apart from His incarnate existence. Its understood that Jesus' prayers are rooted in His human existence, not His divine existence.

To conceive of Christ's prayers as God the Son (as God) praying to the Father is to say God is praying. Only an inferior person would have need of prayer, however. To say God the Son as God prayed is to admit that God the Son is inferior to God the Father. Trinitarians, however, claim God the Son is coequal to God the Father. The Trinity crumbles if the second person of the Trinity prays to the first person from a divine consciousness. Jesus is reduced to the Christ of Arianism, for it was the ancient Arian heresy that asserted Jesus' deity to be inferior to the Father's deity, occasioning His need of prayer. If we understand Christ's prayers as rooted in the incarnation, and hence in God's human existence/consciousness, we eliminate such pitfalls and no longer need to posit multiple persons in the Godhead to explain Christ's prayers.

[Fire Watch]

Think about this. 1 John 4 that tells us that God is love. God does not change, so God has always been love.

Who did God love before the Creation?

When did God begin to be bound by time? Since when has the creator been bound by the creation?

"Time" began at creation. God does not change, because he exists outside of "now", "then", and "will be". The atemporal isnt bound by the temporal. "Prior" to the creation of the material universe ex nihilo there was no space or time. Because there was no time we conclude that God exists atemporally (timelessly).

[Meriweather]

Do you understand that God's purpose for being born in the flesh as Jesus the Saviour was so that He could be killed and thereby rise again and defeat Death. THat was His mission.

I don't understand this to be the case at all. In fact, I'm almost certain I vehemently disagree.

I do believe that God's purpose for being born in the flesh was to redeem mankind. If that's what you mean by "defeat Death," then we may not be as far apart as I originally thought.

I'm not sure Jesus had to be killed; only that he was.

[ralittlefield]

Because the Bible does not teach a trinity of persons.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I (not we) have chosen: that ye may know and believe me (not us), and understand that I (not us) am he (not them): before me (not us) there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me (not us).

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (not "we" are)

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself (not themselves) that formed the earth and made it; he (not they) hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I (not we are) am the LORD; and there is none else.

ect
ect
ect..


Because that's what you've been taught to look for.

Strange isnt it...throughout the entire OT, God absolutely declares himself to be an absolute monad...but then decides that he was just kidding in the NT? I just dont think so.

I don't think so either. One God. I agree.



He DID go. That's the point exactly. He came. When Jesus was manifested in the flesh, it wasnt a second person of the Godhead come down to earth. God didnt so love the world that he said, "Come Son, I love them down there so much, you go down and die for them!" God did not give the blood of his son, but rather he gave his own blood exactly as Paul wrote in Acts 20:28 "...GOD, WHICH HE HATH PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD"

That is an interesting verse. There has been much discussion on that verse as to how it should be translated/understood.

His own blood vs blood of His own.

But I am not qualified to discuss the translation of the Greek language.

I will, however, say this. According to John 3:16 God did indeed give His son.



If God, sent a son, the second person in the godhead, to die on the cross, then He instituted CHILD SACRIFICE. This is in total disharmony with anything Biblical concerning the nature of God. God didnt send his son, a second person in the godhead to die for mankind, He came Himself in the body of Jesus Christ. The body of Jesus Christ is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see... because God is a Spirit. The incarnation provided a 'body' for that Spirit to visibly dwell in - ie., Emmanuel, God with us in the Flesh... Colossians 2:9 states it so PERFECTLY: "For in Him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Again, John 3:16......




John 14:9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?


Was the Father speaking? No. Jesus was speaking. He could say "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" because of the unity of the Trinity.



Such an understanding is no different in principle than the Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation wherein God the Son comes to exist as man, and yet continues to exist as God the Son beyond the incarnation, all the while without becoming two persons. Where Oneness and Trinitarian theologies differ isnt in our confession of a dual existence for one personal divine Being, but on the identity of that one Being. Trinitarian theology maintains that Being to be the second person of a tri-personal God, whereas Oneness theology maintains that Being to be the one uni-personal God, YHWH.

I think that we are in agreement here. Sort of.

I don't believe that with the incarnation God became two persons. I believe Jesus existed as a separate person before the incarnation (see John 1:1).



Its both possible and necessary to maintain the uni-personal nature of God's eternal essence (rather than tri-personal as in Trinitarian dogma) and a genuine distinction between Father and Son if we wish to adequately explain Scripture. The proper place for these distinctions isnt in an eternal distinction of three persons within one essence (Trinitarianism), or an internal distinction between Jesus' divine and human natures (Nestorianism), but an existential distinction arising in the incarnation due to God's newly acquired human existence.

Newly acuired separate existance?

The human form was new. His existance was not new.


While there is only one person in the Godhead, YHWH, this uni-personal God has come to exist in two ways: in the incarnation as man, and in His continued existence as exclusive deity beyond the incarnation. It is the same personal God, but existing in a new way (as man). The distinction between Father and Son, then, is a distinction between God's dual manner of existence. Jesus' deity is the deity of the Father (the same "he"), but in a human mode of existence. In God's human mode of existence He has made Himself known to us as the Son; in God's continued mode of existence beyond the incarnation He has made Himself known as the Father.

He exists in two ways yet is one God. (Or three ways) How is that different than exists as three persons as one God?

Do we agree here also?



Jesus' existence is distinct from the Father's, not in the identity of His deity, but in the personal union of His deity and humanity in one new existence--an existence which is distinct from God's manner of existence beyond the incarnation. Because the distinction is bound up in the incarnation it is not eternal, and neither is it rooted in God's essential deity as in Trinitarian theology. The deity of the Son and the deity of the Father are not two distinct divine persons in the Godhead, but the same person in two distinct modes of existence. There is a distinction, then, between God as He exists in Himself, and God as He has come to exist as man. The distinction is not between God and God (Trinitarianism), or God and an individual man (Nestorianism, Adoptionism), or a divine nature and a human nature (Nestorianism), but between God's two modes of existence (Oneness).

Actually, I believe that the incarnation is eternal. Jesus is still a man.


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



The incarnation is God's one person coming to exist in a new way. God did not change, but His manner of existence did. When God became a man in the incarnation He began to exist as man in addition to His existence as exclusive Spirit. God did not come to exist as another "he," however. There was no creation of another person. Rather YHWH, the only divine "he," came to exist in another manner than He had existed for all eternity. Because God is the only personal subject in Christ, the "he" in Christ is the same "he" as the "he" of the Father, but existing in a new manner. The Father and Son, then, is the same "he," but "he" is existing in two distinct ways. As Father "he" exists as God, while as Son the same "he" has come to exist as man.

You say "He began to exist as man in addition to His existence as exclusive Spirit."

"In addition to" . Yet you only see one. Seems odd to me.



The reason for Jesus' prayers becomes clear when we understand that the incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a human shell, but God coming to be a genuine man. God didnt pretend to be man, but came to be man. God now exists as a man in addition to His continued existence as God because He incorporated human nature into His one divine person, utilizing the human nature to personally exist as man. As God came to exist as a genuine man, complete with a genuine human consciousness/mind, Jesus had the capacity for, and the need for relationships. Because of the reality and genuineness of His humanity Jesus even had need of a relationship with God. As man Jesus experienced the same limitations all humans experience, occasioning His dependence on God as all men have need of such. Surely Jesus did not pray because He was God, but because He was man. Only humans have need of prayer. If it wasnt for Christ's genuine human existence He would have had no reason to pray.

Trinitarians and Oneness believers are in agreement that Jesus' prayers are due to the incarnation. Trinitarians confess that God the Son didnt pray to God the Father prior to, or apart from His incarnate existence. Its understood that Jesus' prayers are rooted in His human existence, not His divine existence.

To conceive of Christ's prayers as God the Son (as God) praying to the Father is to say God is praying. Only an inferior person would have need of prayer, however. To say God the Son as God prayed is to admit that God the Son is inferior to God the Father. Trinitarians, however, claim God the Son is coequal to God the Father. The Trinity crumbles if the second person of the Trinity prays to the first person from a divine consciousness. Jesus is reduced to the Christ of Arianism, for it was the ancient Arian heresy that asserted Jesus' deity to be inferior to the Father's deity, occasioning His need of prayer. If we understand Christ's prayers as rooted in the incarnation, and hence in God's human existence/consciousness, we eliminate such pitfalls and no longer need to posit multiple persons in the Godhead to explain Christ's prayers.

Again your language puzzles me. You say " God now exists as a man in addition to His continued existence as God"

There is that phrase again, "in addition to". Does that not require more than one?

[ralittlefield]

Can you not grasp that the flesh body is seperate from and has no part of Heaven? It is a different substance. Flesh and Blood cannot enter into Heaven neither can it inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
It is a seperator, a "blinder" if you will, otherwise we would be in the spirits bodies and we would see God face to face.

Jesus in the flesh was constrained by the flesh just as we are. He did have the ability to read minds, but he wasn't able to go back and forth between Earth and Heaven until He died in the flesh.

1John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

Yes, God is Love and He loves ALL His children more than you can imagine. But sin seperates us from Him. We were all worthy of death, but it is not His will that any of us would perish. He is patient and intends for everyone to make amends and get right with Him again. But we have to reach out to Him.
We couldn't live under the Law because we all sin. So He sent an intercessor. He was born into the flesh Himself because quite frankly, He won't ask us to do anything He won't do. He lived and died in the flesh just like we all do.

You may ask yourself who did God Love before the creation. I can only speculate that He created us because He was lonely. He could have created us all and just "made us" perfect to where we automatically loved Him...BUT that is not real love. Real love has to come from within each individual or it isn't real.

That is why we have free-will. He hoped that we all turn to Him and love Him, but all won't.


Consider this statement by Jesus after his ressurection:

39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

That "man is spoken of in this verse:

1 Tim
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,


How can you be sure that "flesh body is seperate from and has no part of Heaven"?

[ralittlefield]

Simple...Jesus was transfigured just like on the Mount of Transfiguration.

I agree. But even if His body was different, it still seems to be a body of flesh and bones.

I was addressing your statement that a flesh body has no part of heaven.

[Meriweather]

This was written at least a thousand years before Jesus was born...you tell me whether or not Jesus had to die. It was God's Plan all along:

Isaaiah 53:1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
53:7 ¶ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

JesusHimself said as much:


Mark 8:31 ¶ And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.


Jesus took the place of the sacrificial offerings. He, Himself became the Passover Lamb.

THe only way it would have ever been different is if ALL mankind had accepted Him when he came as Messiah...but they didn't.

In fact, this is first foretold in Genesis 3:15, and it came to pass as that "generation of vipers" nailed His heels to the cross...bruised for our iniquity:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Then you, too, see the possibility of it being different if all mankind had accepted Him when he came as man.

I try to step away from pre-destination--the belief that every step taken is pre-destined from the beginning. I see it more as God having a plan to redeem mankind--not as God having a plan to have Jesus killed.

Because of freedom of will on both God and man's sides, events unfolded as they did. God's will was redemption, and not even death could stand in the way of what God willed. I see this as different from God willing Jesus' death.

If we believe God can see outside of time, this may be how God was able to reveal to Isaiah the way things would come to pass.

[Fire Watch]

Actually, I believe that the incarnation is eternal. Jesus is still a man. As do I.


Again your language puzzles me. You say " God now exists as a man in addition to His continued existence as God"

There is that phrase again, "in addition to". Does that not require more than one?

Do you think God was "faking" being human?

Jesus, is a man. He is also God. God is however still a singular being. One individual, one being.

If God's eternal Fatherhood is derived from His relationship to an eternally divine person known as "Son," why is it that we never read of the Son in the OT that the Father is in eternal relationship with? We would expect for the Son that God is Father to, to be spoken of prior to the incarnation (in the OT). Mysteriously we dont find any mention of the Son until after the incarnation when God fathered a human son (in the NT).

The appellations "Father" and "Son" are relational terms with relational significance....such appellations describe a specific kind of relationship: a filial relationship (parent/child). In the incarnation God became "Father" in a new way unseen in the OT... i.e. in a paternal sense. It begins being used so predominantly in the NT because God actually fathered a human child, and had a relationship with that genuine human being (Son). This isnt to say that its a relationship between Jesus' two natures (Nestorianism), or that its a relationship between two divine persons (Trinitarianism), but its to say as a genuine human being with a genuine human consciousness, Jesus, the God-man, had need of communication with God.

God became the Son by a metaphysical uniting of human nature to His one person through the miraculous virgin conception. God became something in time that He wasnt previously in eternity. There was no change in God's essential being (for He remained the same), but there was a change in God's manner of existence. As the church fathers taught, "He became what He was not while remaining what He was." Such a teaching stresses God's immutability, and yet acknowledges God's new manner of existence as a genuine human being (in addition to His continued existence beyond the incarnation).

God became the Father, however, only by relationship to the man that He truly became. For God to become "Father" didnt require any metaphysical change. "Father" simply refers to YHWH's continued manner of existence apart from the incarnation as He has always existed. YHWH comes to be known as "Father" only after the incarnation, not because of a metaphysical change in His being, but because of His paternal relationship to Jesus Christ.

There is no doubt that we find distinctions in reference to Father, Son, and Spirit in the Scripture, but the simple existence of distinctions doesnt warrant a Trinitarian concept of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is a mere a model formulated by the church fathers through which the oneness passages could be reconciled with the distinction passages. I dont believe that such a conclusion is the best conclusion to make of the data, because the Trinitarian conclusion isnt based on all the data.

We must consider the following data when developing our theology of God:

1. While we do find distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit, these distinctions dont appear until the NT.

2. The vast majority of distinctions in the NT are between the Father and Son, not the Father, Son, and Spirit.

3. The appellations "Father" and "Son" dont appear in the OT as designations for God. God is only called "Father" or likened to a "Father" about a dozen times, and in each case it describes God's relationship to His creation (as creator, or covenant-maker), not His relationship to another divine person (Son). Rather than being referred to as "Father" in the OT, God is referred to as "YHWH."

4. While the OT speaks of the Spirit, there is never any indication that the Spirit is a distinct person within God's essence. The Spirit is most often said to belong to YHWH, not to be a distinct person from Him.

5. Not only do we find Jesus being distinguished from the Father, but we also find Him being distinguished from God altogether.

What are the implications of this data? What is the best model of God that we can formulate to adequately account for all of the Biblical data? Is it the Trinitarian or Oneness model?

Is the distinction between the Father and Son due to the existence of three eternal persons in one God, or is it due to the addition of humanity to God's one eternal person? Is the distinction between eternal persons...or is the distinction between the one uni-personal God's incarnate existence as a man, and the same uni-personal God's existence continued existence beyond the incarnation as the unlimited Spirit?

If the distinction is between eternal persons in the Godhead, why dony we read of the second person until the incarnation? Why would God fail to reveal Himself as eternal Son until the NT, if the Son is an eternally divine person in YHWH's eternal and essential being?

Also, why, if God is eternally Father, is He never called "God the Father" until the NT? While God was called "Father" occasionally before the incarnation ( I.E. Malachi 3:10), "Father" begins to be used for God in an unparalleled way after the incarnation. In the OT "Father" was employed to describe the relationship between God and His creation, not between God and God (as in Trinitarian thought). God's fatherhood to Jesus Christ, however, was of a different nature than God's fatherhood spoken of in the OT. God was Jesus' Father because it was God who fathered Jesus' human existence. This might explain why it is that God becomes known as "Father" in the NT, rather than "YHWH" as He was known in the OT.

Why dont we find this triunity of God until the NT. We have to wonder why we never read about the second person in the OT. Why was the existence of a second person not revealed until the incarnation? Why is it that God has only spoken through the Son in these last days (Hebrews 1:1-3) if the Son has eternally existed alongside the Father? Does it make more sense to conclude that the Son is an eternally distinct person in the Godhead that God failed to mention until the NT, or is it more reasonable to conclude that "Son" has to do with the one uni-personal God's existence as a man, which existence didnt come to be until the incarnation?

If there was no distinct person from the Father in the OT, what would we expect to find in the OT concerning the Son? Nothing. What do we find? Nothing. So why conclude that the Son of God is an eternal person in the Godhead, and reject the idea that "Son" pertains to God's incarnate existence, if we read nothing about the Son until the incarnation? Frankly, theres no good reason to do so. Trinitarians must account for the lack of evidence upon which they have concluded that the Son is eternal. They must account for the fact that God never disclosed His threeness until the NT, offer a viable explanation for such disclosure and offer compelling evidence that would substantiate the belief that there ever was an eternal Son to be disclosed in the first place.

As I've said several times before..while both Trinitarian and Oneness theologies must account for the new revelation of God in the incarnation, theres a difference between saying that the same person who revealed Himself to Moses in the OT became a man in the NT (Oneness theology), and saying that a second person in the Godhead no one knew existed became a man in the NT (Trinitarian theology). While Oneness believers may be shocked to see that God would become a man, Trinitarians would be shocked to see who showed up! In Oneness theology the person who shows up is the same person we have been reading about in the OT, not a different person in the Godhead we never read about before. Trinitarian theology has to admit that a whole other person in the Godhead showed up on the scene in flesh, who's personally distinct from the personal God revealed in the OT. In Oneness theology we dont find a part of God that we have never known before...we find the same familiar God, but manifest in flesh.

IMO Oneness theology best explains the Godhead, insisting that God is an absolute monad, the Spirit being His very nature and an aspect of His one person, and the Son being none other than His one person incarnated as a man, but distinguished from His continued existence beyond the incarnation due to the hypostatic union of His deity and humanity into one unified theandric existence. Oneness theology best accounts for the rise of distinction-terminology in the NT, and the emergence of the appellations "Father-Son," because it wasnt until the NT that God fathered a son, and it wasnt until the hypostatic union when God incorporated a human identity into His person that there arose such a need to make any distinctions in reference to God. The distinction, however, is never said to be between eternal persons in the Godhead. Such distinctions are only necessary in light of the incarnation and God's acquisition of a genuine human consciousness when He assumed a genuine human existence.

[DRS]

I am not sure you understand what it means to be the head of a home.

3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

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.

Okay the Greek word is not nature but is form

the Greek again is of human not servent

And finally the greek for grasped here is a word meaning to take something not belonging to you

Now if you are really honest about your believe in the bible why not get an interllinear and examine everything I have just said, scripturesforall.org has one


God is a spirit, as the bible says Jesus in heaven existed as a spirit also

[DRS]

Another interesting Scripture I don't think anyone has mentioned.

These speak of the eternity after the Millennium and after the Judgment has passed and all evil has been thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Rev 21:22 ¶ And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.

I believe it to be that it will return to the way it was in the beginning, before the Earth was ever created...the Holy Spirit manifested in a bodily shape that dwells with us. We are told it is the Lamb, that is Jesus Christ.
The Glory of God lights it, and the Lamb is the Light.

Kind of sounds like John 1:1 doesn't it.


John 1:1 where the word was with the God like it says in the Greek?

[drmilo]

John 1:1 where the word was with the God like it says in the Greek?

And if we go by that literal a word for word translation, then we would be stuck with translations like "John was with the Mike."

[DRS]

And if we go by that literal a word for word translation, then we would be stuck with translations like "John was with the Mike."

So John was not the Mike, and God is not a name it is a title so that is why you have that difference and I am sure you cared enough to look at that too

[ralittlefield]

As do I.




Do you think God was "faking" being human?

Jesus, is a man. He is also God. God is however still a singular being. One individual, one being.

If God's eternal Fatherhood is derived from His relationship to an eternally divine person known as "Son," why is it that we never read of the Son in the OT that the Father is in eternal relationship with? We would expect for the Son that God is Father to, to be spoken of prior to the incarnation (in the OT). Mysteriously we dont find any mention of the Son until after the incarnation when God fathered a human son (in the NT).

The appellations "Father" and "Son" are relational terms with relational significance....such appellations describe a specific kind of relationship: a filial relationship (parent/child). In the incarnation God became "Father" in a new way unseen in the OT... i.e. in a paternal sense. It begins being used so predominantly in the NT because God actually fathered a human child, and had a relationship with that genuine human being (Son). This isnt to say that its a relationship between Jesus' two natures (Nestorianism), or that its a relationship between two divine persons (Trinitarianism), but its to say as a genuine human being with a genuine human consciousness, Jesus, the God-man, had need of communication with God.

God became the Son by a metaphysical uniting of human nature to His one person through the miraculous virgin conception. God became something in time that He wasnt previously in eternity. There was no change in God's essential being (for He remained the same), but there was a change in God's manner of existence. As the church fathers taught, "He became what He was not while remaining what He was." Such a teaching stresses God's immutability, and yet acknowledges God's new manner of existence as a genuine human being (in addition to His continued existence beyond the incarnation).

God became the Father, however, only by relationship to the man that He truly became. For God to become "Father" didnt require any metaphysical change. "Father" simply refers to YHWH's continued manner of existence apart from the incarnation as He has always existed. YHWH comes to be known as "Father" only after the incarnation, not because of a metaphysical change in His being, but because of His paternal relationship to Jesus Christ.

There is no doubt that we find distinctions in reference to Father, Son, and Spirit in the Scripture, but the simple existence of distinctions doesnt warrant a Trinitarian concept of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is a mere a model formulated by the church fathers through which the oneness passages could be reconciled with the distinction passages. I dont believe that such a conclusion is the best conclusion to make of the data, because the Trinitarian conclusion isnt based on all the data.

We must consider the following data when developing our theology of God:

1. While we do find distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit, these distinctions dont appear until the NT.

2. The vast majority of distinctions in the NT are between the Father and Son, not the Father, Son, and Spirit.

3. The appellations "Father" and "Son" dont appear in the OT as designations for God. God is only called "Father" or likened to a "Father" about a dozen times, and in each case it describes God's relationship to His creation (as creator, or covenant-maker), not His relationship to another divine person (Son). Rather than being referred to as "Father" in the OT, God is referred to as "YHWH."

4. While the OT speaks of the Spirit, there is never any indication that the Spirit is a distinct person within God's essence. The Spirit is most often said to belong to YHWH, not to be a distinct person from Him.

5. Not only do we find Jesus being distinguished from the Father, but we also find Him being distinguished from God altogether.

What are the implications of this data? What is the best model of God that we can formulate to adequately account for all of the Biblical data? Is it the Trinitarian or Oneness model?

Is the distinction between the Father and Son due to the existence of three eternal persons in one God, or is it due to the addition of humanity to God's one eternal person? Is the distinction between eternal persons...or is the distinction between the one uni-personal God's incarnate existence as a man, and the same uni-personal God's existence continued existence beyond the incarnation as the unlimited Spirit?

If the distinction is between eternal persons in the Godhead, why dony we read of the second person until the incarnation? Why would God fail to reveal Himself as eternal Son until the NT, if the Son is an eternally divine person in YHWH's eternal and essential being?

Also, why, if God is eternally Father, is He never called "God the Father" until the NT? While God was called "Father" occasionally before the incarnation ( I.E. Malachi 3:10), "Father" begins to be used for God in an unparalleled way after the incarnation. In the OT "Father" was employed to describe the relationship between God and His creation, not between God and God (as in Trinitarian thought). God's fatherhood to Jesus Christ, however, was of a different nature than God's fatherhood spoken of in the OT. God was Jesus' Father because it was God who fathered Jesus' human existence. This might explain why it is that God becomes known as "Father" in the NT, rather than "YHWH" as He was known in the OT.

Why dont we find this triunity of God until the NT. We have to wonder why we never read about the second person in the OT. Why was the existence of a second person not revealed until the incarnation? Why is it that God has only spoken through the Son in these last days (Hebrews 1:1-3) if the Son has eternally existed alongside the Father? Does it make more sense to conclude that the Son is an eternally distinct person in the Godhead that God failed to mention until the NT, or is it more reasonable to conclude that "Son" has to do with the one uni-personal God's existence as a man, which existence didnt come to be until the incarnation?

If there was no distinct person from the Father in the OT, what would we expect to find in the OT concerning the Son? Nothing. What do we find? Nothing. So why conclude that the Son of God is an eternal person in the Godhead, and reject the idea that "Son" pertains to God's incarnate existence, if we read nothing about the Son until the incarnation? Frankly, theres no good reason to do so. Trinitarians must account for the lack of evidence upon which they have concluded that the Son is eternal. They must account for the fact that God never disclosed His threeness until the NT, offer a viable explanation for such disclosure and offer compelling evidence that would substantiate the belief that there ever was an eternal Son to be disclosed in the first place.

As I've said several times before..while both Trinitarian and Oneness theologies must account for the new revelation of God in the incarnation, theres a difference between saying that the same person who revealed Himself to Moses in the OT became a man in the NT (Oneness theology), and saying that a second person in the Godhead no one knew existed became a man in the NT (Trinitarian theology). While Oneness believers may be shocked to see that God would become a man, Trinitarians would be shocked to see who showed up! In Oneness theology the person who shows up is the same person we have been reading about in the OT, not a different person in the Godhead we never read about before. Trinitarian theology has to admit that a whole other person in the Godhead showed up on the scene in flesh, who's personally distinct from the personal God revealed in the OT. In Oneness theology we dont find a part of God that we have never known before...we find the same familiar God, but manifest in flesh.

IMO Oneness theology best explains the Godhead, insisting that God is an absolute monad, the Spirit being His very nature and an aspect of His one person, and the Son being none other than His one person incarnated as a man, but distinguished from His continued existence beyond the incarnation due to the hypostatic union of His deity and humanity into one unified theandric existence. Oneness theology best accounts for the rise of distinction-terminology in the NT, and the emergence of the appellations "Father-Son," because it wasnt until the NT that God fathered a son, and it wasnt until the hypostatic union when God incorporated a human identity into His person that there arose such a need to make any distinctions in reference to God. The distinction, however, is never said to be between eternal persons in the Godhead. Such distinctions are only necessary in light of the incarnation and God's acquisition of a genuine human consciousness when He assumed a genuine human existence.


Reading this post might cause one to believe that you see no evidence of Christ before the incarnation. Surely that is not the case. You must be aware of the clear teaching of the eternal nature of Jesus.

Before the creation God counseled with him saying "Let us make man in our image".

John 1:1 tells us that He was with God in the beginning.

In Psalm 2 The Son is spoken of.

As the Angel of the Lord He appeared to Hagar and told he to return to Sarah, adding that He would multiply her offspring.

He appeared to Jacob, telling him that He would prosper him.

He was there at the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah.

[ralittlefield]

Okay the Greek word is not nature but is form

the Greek again is of human not servent

And finally the greek for grasped here is a word meaning to take something not belonging to you

Now if you are really honest about your believe in the bible why not get an interllinear and examine everything I have just said, scripturesforall.org has one


God is a spirit, as the bible says Jesus in heaven existed as a spirit also

Rather than trying to get a word for word translation, (Which is not possible because many words have multiple possible meanings, correct translation being controlled by context.) lets look at the meaning of that passage.

This passage give us a lesson in humility. Part of that lesson uses Jesus as an example.

Paul says that Jesus is an example of humility because even though he existed in the form of God, He was willing to give that up and take the form of a servant (or slave) . In fact it says that he emptied himself and took the likeness of men.

This passage is talking about Jesus' willingness to give up the form of God to become a servant.

Who but God could change his form from the form of God to another form?

[Angryamerican]

Reading this post might cause one to believe that you see no evidence of Christ before the incarnation. Surely that is not the case. You must be aware of the clear teaching of the eternal nature of Jesus.

Before the creation God counseled with him saying "Let us make man in our image".

John 1:1 tells us that He was with God in the beginning.

In Psalm 2 The Son is spoken of.

As the Angel of the Lord He appeared to Hagar and told he to return to Sarah, adding that He would multiply her offspring.

He appeared to Jacob, telling him that He would prosper him.

He was there at the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah.

Can you point out where Jesus has always been ? I may have over looked it.

Can you point out where he had no beginning ?

If you can answer these questions then to me you have proved your point.

[ralittlefield]

Can you point out where Jesus has always been ? I may have over looked it.

Can you point out where he had no beginning ?

If you can answer these questions then to me you have proved your point.

John 1:1 says that He was with God in the beginning.

In John 17:5 Jesus says:

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

[ralittlefield]

Atta boy, TJim!

Hey, I just noticed this Wed. night during our Bible study (our Pastor is going word by word through Acts). Check this out:

• Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

• Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

• Acts 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

So, did the twelve know who THE LORD was, or not? The "title" LORD is used three times in Acts 1. Did they not call Jesus LORD twice, once directly, and once in reference to Him, and then finally did they not PRAY to Him???

And didn't Jesus indicate that He knew the thoughts and hearts of men?
• Matt. 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Doesn't that make the LORD Jesus GOD??? (it sure does to me...)

Anyone care to respond to Jim on this?

[Angryamerican]

John 1:1 says that He was with God in the beginning.

In John 17:5 Jesus says:

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Beginning of what ? God has no beginning. So could it be that he was with God before he created the earth and man ? And who knows how long the earth has been here.

But i am still waiting for your answer about where it says that Jesus has always been ?

[ralittlefield]

Beginning of what ? God has no beginning. So could it be that he was with God before he created the earth and man ? And who knows how long the earth has been here.

But i am still waiting for your answer about where it says that Jesus has always been ?

What do you think that Jesus meant when He said that He was with God before the world began?

What does that tell you about the nature of Jesus?

[Angryamerican]

Anyone care to respond to Jim on this?


Context.

Act 1:6 Then, indeed, these coming together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, do You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority.

Is He calling himself the father ?

Yes Jesus was called lord as many have been called lord it does not make them God.

[Angryamerican]

What do you think that Jesus meant when He said that He was with God before the world began?

What does that tell you about the nature of Jesus?

He was there at the beginning of the creation of the earth and man.

The angels were also present.

Job 38:1 And Jehovah answered Job out of the tempest, and said,
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Now gird up your loins like a man; for I will ask of you, and you teach Me.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell if you have understanding!
Job 38:5 Who has set its measurements, for you know? Or who has stretched the line on it?
Job 38:6 On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone,
Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[ralittlefield]

He was there at the beginning of the creation of the earth and man.

The angels were also present.

Job 38:1 And Jehovah answered Job out of the tempest, and said,
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Now gird up your loins like a man; for I will ask of you, and you teach Me.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell if you have understanding!
Job 38:5 Who has set its measurements, for you know? Or who has stretched the line on it?
Job 38:6 On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone,
Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Do you believe he is an angel?

[Angryamerican]

Do you believe he is an angel?

Who knows for sure ? I am not even sure he existed ever, let alone be God.

[Angryamerican]

Do you believe he is an angel?

One more thing you might consider.

Angels were the only thing ever called sons of God in the ot. i think that does support, if Jesus exists, he was an angel. :think:

But remember, there is no only begotten son of God mentioned in the ot, and yet the only things ever called sons of God were angels. Not even jews were called sons of God they were called sons of Israel.

[Angryamerican]

You are right about the "Son's of God" in the OT being angels. But you are dead wrong about Jesus being an angel:
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

He was born in the flesh.

That also answers your statement as to why He is not called the begotten Son of God in the OT. You have to be born through the womb to be "begotten".
But He was prophesied of in the OT:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Do you know what Immanuel means? It means "God with us".


Virgin is not a correct translation. He left the nature of an angel to become a man sorry we have been over this before.

Only begotten, so he was the only begotten once he become a man ? Then that would mean he had a beginning and we know God had no beginning.

[DRS]

You are right about the "Son's of God" in the OT being angels. But you are dead wrong about Jesus being an angel:
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

He was born in the flesh.

That also answers your statement as to why He is not called the begotten Son of God in the OT. You have to be born through the womb to be "begotten".
But He was prophesied of in the OT:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Do you know what Immanuel means? It means "God with us".



One does not have to be born through the whom to be begotten, one has to be fathered

Jonah means dove, if you are going to take names literally then Jonah was a dove

[DRS]

Rather than trying to get a word for word translation, (Which is not possible because many words have multiple possible meanings, correct translation being controlled by context.) lets look at the meaning of that passage.

This passage give us a lesson in humility. Part of that lesson uses Jesus as an example.

Paul says that Jesus is an example of humility because even though he existed in the form of God, He was willing to give that up and take the form of a servant (or slave) . In fact it says that he emptied himself and took the likeness of men.

This passage is talking about Jesus' willingness to give up the form of God to become a servant.

Who but God could change his form from the form of God to another form?


I think trying to ignore the correct translation shows you really have no interest in what is really being said, you would rather as Paul said have your ears tickled then want to learn about what is really being said.

now if one reads the entire chapter what do we find

. 9*For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name

Now it does not say God exulted him to his original position but a superior position, now if Jesus was Almighty God as you assert the scripture should say he raised himself to his original position

But no it says another who is God raised him and not to his previous position but to one that superior

Everything about Jesus is prefigured in the OT pretty much and so you should beto prove you beliefs using OT and NT, either through prefigurement or prophecy in the OT to application in the NT

[DRS]

I'm done here. Let him who has eyes to see ..let him see

Let he has has ears to hear...let him hear...

and to the rest, let them slumber for the Lord hath put the spirit pf slumber that they should not see nor hear.

Instead of running away prove what you believe using the entire bible, if one has the truth and the word of God then the matter should be able to be set straight

[Fire Watch]

Reading this post might cause one to believe that you see no evidence of Christ before the incarnation. Surely that is not the case. You must be aware of the clear teaching of the eternal nature of Jesus.

Before the creation God counseled with him saying "Let us make man in our image".

Considering the strict monotheism of the Old Testament, trying to find a plurality of persons here doesnt seem logical.

We know that this passage in Genesis 1:26 cant mean that there was anyone besides God who created. Yahweh said Himself, "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself (Not OURselves)" (Isaiah 44:24). Malachi said, "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" (Malachi 2:10). Its very clear that there is only one Creator, and He is Yahweh. Jesus is said to have created the worlds, but He did so not as the Son of God, but as God before the incarnation. This doesnt deny however that the worlds were created with God-incarnate in mind (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2). All things were made with Christ in the center.

Directly following God's use of plural pronouns in verse twenty-six it is said that "God created man in his own (not their) image, in the image of God created he him...." (Genesis 2:27) Clearly it was one image in which man was created. He wasnt created in two or more images.

God was speaking to angels in these passages. The grammar of these verses support this view. The grammar of Genesis 1:26 is.. God (plural) said (third person masculine singular), Let us make (first person common plural) man (singular masculine noun) in our image ("image" is a first person common plural suffix), after our likeness ("likeness" is a feminine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix)." The plural pronouns "us" and "our" must be referring to someone other than God because the verb used in connection with "God" is singular. If God was speaking to Himself in a plural form, or performing self-talk as some say, the pronouns would also need to be singular to modify the verb. Because they arent plural, God was speaking to someone else.

The very fact that God uses singular pronouns when speaking of Himself in thousands of cases causes us to question why some would try to find a plurality of persons here.


John 1:1 tells us that He was with God in the beginning.

Notice that John doesnt say that, "In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was also God." Had John been a Trinitarian we would expect him to say something to this effect to be consistent with Trinitarian doctrine. To find a Trinity in his words we are forced to redefine the word "God" in the middle of a verse. John would be saying that the word was with God the Father but that the word was God the Son. But that is not what he said. The same God whom John identifies the word as being with is the one whom he states that the word is (the word was with God and the word was God).

The word of God is simply a reference to the expression of God. In Revelation 19:13 (John writing again), Jesus is called "the Word of God." The book of Hebrews tells us that, "God . . . has spoken to us in his Son" (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus is himself the content of what God has spoken. He is the visible "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). The word translated "declared" in this last verse is exegeomai, from which we get the word exegete. Jesus has "made known," "explained," "described" or "revealed" God. In other words..he’s the spittin’ image of his daddy. No one can see God, but you can see his glory. Jesus is "the brightness of his glory" (Heb. 1:3).

A person's word cant be separated from their person. Their words dont have an identity separate from their person, but are expressions of their person. Likewise, Jesus (as the Word) is spoken of as being with God, but not in the sense as though He was separate from Him. God's word cant be separated from Him any more than our word can be separated from us. The Word is the expression of God's person. John didnt stop at the identification of the Word as being with God, but when on to point out that the Word was in fact God Himself (not themselves ;) ).

In Psalm 2 The Son is spoken of.

Psalm 2:2 speaks of the LORD and His anointed. Psalm 2:7 says, "I will declare the decree: the LORD bath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Psalm 8:4-5 speaks of the son of man. Psalm 45:6-7 and Psalm 110:1 also contain well known references to Jesus Christ, the former describing Him both as God and as an anointed man and the latter describing Him as David's Lord. Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 9:6 also mention the Son. However a reading of these verses of Scripture will show that each of them is prophetic in nature. Chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews quote every one of the above passages in the Psalms and describe them as prophecy fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
The passages in the Psalms arent conversations between two persons in the Godhead but are prophetic portraits of God and the man Christ. They describe God begetting and anointing the man Christ (Psalm 2:2-7), the man Christ submitting to the will of God and becoming a sacrifice for sin (Psalm 45:6-7), and God glorifying and giving power to the man Christ (Psalm 110:1). All of this came to pass when God manifested Himself in flesh as Jesus Christ.

As the Angel of the Lord He appeared to Hagar and told he to return to Sarah, adding that He would multiply her offspring.

He appeared to Jacob, telling him that He would prosper him.
Theophanies...a visible manifestation of God. Since God is omnipresent, He can manifest Himself to different people in different places at the same time. It does not take a concept of more than one God to explain any of the theophanies..the one God can manifest Himself in any form, at any time, and in any place.

He was there at the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah.


Genesis 18:1 says Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Verse 2 says Abraham looked up and saw three men. I've seen trinitarians try to use these three "men" to prove a trinity of God. However, verse 22 says that two of the "men" left Abraham and went towards Sodom, but Jehovah remained to talk with Abraham a little longer. Who were the other two men? Genesis 19:1 says that two angels arrived in Sodom that evening. So, the three human manifestations that appeared to Abraham were Jehovah and two of His angels.
I've also seen some interpret Genesis 19:24 to mean two persons: "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." However, this doesnt mean one LORD on earth asked another LORD in heaven to rain down fire, because there is only one LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4). Rather, it is an example of restatement. Many passages in the Old Testament phrase one idea in two different ways as a literary device or as a means of emphasis. There is no evidence that after God's temporary manifestation to Abraham He lingered around and traveled to Sodom to oversee its downfall. The Bible only says the two angels went to Sodom. The NIV shows more clearly that Genesis 19:24 merely repeats the same idea in two ways: "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the LORD out of the heavens." We should note that both statements describe the LORD as one being in one place doing one thing - in heaven, raining down fire.

The Old Testament doesnt teach or imply a plurality of persons in the Godhead. We can satisfactorily explain all Old Testament passages used by trinitarians to teach a plurality of persons, harmonizing them with the many other passages that unequivocally teach strict monotheism. Certainly the Jews have found no difficulty in accepting all the Old Testament as God's Word and at the same time adhering to their belief in one indivisible God. From start to finish, and without contradiction, the Old Testament teaches the beautiful truth of one God...one personage that is God..not a corporate being.

[ralittlefield]

I think trying to ignore the correct translation shows you really have no interest in what is really being said, you would rather as Paul said have your ears tickled then want to learn about what is really being said.

now if one reads the entire chapter what do we find

. 9*For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name

Now it does not say God exulted him to his original position but a superior position, now if Jesus was Almighty God as you assert the scripture should say he raised himself to his original position

But no it says another who is God raised him and not to his previous position but to one that superior

Everything about Jesus is prefigured in the OT pretty much and so you should beto prove you beliefs using OT and NT, either through prefigurement or prophecy in the OT to application in the NT

You misunderstand. I am interested in the correct translation. I just am not convinced that you have it.

While you are correct that "form" is a correct translation in Phil 2, you are wrong when you say servant (or slave) is not a correct translation.

You may be able to make an argument that nature is incorrect, but obviously some scholars disagree with you, and frankly, I don't see any reason to take your word over theirs.

[ralittlefield]

I think trying to ignore the correct translation shows you really have no interest in what is really being said, you would rather as Paul said have your ears tickled then want to learn about what is really being said.

now if one reads the entire chapter what do we find

. 9*For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name

Now it does not say God exulted him to his original position but a superior position, now if Jesus was Almighty God as you assert the scripture should say he raised himself to his original position

But no it says another who is God raised him and not to his previous position but to one that superior

Everything about Jesus is prefigured in the OT pretty much and so you should beto prove you beliefs using OT and NT, either through prefigurement or prophecy in the OT to application in the NT

Speaking of correct translations, where in the original Greek do you find the word that is translated (other) in the passage you used above?

What the passage says is that God highly exaulted him. How do you know that does not mean to His original position? You, in addition to using a wrong translation, are not making any sense.

[DRS]

You misunderstand. I am interested in the correct translation. I just am not convinced that you have it.

While you are correct that "form" is a correct translation in Phil 2, you are wrong when you say servant (or slave) is not a correct translation.

You may be able to make an argument that nature is incorrect, but obviously some scholars disagree with you, and frankly, I don't see any reason to take your word over theirs.

Where did I say servant was a mistranslation?

[DRS]

Speaking of correct translations, where in the original Greek do you find the word that is translated (other) in the passage you used above?

What the passage says is that God highly exaulted him. How do you know that does not mean to His original position? You, in addition to using a wrong translation, are not making any sense.

Did you notice it was in brackets?

Think about your statement you assert Jesus is God but now you say God highly exulted him, seems if Jesus was God it would say he exulted himself

[Reeder]

Did you notice it was in brackets?

Think about your statement you assert Jesus is God but now you say God highly exulted him, seems if Jesus was God it would say he exulted himself


Unless, of course, "God" is a title, not necessarily One specific Person.

[DRS]

Unless, of course, "God" is a title, not necessarily One specific Person.

Well then we go back to scriptures to understand who is being spoken of

First Psalm 83:18*That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

then 110:1 The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet

So we see Jehovah telling after he raised him to sit at His right hand

16:*8*I have placed Jehovah in front of me constantly.
Because [he] is at my right hand, I shall not be made to totter.

*9*Therefore my heart does rejoice, and my glory is inclined to be joyful.
Also, my own flesh will reside in security.

10*For you will not leave my soul in She′ol.
You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit.

This prophecy is applied to Jesus being raised in Acts

[ralittlefield]

Where did I say servant was a mistranslation?

You said it in post #15536
Okay the Greek word is not nature but is form

the Greek again is of human not servent

And finally the greek for grasped here is a word meaning to take something not belonging to you

Now if you are really honest about your believe in the bible why not get an interllinear and examine everything I have just said, scripturesforall.org has one


God is a spirit, as the bible says Jesus in heaven existed as a spirit also

[ralittlefield]

Did you notice it was in brackets?

Think about your statement you assert Jesus is God but now you say God highly exulted him, seems if Jesus was God it would say he exulted himself

Being in brackets does not mean it is not part of the translation. The translator ii indicating by the brackets that it is not part of the original, but still wants to use it in the translation.

That passage ( Phil 2) says that Jesus lowered himself, and subsequently God exaulted him. One person of the Trinity lowered himself to minister to us, and subsequently another person of the Trinity exaulted him. Seems logical to me. What is the problem that you have with it?

[DRS]

You said it in post #15536

I was probaby looking at a different word, sorry if I mis spoke, though the word human appears in that passage

[DRS]

Being in brackets does not mean it is not part of the translation. The translator ii indicating by the brackets that it is not part of the original, but still wants to use it in the translation.

That passage ( Phil 2) says that Jesus lowered himself, and subsequently God exaulted him. One person of the Trinity lowered himself to minister to us, and subsequently another person of the Trinity exaulted him. Seems logical to me. What is the problem that you have with it?

He was exulted to high position one does not get higher than Almighty God ergo Jesus was never Almighty God

Jehovah said no may see me and live

Jehovah alone is Most High

Jesus is son of the Most High ergo Jesus is not Jehovah and God is not triune but one personage who is almighty God

[Warrior4God]

Jesus recognized that the Father was the only true God. In prayer, he said to God “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). For Jesus to have prayed this way surely meant that he did not consider himself to be “the only true God.”


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 in fact just the oipposite is true.

I love it when the only defense of this truth in Luke is when people then ask..............

So you don't think Jesus is good?


I didn't say that ever............I just believe Jesus realized that in comparison to The Almighty that his opinion of himself was that only God is good.

[ralittlefield]

He was exulted to high position one does not get higher than Almighty God ergo Jesus was never Almighty God

Jehovah said no may see me and live

Jehovah alone is Most High

Jesus is son of the Most High ergo Jesus is not Jehovah and God is not triune but one personage who is almighty God

Actually, the verse in the NIV says that he was exalted to the highest place.

You are correct. Nothing would be higher than God.

The verse (Phil 2:9) continues to say that He was given a name above every name. Some poorly written translations insert the word "other" before the word name in this verse. But I am sure you have checked your interlinear and agree that the word other does not belong in that verse.

Would you also agree that there is no name above the name of God?

[ralittlefield]

Jesus recognized that the Father was the only true God. In prayer, he said to God “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). For Jesus to have prayed this way surely meant that he did not consider himself to be “the only true God.”


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 in fact just the oipposite is true.

I love it when the only defense of this truth in Luke is when people then ask..............

So you don't think Jesus is good?


I didn't say that ever............I just believe Jesus realized that in comparison to The Almighty that his opinion of himself was that only God is good.

My take on that is different from yours.

Jesus had a unique teaching style. He seldom gave direct answers. He taught in parables and gave word pictures to get his points across. That being the case, I disagree with you when you say that Jesus would have been clear in his responce to that man.

That man referred to Jesus as a "good teacher". The man was not making any reference at all to God. He was comparing Jesus to other teachers, and calling Jesus a good teacher. Read the passage and you will see that this is true.

Jesus took this as an opportunity to teach about himself.

Jesus was the one who brought up God, not the man asking the question. Jesus did not deny being good. (He was perfect, how could anyone say that He was not good?) Instead He asked an insightful question that caused a man who was asking about eternal life to compare Jesus to God.

Jesus was indeed teaching about his deity here.

[Warrior4God]

My take on that is different from yours.

Jesus had a unique teaching style. He seldom gave direct answers. He taught in parables and gave word pictures to get his points across. That being the case, I disagree with you when you say that Jesus would have been clear in his responce to that man.

That man referred to Jesus as a "good teacher". The man was not making any reference at all to God. He was comparing Jesus to other teachers, and calling Jesus a good teacher. Read the passage and you will see that this is true.

Jesus took this as an opportunity to teach about himself.

Jesus was the one who brought up God, not the man asking the question. Jesus did not deny being good. (He was perfect, how could anyone say that He was not good?) Instead He asked an insightful question that caused a man who was asking about eternal life to compare Jesus to God.

Jesus was indeed teaching about his deity here.

Thats really a strange take on a clear verse IMO.

Yes Jesus brought up God in a teaching environment and in a parable Jesus always seemed to give the answer of the parable IF it was a parable,

IMO Jesus was not giving this man a parable and was showing that he was NOT deity .

If there is no answer to a parable then you must interpret and God does not need his Word interpreted unless he does it.

[ralittlefield]

Thats really a strange take on a clear verse IMO.

Yes Jesus brought up God in a teaching environment and in a parable Jesus always seemed to give the answer of the parable IF it was a parable,

IMO Jesus was not giving this man a parable and was showing that he was NOT deity .

If there is no answer to a parable then you must interpret and God does not need his Word interpreted unless he does it.

Why did Jesus bring God into the discussion?

The man was not calling Jesus God. He called Jesus a good teacher. There was no reason to correct or rebuke that man. Jesus was a good teacher. The man did not say anything that needed to be corrected, nor did he need to be rebuked.

Jesus brought God into the discussion to teach about his own deity.

[DispensationalJim]

He was exulted to high position one does not get higher than Almighty God ergo Jesus was never Almighty God

Jehovah said no may see me and live

Jehovah alone is Most High

Jesus is son of the Most High ergo Jesus is not Jehovah and God is not triune but one personage who is almighty God

Thanks, ralittlefield, for your fine posts to correct these misunderstandings.

I, too, would disagree strongly with DRS's statements shown above.


Here is Jesus as God Almighty:

• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
• Rev. 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
• Rev. 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
• Rev. 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
• Rev. 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. ... 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Since only of Jesus, the Son of God, can it be said "who was, and is, and is to come" I would conclude that the Lord God Almighty in those passages is none other than Jesus Himself, especially in light of these passages:

• Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...
• Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last... 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

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

Then there is the famous term "mighty God" as found in this well known prophecy:
• Is. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

And then we see the same term in the following verses:

• Gen. 49:24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob;...
• Deut. 7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
• Psa. 50:1 The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.
• Psa. 132:2 How he sware unto the LORD, and vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob;
• Psa. 132:5 Until I find out a place for the LORD, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. .
• Jer. 32:18 Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,
• Hab. 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

And who is from everlasting?

• Mic. 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Hab. 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

And who is THE ONE LORD?

• Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
• Zech. 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
• Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
• Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

The term "Lord Jesus" is used 113 times in the NT.

[Warrior4God]

Why did Jesus bring God into the discussion?

The man was not calling Jesus God. He called Jesus a good teacher. There was no reason to correct or rebuke that man. Jesus was a good teacher. The man did not say anything that needed to be corrected, nor did he need to be rebuked.

Jesus brought God into the discussion to teach about his own deity.

I just see what you claim as a HUGE stretch and an interpretation on your part.

[Warrior4God]

Jesus brought God into the discussion to teach about his own deity.

Jesus always brought God into the discussion because he loves HIS God and wants to teach all men who God is and that God is and should be the one who gets allpraise and prayer.

[DRS]

Actually, the verse in the NIV says that he was exalted to the highest place.

You are correct. Nothing would be higher than God.

The verse (Phil 2:9) continues to say that He was given a name above every name. Some poorly written translations insert the word "other" before the word name in this verse. But I am sure you have checked your interlinear and agree that the word other does not belong in that verse.

Would you also agree that there is no name above the name of God?

He is not above God's name as Paul showed every thing is subjected to Jesus except the one who subjected all things to him. But he is subject to that one so his name above every other name and not every name

[DRS]

And who is THE ONE LORD?

• Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
• Zech. 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
• Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
• Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

The term "Lord Jesus" is used 113 times in the NT.


Deut says Jehovah our God is one Jehovah that is what Jesus would have said in Mark, so the Lord spoken of is not the same Lord you are talking about

[ralittlefield]

I just see what you claim as a HUGE stretch and an interpretation on your part.


This is what the passage in Luke 18 says:

A ruler addressed Jesus as "good teacher" and asked him what he needed to do to inherit eternal life.

Jesus answered with a question: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God.

I say that the ruler never claimed that Jesus was God, rather he called Jesus a good teacher.

You say that Jesus responce was a correction, you even said "mild rebuke". (see your post 15571.)

You are the one who is deviating from the text. If Jesus responce was a rebuke, what was the rebuke for? What did the man say that required a rebuke?

I need you to explain it to me, because I just do not see it in the text.

[ralittlefield]

He is not above God's name as Paul showed every thing is subjected to Jesus except the one who subjected all things to him. But he is subject to that one so his name above every other name and not every name


This is what Paul said:

In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

[DRS]

This is what Paul said:

In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28*But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

[DRS]

Here is Jesus as God Almighty:

• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
• Rev. 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
• Rev. 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
• Rev. 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
• Rev. 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. ... 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Since only of Jesus, the Son of God, can it be said "who was, and is, and is to come" I would conclude that the Lord God Almighty in those passages is none other than Jesus Himself, especially in light of these passages:

• Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...
• Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last... 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.



so lets look at verse 1 of chapter 1

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.

Now Revelation 5:13 who is the lamb of God?

[DRS]

• Is. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.



Hmm interesting jesus is called a prince Jehovah is never called a prince, then there is the one who makes this come to be so

and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.

Finally Jesus is called mighty God but never Almighty like Jehovah is

[Warrior4God]

This is what the passage in Luke 18 says:

A ruler addressed Jesus as "good teacher" and asked him what he needed to do to inherit eternal life.

Jesus answered with a question: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God.

I say that the ruler never claimed that Jesus was God, rather he called Jesus a good teacher.

You say that Jesus responce was a correction, you even said "mild rebuke". (see your post 15571.)

You are the one who is deviating from the text. If Jesus responce was a rebuke, what was the rebuke for? What did the man say that required a rebuke?

I need you to explain it to me, because I just do not see it in the text.

You said I was the one deviating from the text.............

You are right and should not read into the text as a rebuke.
I should not do that because Gods Word interprets itself.

You also are reading into the text and should not.


You think Jesus is infering that he is God and thats just interpretation not founded in the context

[ralittlefield]

You said I was the one deviating from the text.............

You are right and should not read into the text as a rebuke.
I should not do that because Gods Word interprets itself.

You also are reading into the text and should not.


You think Jesus is infering that he is God and thats just interpretation not founded in the context

It is not explicitly stated in this text, but is reasonably understood in light of the rest of Scripture.

Jesus is clearly called God in several places, many or all of which have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

[Warrior4God]

It is not explicitly stated in this text, but is reasonably understood in light of the rest of Scripture.

Jesus is clearly called God in several places, many or all of which have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

Do you realize that even Jesus did not claim equality with God and could do nothing and know nothing without God.

What amazes me is that there are some including me that can admit they are wrong but you can not do so when you clearly interpret a verse such as this.

You can continue with that interpretation despite the overwhelming evidence that is shown in scripture.

Jesus himself claimed that his God is our God and Jesus is not called God in several places,thats just not true when you rightly divide the Word of Truth.


There is no scripture that gives Jesus equality with the one true God.

none.


Jesus himself knew this.

Jesus was aware by revelation that he was sent by the one true God.

Have you noticed that my view has not and can not be shown to be in error?

Know why?

Its based on the revelation given by God to men who wrote down these truths.

My view is that Jesus is the Son of God and is never called God the Son.................prove that wrong.

You can't. there is no dispute because it does not contradict the words of the head of the body and church.

If we do not allow doctrine to build upon the words of Jesus man will remain in error.

[ralittlefield]

Do you realize that even Jesus did not claim equality with God and could do nothing and know nothing without God.

What amazes me is that there are some including me that can admit they are wrong but you can not do so when you clearly interpret a verse such as this.

You can continue with that interpretation despite the overwhelming evidence that is shown in scripture.

Jesus himself claimed that his God is our God and Jesus is not called God in several places,thats just not true when you rightly divide the Word of Truth.


There is no scripture that gives Jesus equality with the one true God.

none.


Jesus himself knew this.

Jesus was aware by revelation that he was sent by the one true God.

Have you noticed that my view has not and can not be shown to be in error?

Know why?

Its based on the revelation given by God to men who wrote down these truths.

My view is that Jesus is the Son of God and is never called God the Son.................prove that wrong.

You can't. there is no dispute because it does not contradict the words of the head of the body and church.

If we do not allow doctrine to build upon the words of Jesus man will remain in error.

I agree with you that Jesus is the Son of God. I have no desire to prove that wrong.

Where we disagree is that being the Son of God proves that he is not God.

Jesus became the Son of God at the incarnation, but that is not the beginning of his existence. He existed from the beginning.

As far as Jesus role as a man, that is clearly explained in Phil 2 which says:
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

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.


You have said that in John 1 the Word refers to God's purpose or plan, not to Jesus. Please consider this:

John 1 makes these statement about The Word:

"The Word was God."------(Is God purpose or plan God? That does not make sense to me.)

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made"------Col 1 describes Jesus, not God's Plan, as the Creator.

"was the light of men"------------ Jesus claimed to be the Light od the World.

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him."------The Jews were Jesus own, but they did not receive him.

"The Word became flesh"------(Phil 2 tells us Jesus became a man, but you really believe God's plan became flesh? If God's plan became flesh, but was not Jesus, who is it? What did this flesh that is not Jesus do? This flesh that is not Jesus is God? Why do we not know more about this flesh that is not Jesus, but is God?)

"John testifies concerning him."----(John testified of Jesus, not God's Plan)

I really do not understand how you can believe that John 1:1 is not speaking about Jesus.

If you do agree that John 1:1 is speaking about Jesus, you have to agree that it contains the clearest language possible calling him God. It plainly says "The Word was God". Jesus is the Word. The Word is God. How much clearer can it be said?

[THE LIGHT]

Do you realize that even Jesus did not claim equality with God and could do nothing and know nothing without God.

What amazes me is that there are some including me that can admit they are wrong but you can not do so when you clearly interpret a verse such as this.

You can continue with that interpretation despite the overwhelming evidence that is shown in scripture.

Jesus himself claimed that his God is our God and Jesus is not called God in several places,thats just not true when you rightly divide the Word of Truth.


There is no scripture that gives Jesus equality with the one true God.

none.


Jesus himself knew this.

Jesus was aware by revelation that he was sent by the one true God.

Have you noticed that my view has not and can not be shown to be in error?

Know why?

Its based on the revelation given by God to men who wrote down these truths.

My view is that Jesus is the Son of God and is never called God the Son.................prove that wrong.

You can't. there is no dispute because it does not contradict the words of the head of the body and church.

If we do not allow doctrine to build upon the words of Jesus man will remain in error.

And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. -Revelation 21:6

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. -Revelation 21:7

[stevea66]

Any interpretation of the bible can be flawed, because it is fiction. We don't even know who wrote half of it. If there is one good thing about the bible, it's that it gives us some thoughts about how to treat other people. I think being Christ-like ain't all bad. I just don't see it happening for too many people. My first memory of hypocrisy was in church as a kid. The same people who prayed there got wasted that day watching football and beat their wives.

I don't know where I'm going with this, other than to say that to believe the bible as literal is laughable. The Christ story was written several times long before the bible used it. It's history - fact. That doesn't necessarily make it bad. And too many people abuse religion for personal gain. It's a real shame.

Later.

[stevea66]

that a person who does not accept J.C. as their savior will burn in eternal hell, whether or not they've every heard of him?

I've heard this too many times and have asked, "What if they grew up in a tribe in Australia and all they know is to worship the sun?" The answer I've heard is, "Well, that's why we need to get to them to give them a chance at salvation." I'm curious if anyone here believes the same?

I mean, that would be like condemning my 10 year old for not knowing Margaret Thatcher. It's like a bad practical joke being played by an adolescent god, don't you think?

Man is a sinner by nature - god created us that way. If you sin, however, you'll burn forever, unless you're lucky enough to somehow come in contact with Jesus Christ. Weird.

[stevea66]

Okay, you say you have "faith." I'm okay with that. Having "faith" imply's that there is no proof of the existence of something. So you're essentially saying that you acknowledge a lack of proof in the bible. I don't need to have faith in the fact that my car is a car. I know it is, so I don't need faith in that.

And I can't help but judge based on the actions of man - they were created by God, right? Or, at least, that's what your faith has you believing, right?

[stevea66]

So, when he returns I'll have a second chance? What happens if I don't buy it then? Burning?

[stevea66]

Me judge? What happened to "oh, ye of little faith." Was that not a judgment?

[stevea66]

How do you explain the Christ story showing up in other writings a thousand years before the bible was written? There are just way too many similarities for there not to have been plagerism.

[stevea66]

Okay. But I'll just say this: I have lived my life treating people with respect and kindness, but lately I seem to be having issues with some who profess to be religious. If their faith resulted in higher levels of existence, I'd have no problem with it.

And, I just have a hard time believing that any pious God would want me to believe anything other than what I want to believe, especially without giving me some proof. I don't know - it just doesn't make too much sense to me is all.

[stevea66]

This is from PBS:

Nag Hammadi find discovered that some of the texts tell the origin of the human race in terms very different from the usual reading of Genesis: the Testimony of Truth, for example, tells the story of the Garden of Eden from the viewpoint of the serpent! Here the serpent, long known to appear in Gnostic literature as the principle of divine wisdom, convinces Adam and Eve to partake of knowledge while "the Lord" threatens them with death, trying jealously to prevent them from attaining knowledge, and expelling them from Paradise when they achieve it.

[drmilo]

so lets look at verse 1 of chapter 1

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.

Now Revelation 5:13 who is the lamb of God?

Hmmm. My bible says "The revelation of Jesus Christ..." (Christ (God) sending a message in a vision by his angels, revealing himself to John so that John can teach who Jesus is and the things that will come to pass...)

It's funny how Jesus can "send forth his angel" -- If Jesus is not God, how is it the angel is "his angel"?

[drmilo]

Do you realize that even Jesus did not claim equality with God and could do nothing and know nothing without God.

What amazes me is that there are some including me that can admit they are wrong but you can not do so when you clearly interpret a verse such as this.

You can continue with that interpretation despite the overwhelming evidence that is shown in scripture.

Jesus himself claimed that his God is our God and Jesus is not called God in several places,thats just not true when you rightly divide the Word of Truth.

So you are rightly dividing the Word, and we are not? Can't you see that this is only your opinion? The way I see it, trinitarians are rightly dividing the Word, and you are not...


There is no scripture that gives Jesus equality with the one true God.

none.

Sure there is. Off the top of my head: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."; "Thomas said, 'My Lord and My God'"; "I and my father are one."

Of course, you dispute these by interpreting them to say something other than what they say -- but I say that is not rightly dividing the Word, IMHO.


Jesus himself knew this.

Jesus was aware by revelation that he was sent by the one true God.

On the contrary, I see in scripture that Jesus knew exactly who he was -- God in the flesh. ("I and my father are one"; "before Abraham was, I am"; Son of God as well as Son of Man) It is you who claim otherwise, not Jesus.

Have you noticed that my view has not and can not be shown to be in error?

Being as how we keep showing your view to be in error (or, more acurately, not complete) I for one have not noticed this.

Know why?

Because you claim Jesus was a man? Yes. So do trinitarians. But you ignore half of Jesus' nature as described in scripture; so your view is not error, but is not completely true either....

Its based on the revelation given by God to men who wrote down these truths.

My view is that Jesus is the Son of God and is never called God the Son.................prove that wrong.

No... But he is called God. And, being the Son of God, and God at the same time makes him God the Son; that's just logic.

You can't. there is no dispute because it does not contradict the words of the head of the body and church.

If we do not allow doctrine to build upon the words of Jesus man will remain in error.

And if you look out of only one eye, you can't see in three dimensions. You blind yourself to the complete picture. And that, IMHO, is what you are doing.

[drmilo]

So, when he returns I'll have a second chance? What happens if I don't buy it then? Burning?

If you don't "buy it then" you will have seen the truth with your own eyes and rejected it. No faith necessary. To use your car analogy: You'll know the car is there and decide to crawl. By the time you get to the destination, the doors will be closed, the lights out, and the party over.

[Warrior4God]

So you are rightly dividing the Word, and we are not? Can't you see that this is only your opinion? The way I see it, trinitarians are rightly dividing the Word, and you are not...




Sure there is. Off the top of my head: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."; "Thomas said, 'My Lord and My God'"; "I and my father are one."

Of course, you dispute these by interpreting them to say something other than what they say -- but I say that is not rightly dividing the Word, IMHO.




On the contrary, I see in scripture that Jesus knew exactly who he was -- God in the flesh. ("I and my father are one"; "before Abraham was, I am"; Son of God as well as Son of Man) It is you who claim otherwise, not Jesus.



Being as how we keep showing your view to be in error (or, more acurately, not complete) I for one have not noticed this.



Because you claim Jesus was a man? Yes. So do trinitarians. But you ignore half of Jesus' nature as described in scripture; so your view is not error, but is not completely true either....



No... But he is called God. And, being the Son of God, and God at the same time makes him God the Son; that's just logic.



And if you look out of only one eye, you can't see in three dimensions. You blind yourself to the complete picture. And that, IMHO, is what you are doing.

I have yet to find God the Son in scripture ............along with trinity,incarnation,God in the flesh and other catch phrases that do not appear in Gods Word.

I understand where you are coming from...........I really do and I am thankful for the men and women who are trinitarian who stand for God in the name of Christ Jesus because I have wore the shoes they wear and know the love and passion is genuine and true...............

I just see scripture show a totally different picture when I base doctrine on and starting with Christ my Lord and not allow any contradictions to surface without study and prayer.

You don't see any contradictions with a three in one God..............I see nothing but contradiction.


I believe and have shown IMO that EVERY scripture used to prove the trinity is easily explained and no one can refute my view IMO because its the same view you have except you have additions to my view.


I really sit here in amazement at times when such beatiful clear verses are IMO mishandled(I know you see it as me doing this) and you don't see where you are doing so.


This may be the most critical doctrinal issue of Gods Word but still believe God sees and evaluates a mans heart and not his hardheadedness and I realize one of us is wrong and neither will sway or budge from the foundation we build upon.

What I hope and pray is that all of us keep our heart and eyes upon the biggest thing that matters and that is the hope of Christs return which is the Anchor of our soul.


Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Heb 6:19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

[ralittlefield]

Warrior,

Do you believe that the Word in John 1:1 is Jesus?

[Warrior4God]

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
(24) Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
(25) For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
(26) The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
(27) For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
(28) When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus will be subject to God once again when he has accomplished Gods will which makes Isaiah 9:6 so beautiful when one sees that Mighty God should be translated Mighty Hero...............Jesus is truly our hero and as the Son of God he had his own will like we do but did the will of Almighty God who is his God and his Father....


Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.



Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.


Jesus has a God and that God he prayed to is the same God we pray to...........

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


Two truths to notice is that God has no brethren and that Jesus has a God he prays to ...........................

Jesus even told us how we should pray to his God.


Luk 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

[Warrior4God]

Warrior,

Do you believe that the Word in John 1:1 is Jesus?

I think where we differ greatly is that from Genesis to revelation the subject of Gods Word is Jesus and that logos refers to Gods plan and purpose for redemption and Gods plan and purpose became a reality when Christ came in the flesh to accomplish that.

[ralittlefield]

I think where we differ greatly is that from Genesis to revelation the subject of Gods Word is Jesus

Actually here we agree



and that logos refers to Gods plan and purpose for redemption


This part confuses me. It is translated word (as in spoken word) in many places. Logos can be understood as God's plan and purpose. Logos as used in John 1 refers specifically to Jesus.

Just as light generally refers to that element of God's creation that allows us to see. The Light in John 1 refers specifically to Jesus.

In both cases John is using figurative language to identify Jesus.


Do you agree with that?



and Gods plan and purpose became a reality when Christ came in the flesh to accomplish that.

Here again I think that we agree.

Are you saying that The Word in John 1 is Jesus? If so we agree.

I was hoping for a "Yes, I believe Logos in John 1 is Jesus" or a "No, I do not believe the Logos in John 1 is Jesus."

As it is, I am not sure if I got either one of those answers. Is there a third option that I am not aware of? :confused:

[DRS]

The "Angel of the Lord" is Him...in the spirit body...we also know it as the Father.

Rev 1:1 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

the angel of Jehovah is not Jehovah

In John 1:1 you have the God who gavethe revelation to Jesus who gave it to his angel to give to John

So it seems God and Jesus are two different people and the revelation was not known to Jesus until it was given him

[Warrior4God]

Actually here we agree





This part confuses me. It is translated word (as in spoken word) in many places. Logos can be understood as God's plan and purpose. Logos as used in John 1 refers specifically to Jesus.

Just as light generally refers to that element of God's creation that allows us to see. The Light in John 1 refers specifically to Jesus.

In both cases John is using figurative language to identify Jesus.


Do you agree with that?





Here again I think that we agree.

Are you saying that The Word in John 1 is Jesus? If so we agree.

I was hoping for a "Yes, I believe Logos in John 1 is Jesus" or a "No, I do not believe the Logos in John 1 is Jesus."

As it is, I am not sure if I got either one of those answers. Is there a third option that I am not aware of? :confused:

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought.

One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos)

the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc.

Neither should give a person a reason to make the word logos a person.

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

“Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos.

This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.”

The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action.


The beauty of using the word logos in this verse is amazingly perfect to me.

I will list the usages of logos in a minute.

[Warrior4God]

speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).

a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).

a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).

preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).

command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).

proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).

message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).

assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).

the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”).

revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).

God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).

a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).

an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).

a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”).



And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Gen. 39:2).

And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Ex. 19:17).

And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).

And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Ps. 2:4).

They believed in the name of His word (Ps. 106:12).

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with the idea of God’s Word referring to His wisdom and action.

[Warrior4God]

If I may...don't leave out vers 14:
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This in fact does implicate the Word as being the same as (Christ) Jesus, as the Word was made flesh. Also notice how the KJV capitalized the "W" in Word as they too believed that is what the Scripture implied.

Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1).

However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it).

When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.



I believe Gods purpose and plan for mankind became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ.

This is the only way I can read this in light of the definition of logos.


some of this is from what I have studied from.............

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85

[Warrior4God]

In fact I will pose thes verses of Proverbs again, read them closely and understand that it is Christ talking:

Proverbs
8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

8:24 When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.

8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

8:30 Then I was by him, [as] one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him;

8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights [were] with the sons of men.

8:32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed [are they that] keep my ways.

8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

8:34 Blessed [is] the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.


I am not sure that this is Christ talking.

I am the kinda guy that needs proof.............not saying you are wrong just saying I don't know that this is true for sure.


I try to be very careful of how I read Gods Word and not read INTO Gods Word.

[Warrior4God]

Proverbs 8:23
I [wisdom] was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.






Occasionally, a Trinitarian will use this verse to try to support the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ by saying that “wisdom” was appointed from eternity, Christ is the “wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24) and, therefore, Christ was from eternity. This position has not found strong support even among Trinitarians, and for good reason. This wisdom in Proverbs was “appointed” (literally, “set up”) by God, and is therefore subordinate to God. Carefully reading the verse and its context shows that wisdom was “brought forth as the first of His works” (v. 22). If this “wisdom” were Christ, then Christ would be the first creation of God, which is an Arian belief and heretical to orthodox Trinitarians. Therefore many of the Church Fathers rejected this verse as supportive of the Trinity, among them such “heavyweights” as Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Epiphanius and Cyril. We reject it also, but for different reasons. Taking a concept and speaking of it as if it were a person is the figure of speech Personification. Personification often makes it easier to relate to a concept or idea because, as humans, we are familiar with relating to other humans. Personification was common among the Jews, and the wisdom of God is personified in Proverbs. Christ is considered the wisdom of God in Corinthians because of what God accomplishes through him.



I found this rather interesting in how the use of this verse contradicts trinitarian doctrine.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=64

[Warrior4God]

In my opinion, this is the reason most people stumble at the word. They don't "see" God's word in it's entirety as "His Word".
Euphamisms, Metaphors, allegory...
Wisdom spoke and said :
Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.


Who is Life?
Who is the Tree of Life?
Who is the "Bread of Life"?
Who did God send so that whosover believed upon Him would not die, but would have everlasting Life?

Personification isn't a "concept", it is the way that God speaks, not just the Hebrews.

You asked the right question............."Who did God send so that whosover believed upon Him would not die, but would have everlasting Life?"

He sent the Messiah,his Son.

Jesus agrees that God sent him and he says that his God is the only true God.

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

[ralittlefield]

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought.

One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos)

the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc.

Neither should give a person a reason to make the word logos a person.

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

“Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos.

This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.”

The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action.


The beauty of using the word logos in this verse is amazingly perfect to me.

I will list the usages of logos in a minute.

If the word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, and does not refer to Jesus, how do you explain these things that John says about the Word:

"The Word was God."------(Is God purpose or plan God? That does not make sense to me.)

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made"------Col 1 describes Jesus, not God's Plan, as the Creator.

"was the light of men"------------ Jesus claimed to be the Light od the World.

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him."------The Jews were Jesus own, but they did not receive him.

"The Word became flesh"------(Phil 2 tells us Jesus became a man, but you really believe God's plan became flesh? If God's plan became flesh, but was not Jesus, who is it? What did this flesh that is not Jesus do? This flesh that is not Jesus is God? Why do we not know more about this flesh that is not Jesus, but is God?)

"John testifies concerning him."----(John testified of Jesus, not God's Plan)

[Warrior4God]

If the word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, and does not refer to Jesus, how do you explain these things that John says about the Word:

"The Word was God."------(Is God purpose or plan God? That does not make sense to me.)

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made"------Col 1 describes Jesus, not God's Plan, as the Creator.

"was the light of men"------------ Jesus claimed to be the Light od the World.

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him."------The Jews were Jesus own, but they did not receive him.

"The Word became flesh"------(Phil 2 tells us Jesus became a man, but you really believe God's plan became flesh? If God's plan became flesh, but was not Jesus, who is it? What did this flesh that is not Jesus do? This flesh that is not Jesus is God? Why do we not know more about this flesh that is not Jesus, but is God?)

"John testifies concerning him."----(John testified of Jesus, not God's Plan)

As I have said before......................

Jesus Christ IS Gods purpose and plan for man.

Gods plan is Gods Word..........Gods Word became flesh(became a reality when the Messiah came).

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus Christ is the way to God, the truth that God sent , the eternal life for all men who make him Lord.

[ralittlefield]

Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1).

However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it).

When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.



I believe Gods purpose and plan for mankind became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ.

This is the only way I can read this in light of the definition of logos.


some of this is from what I have studied from.............

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85

Okay! I think that this post helps me understand a little more clearly what you believe about John 1.

Your reason for your belief seems to come from the definition of the word logos.

My belief is that John was calling Jesus The Word in the same way Jesus is called (or refers to him self as) :

The light of the World, The Way, The Truth, The Life Etc.

None of those words are a person, but we know that they all are used to refer to Jesus. Why then would it seem strange to you that John would use "the word" to refer to Jesus?

You say that you believe "Gods purpose and plan for mankind became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ."

Do you believe that Jesus did not exist before the word became flesh?

If so, how do you explain Jesus saying these things about himself?

John 8
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

and

John 17
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

[ralittlefield]

As I have said before......................

Jesus Christ IS Gods purpose and plan for man.

Gods plan is Gods Word..........Gods Word became flesh(became a reality when the Messiah came).

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus Christ is the way to God, the truth that God sent , the eternal life for all men who make him Lord.

Did Jesus exist before the word became flesh?

[ralittlefield]

"Jesus"? No...
"Christ"...Yes

Jesus was the flesh manifestation of the Spirit of God.

Let me clarify...when I say Christ, I speak of the Spirit os God that took form in order to create...it was that Spirit that was born into the flesh.
Elohim

Perhaps you would like to respond to the questions I addressed to Warrior in my post # 15632.

[drmilo]

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought.

One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos)

the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc.

Neither should give a person a reason to make the word logos a person.

Unless, of course, it is used symbollically -- or as ralittlefield has said, figuratively.

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

“Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos.

But it is a symbollic definition as we see the term "Word" from John 1:1 defined later in the chapter, verse 14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...

This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.”

The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action.

If you go by what verse 14 defines The Word as, (one might say a biblical definition) then you are wrong.


The beauty of using the word logos in this verse is amazingly perfect to me.

I will list the usages of logos in a minute.


The beauty is that it means both -- literally, it means the purpose and expression of God -- figuratively, it means Jesus -- thus Jesus is the purpose and expression of God. Jesus, who was in the beginning with God, and Jesus who is God, is also, as flesh and blood, the expression of God's will and purpose on earth.

In other words, the person who is Jesus, who existed with God, and who is God, is being described as the purpose and will of the Father.

[DRS]

So who was the God that the word was with since the Word is not the God

[THE LIGHT]

Any interpretation of the bible can be flawed, because it is fiction. We don't even know who wrote half of it. If there is one good thing about the bible, it's that it gives us some thoughts about how to treat other people. I think being Christ-like ain't all bad. I just don't see it happening for too many people. My first memory of hypocrisy was in church as a kid. The same people who prayed there got wasted that day watching football and beat their wives.

First of all I am sorry to hear that, but why would a bunch of people that are not following the Bible have anything to do with making what the Bible has to say false? Have you read about the warnings to the 7 churches in Revelations?

I don't know where I'm going with this, other than to say that to believe the bible as literal is laughable. The Christ story was written several times long before the bible used it. It's history - fact. That doesn't necessarily make it bad. And too many people abuse religion for personal gain. It's a real shame.

You mean Isaiah?:mrgreen:

I would like to hear some of those other sources if you have them.

[drmilo]

So who was the God that the word was with since the Word is not the God

Does even your NWT translation use this translation? Using the article in front of "God" in John 1:1 would be akin to saying "John said hello to the Nick." The Word was with GOD and the Word WAS GOD. The article is dropped in a proper translation -- I'm sure any greek speaker would back me up on this one...

You are translating it this way for the express purpose of backing up what you believe -- literal word for words rarely work in language translations because the two languages don't follow the same gramatical rules. You are not using scripture to form your belief (And your NWT doesn't either); instead you are translating scripture to fit your belief.

[THE LIGHT]

I like your signature. It is a true statement. The majority has almost always been wrong...especially when it came to John the Baptist and Messiah.
I don't worry that I am in the minority with my CHristian beliefs...when everyone starts to agree with me, then that IS when I will worry.
Christ said that the WHOLE world would be deceived except for a small remnant that never bow a knee to Baal (antichrist in our case).

AntiChrist, in fact is counting on the fact that most will fall victim to his Big Lie.

That is so right and I like the fact that people disagree with me because it makes me dig deeper into the scriptures and that is so wonderful.

[Angryamerican]

So, when he returns I'll have a second chance? What happens if I don't buy it then? Burning?

Then you deserve to burn, nah just kidding ;). I don't believe a loving and just God would do such a thing. I as a parent don't like disciplining my children, But i do it because i care what they become. I can't ever see myself torturing or putting lasting pain on my children. I don't think God is any different.

But i also can't believe everything came in to existence just by chance. So whoever created the beautiful things that brings joy and warmth to my heart i want a relationship with.

[Angryamerican]

Wow, this is approaching 1600 pages of comment?

God's Plan from the beginning was for Himself to be born into flesh as the Saviour and sacrifice for once and all time.

He accomplished it, as Jesus said "It is finished".

Holy Spirit, Father, Jesus...they are all the same..

This "trinity" could not have been more evident than on the Mount of transfiguration where we saw Jesus, Moses and Elijah all together..
The Law, the Priest and the combined Savior.

How can it be finished, If not all prophecy has been fulfilled ?

[Constantine the Great]

And I can't help but judge based on the actions of man - they were created by God, right? Or, at least, that's what your faith has you believing, right?

God created man, God had a plan for man, but He also gav man free will. God is not a tyrannical God, He is a loving God. He wants you to come to Him, but He wants you to go of your own accord. Man was created in God's image. This is no small thing. You are the icon of God, the representation of the divine on this planet. You though have a choice; you can try and live up to the image God has granted you and placed within you, or you can try and sully that image by chosing evil instead of service to God. He gives you the choice, but He is also a forgiving God, if you go to Him in repentance and ask to be forgiven.

[DRS]

Does even your NWT translation use this translation? Using the article in front of "God" in John 1:1 would be akin to saying "John said hello to the Nick." The Word was with GOD and the Word WAS GOD. The article is dropped in a proper translation -- I'm sure any greek speaker would back me up on this one...

You are translating it this way for the express purpose of backing up what you believe -- literal word for words rarely work in language translations because the two languages don't follow the same gramatical rules. You are not using scripture to form your belief (And your NWT doesn't either); instead you are translating scripture to fit your belief.

God is not a name it is a title.

So it would be the supervisor said hi to the boss and the supervisor was boss

A supervisor is a boss but he is not the boss

[DRS]

The prophesies about Messiah and His Sacrifice on the cross...that is what was fulfilled...or finished.

Psalms 22 foretold it.
Isaiah 53 foretold it.
Isaiah 7:14 foretold it.

The first Advent had been fulfilled.

The messiah was never God in all prophecies the messiah was the servent of God

[Angryamerican]

The prophesies about Messiah and His Sacrifice on the cross...that is what was fulfilled...or finished.

Psalms 22 foretold it.
Isaiah 53 foretold it.
Isaiah 7:14 foretold it.

The first Advent had been fulfilled.

The work the messiah was given to do has not all been completed so how can it be finished ?

That is just your opinion, that Jesus was just talking about dieing on the cross.

Psalms 22 is about david not the messiah.

Isaiah 53 is about the servant Israel, if you read before and after that chapter you will see that it is not about the messiah it is about Israel the servant.

Isa 41:8 But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My friend;

Isaiah 7:14 The correct translation here is not virgin.I will study this and try and get a better understanding of this.But i am sure it is prophecy.

[Angryamerican]

You clearly didn't read and understand what I said.

Jesus fulfilled those prophesies that a Messiah would be sent, a Saviour that would die on the cross, be bruised for our sins and take the sin of the world upon His shoulders so that He alone could be the Redeemer for us.

If you don't understand that, you won't understand anything.


There is a little thing called the 2nd Advent, when Christ returns..NOT as a Lamb for the slaughter, but as the Avenger with the iron rod of correction in His hand.

Where does it say that the messiah would be put to death ?

Where does it say the messiah will need a second coming to fulfill all prophecy ?

Who is the servant ?

Isa 41:8 But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My friend;

[Warrior4God]

Did Jesus exist before the word became flesh?

That is a question I wrestle with still...........

I am not sure whether he did or whether he was in Gods foreknowledge.

I know, I know there are verses that your going to post but even those have a logical answer to them.

I have looked into every verse on the subject and still am not positive either way.

Could Jesus have been with God in Spirit............could be, but I take great care not to be easily swayed when there are doubts.

[Angryamerican]

How many examples would you like?

Isaiah
53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.


Jer 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, [and] of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
Jer 11:17 For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
Jer 11:18 And the LORD hath given me knowledge [of it], and I know [it]: then thou shewedst me their doings.
Jer 11:19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.

If you fully understand the proceedures of the passover offering, that alone would tell you that the Passover Lamb must be slaughtered, and that exactly what Christ was, as He became the Passover Lamb.


This is a really neat one, and I hope you can see it, because Jesus clues us in to the 2 Advents:


Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
This is the book of Isaiah He is reading, Chapter 61 verse 1

4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
I want you to pay very special attention to the fact that He stopped and closed the book right there.

4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
They were astonished, because they knew there was more to this verse, and why did He stop there...
They are about to be told.


4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

He is saying I am Messiah, I am standing in front of you, today this has been fulfilled by Me...but they couldn't see.

Now, let's go and finish that verse that Christ stopped at:


Isaiah
61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;


This is why Jesus stopped the verse short!!!

Because the Day of Vengeance comes at His return at the 2nd Advent and He knew that.

I love this!!!!!

His Word is so Rich!!!!!!!







Do I really have to answer that?

Hmm, Very interesting i must say. ;)

Maybe i might need a little more study, Good job.

[ralittlefield]

So that I am not repetative, I will answer it this way. Does it matter...because the way to the Father is through Jesus Christ, no man enters but through Him. And when we do there is a New Earth and a New Heaven and there is NO TEMPLE, because the Father and the Son are the Temple thereof....

I believe that it does matter. I think that it is very important try to have a correct understanding of God.

[ralittlefield]

That is a question I wrestle with still...........

I am not sure whether he did or whether he was in Gods foreknowledge.

I know, I know there are verses that your going to post but even those have a logical answer to them.

I have looked into every verse on the subject and still am not positive either way.

Could Jesus have been with God in Spirit............could be, but I take great care not to be easily swayed when there are doubts.

That is the problem Warrior. There always seem to be a logical answer.

Some people are very good with words and can make almost anything sound logical and reasonable.

So even when we have very clear language in the bible, and further, even when that language is supported in other portions of the bible, there is always someone who can make an eloquent argument against it.

[ralittlefield]

I think that He was with Him, and I base that on my interpretations of the Scriptures, and you base yours on your interpretation of the Scriptures.
I guess what I am saying is that it isn't one of those issues that is critical to Salvation to know this...we will know when Christ returns because we will be able to ask Him.

I thought that you were a oneness guy.

Edit:

I thought that you were a oneness person. :)

[HardHammer]

That is the problem Warrior. There always seem to be a logical answer.

Some people are very good with words and can make almost anything sound logical and reasonable.

So even when we have very clear language in the bible, and further, even when that language is supported in other portions of the bible, there is always someone who can make an eloquent argument against it.

Which is precisely why God gave us the Holy Spirit, to discern the difference between mans eloquent corruption and Gods Truth...

[DRS]

Actually Paul reasoned with the people from the scripture, using the prophecies available to him to show who jesus was who God was and why the things that happened had to take place

Acts 17:1 They now journeyed through Am‧phip′o‧lis and Ap‧ol‧lo′ni‧a and came to Thes‧sa‧lo‧ni′ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2*So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3*explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead

So what you preach should be probvable using the entire bible and show how things were prophecied and or prefigured

[Warrior4God]

Which is precisely why God gave us the Holy Spirit, to discern the difference between mans eloquent corruption and Gods Truth...

Amen and Amen...............

That is why I still find myself posting here.

Listen don't take this wrong Ya'll.

IMO eloquent corruption is so vividly visible in all the eloquent catch phrases and words that are so not eloquently in scripture but mans eloquent words.

Like..........trinity, incarnation, dual nature of Christ,that God co-equally exists in three persons,God the Son,...............in fact people felt they needed to write things like the nicean creed because so many thoughts and words people were using were not Biblical.


I have an Idea..............Just stick to Gods Word and forgets creeds of men that are all so eloquent.

[ralittlefield]

Amen and Amen...............

That is why I still find myself posting here.

Listen don't take this wrong Ya'll.

IMO eloquent corruption is so vividly visible in all the eloquent catch phrases and words that are so not eloquently in scripture but mans eloquent words.

Like..........trinity, incarnation, dual nature of Christ,that God co-equally exists in three persons,God the Son,...............in fact people felt they needed to write things like the nicean creed because so many thoughts and words people were using were not Biblical.


I have an Idea..............Just stick to Gods Word and forgets creeds of men that are all so eloquent.

I agree.

Let's start here.

John 1
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I wonder if this is the longest thread on Hannity.

[Meriweather]

I wonder if this is the longest thread on Hannity.


Not on Hannity, no (Visit Trivial Pursuits). However, it probably is the longest one in the Religion Forum, or has been, since I've been around.

[Fire Watch]

I wonder if this is the longest thread on Hannity.
Not even close. Click my sigline.

[Reeder]

Not even close. Click my sigline.

Coming up on 70,000 posts. Not bad, FW.

[Fire Watch]

I'm trying to slow it down a bit. Cant have my thread with more posts than me.

[Reeder]

I'm trying to slow it down a bit. Cant have my thread with more posts than me.

:)) Competing with your own creations...

[Meriweather]

I'm trying to slow it down a bit. Cant have my thread with more posts than me.

Is it true, or just a wild rumor, that when your Lodge thread reaches 99,999, the odometer automatically returns to '1'? If so, I may just have to lead a Crusade, just for fun. Or, would that fall under the category of being annoying?

[Warrior4God]

Not even close. Click my sigline.

Well I would think you would admit that this thread deals with a bit more substance then your thread ,would you not?

[Meriweather]

Well I would think you would admit that this thread deals with a bit more substance then your thread ,would you not?

Funny, I asked this question about another thread once. As I recall, the answer was, "Nyet."

[DRS]

I agree.

Let's start here.

John 1
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

What version leaves out the word only begotten, which means Jesus had a start as as such was not without beginning

[ralittlefield]

What version leaves out the word only begotten, which means Jesus had a start as as such was not without beginning

That is not entirely correct.

It does not leave out the word only begotten, it translates "one and only" instead of only begotten.

BTW, if you do not believe that only begotten can be used to show position or rank, how do you explain the fact that Issac was called Abraham's only begotten?

[DRS]

That is not entirely correct.

It does not leave out the word only begotten, it translates "one and only" instead of only begotten.

BTW, if you do not believe that only begotten can be used to show position or rank, how do you explain the fact that Issac was called Abraham's only begotten?

Issac was the only son with Sarah and the son through whom God would keep His promise to Abraham

Still he was begotten which again shows beginning

[ralittlefield]

Issac was the only son with Sarah and the son through whom God would keep His promise to Abraham

Still he was begotten which again shows beginning

The text says Abram's only begotten son, not Abraham & Sarah's only begotten son.

Issac had a beginning, but the use of the title "only begotten" is to show his position.

[DRS]

The text says Abram's only begotten son, not Abraham & Sarah's only begotten son.

Issac had a beginning, but the use of the title "only begotten" is to show his position.

Begotton means fathered or sired, so both of which described what Abraham did with regards to Issac

Since God created Jesus he to was father or sired by God

[ralittlefield]

Begotton means fathered or sired, so both of which described what Abraham did with regards to Issac

Since God created Jesus he to was father or sired by God

Yes. That is what begotten means. But surely you know that Issac is not Abraham's only sired son. Yet the bible calls him Abraham's "only begotten".

In so doing the author was not saying that Issac was the only son that Abraham sired. He was giving Issac a title that showed Issac's position. A position of prominence.

[DRS]

Yes. That is what begotten means. But surely you know that Issac is not Abraham's only sired son. Yet the bible calls him Abraham's "only begotten".

In so doing the author was not saying that Issac was the only son that Abraham sired. He was giving Issac a title that showed Issac's position. A position of prominence.

Same as Jesus was not the only son of God, but he is the one through whom all the promises, previously other spirit creatures had been called sons of God also

[ralittlefield]

Same as Jesus was not the only son of God, but he is the one through whom all the promises, previously other spirit creatures had been called sons of God also

So you agree that when the phrase "only begotten" is used it is not always referring to some one's origin, or the fathering of offspring?

Do we agree that it is used as a title showing position?

[ralittlefield]

Same as Jesus was not the only son of God, but he is the one through whom all the promises, previously other spirit creatures had been called sons of God also

What do you mean by "Jesus was not the only Son of God"?

Do you mean He is not God's Son, or that God has more sons than Him?


I believe Jesus is God's Son in a real sense. Others were created by God, but Jesus is His Son.

He was not always known as the Son of God, but became God's Son at the incarnation.

[DRS]

What do you mean by "Jesus was not the only Son of God"?

Do you mean He is not God's Son, or that God has more sons than Him?


I believe Jesus is God's Son in a real sense. Others were created by God, but Jesus is His Son.

He was not always known as the Son of God, but became God's Son at the incarnation.

Did you never read the books of Genesis to Malachi?

If you did you would know Jesus was called God's son in Psalm, as you would read that passage and then see it applied later on in Acts

You would also see other referred to as sons of the God

[DRS]

So you agree that when the phrase "only begotten" is used it is not always referring to some one's origin, or the fathering of offspring?

Do we agree that it is used as a title showing position?

It displays position but is only used on anyone or group that has a beginning like Jesus who is called the beginning of creation

[DispensationalJim]

It displays position but is only used on anyone or group that has a beginning like Jesus who is called the beginning of creation

DRS, you seem to keep forgetting that several of us have showed clearly many times that Jesus is referred to as THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS a bunch of times in the NT. So wouldn't that make Him the "beginning of creation"?

Here are some of those passages in case you don't recall them:
• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
• Eph. 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
• Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
• Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
• Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
• Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

I may have missed a couple, so anyone may feel free to add them to the list.

[ralittlefield]

Did you never read the books of Genesis to Malachi?

If you did you would know Jesus was called God's son in Psalm, as you would read that passage and then see it applied later on in Acts

You would also see other referred to as sons of the God


Jesus was called the son prophetically in the Psalms. He existed in the beginning as The Word, and became God's Son at the incarnation.

The others that you mention are adopted sons. Jesus is indeed God's only Son other than by adoption.

[ralittlefield]

DRS, you seem to keep forgetting that several of us have showed clearly many times that Jesus is referred to as THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS a bunch of times in the NT. So wouldn't that make Him the "beginning of creation"?

Here are some of those passages in case you don't recall them:
• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
• Eph. 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
• Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
• Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
• Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
• Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

I may have missed a couple, so anyone may feel free to add them to the list.

Yes, that would make Him the "beginning of creation".

[ralittlefield]

So who was the God that the word was with since the Word is not the God


I understand that your position is that Jesus is "a god" not "The God".

I do not understand how you reconcile that position with scripture that says that there are not other gods.

I do understand that theos can be understood to mean mighty one, ruler, etc. so we do not need to rehash that.

How is your definition of Jesus different from the gods that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 8 and Acts 17?

I see no difference. The people in those accounts worshiped multiple gods none of which was an (or if you prefer "the") all powerful God.

The Jesus you describe is no different than these gods, and we are told that these gods are not gods at all. The bible is clear, there are rulers, and mighty beings, (so-called gods), but in truth there is only one God.

Please address my point directly, and explain how you see Jesus as different from other "gods" that the bible says do not exist. I am asking an honest question. I truly do not see the difference.

[Warrior4God]

Jesus was called the son prophetically in the Psalms. He existed in the beginning as The Word, and became God's Son at the incarnation.

The others that you mention are adopted sons. Jesus is indeed God's only Son other than by adoption.

I am not sure on that............

Jesus is Gods only Son who was born of a woman but there are other sons that aren't by adoption when you consider angels who are called such.

Am I right or wrong?

[God is My Rock]

I am not sure on that............

Jesus is Gods only Son who was born of a woman but there are other sons that aren't by adoption when you consider angels who are called such.

Am I right or wrong?

HEY!!!!

Glad to see you.

I have been taking a break for a few.

I am so glad and encouraged to see that you are still here.

:hug:

[Warrior4God]

HEY!!!!

Glad to see you.

I have been taking a break for a few.

I am so glad and encouraged to see that you are still here.

:hug:

Good to see you too on here........I have been making an effort to not get on here too much.

I actually think too much is not a good thing and other things are more important,but its still fun and fine to debate the things of God on here on a limited basis.


Can't let the truth of who Jesus is to go unchecked and not post what I believe is truth.

[DRS]

Jesus was called the son prophetically in the Psalms. He existed in the beginning as The Word, and became God's Son at the incarnation.

The others that you mention are adopted sons. Jesus is indeed God's only Son other than by adoption.

The others are not adopted sons, and Jesus as the beginning of creation would be the starting point for the beginning

[DRS]

I understand that your position is that Jesus is "a god" not "The God".

I do not understand how you reconcile that position with scripture that says that there are not other gods.

I do understand that theos can be understood to mean mighty one, ruler, etc. so we do not need to rehash that.

How is your definition of Jesus different from the gods that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 8 and Acts 17?

I see no difference. The people in those accounts worshiped multiple gods none of which was an (or if you prefer "the") all powerful God.

The Jesus you describe is no different than these gods, and we are told that these gods are not gods at all. The bible is clear, there are rulers, and mighty beings, (so-called gods), but in truth there is only one God.

Please address my point directly, and explain how you see Jesus as different from other "gods" that the bible says do not exist. I am asking an honest question. I truly do not see the difference.

There are no other objects of worship for a Christian, but Satan is called the god of this world and Paul wrote about those who made gods of their bellies and in the OT you see angels and Moses called god

Jesus is a god in the sense of being like both the angels and being the greater Moses who prefigured Jesus is so many many many ways

[ralittlefield]

There are no other objects of worship for a Christian, but Satan is called the god of this world and Paul wrote about those who made gods of their bellies and in the OT you see angels and Moses called god

Jesus is a god in the sense of being like both the angels and being the greater Moses who prefigured Jesus is so many many many ways

So how is that different than the gods described in the passages that I referenced? Those gods were also viewed as mighty beings (as angels are mighty beings) were they not?

[Warrior4God]

So how is that different than the gods described in the passages that I referenced? Those gods were also viewed as mighty beings (as angels are mighty beings) were they not?

Whew ya'll are beating this one to death.

[ralittlefield]

Whew ya'll are beating this one to death.

How so? I think that there have only been a total of four posts in this exchange.

[Warrior4God]

How so? I think that there have only been a total of four posts in this exchange.

yeah today.

This has been covered many times before...........but heck so has every subject on this thread.

Sorry,I should have just shutup.

This subject is like most others............no one will admit they may be wrong.

[CMike11]

There are no other objects of worship for a Christian, but Satan is called the god of this world and Paul wrote about those who made gods of their bellies and in the OT you see angels and Moses called god

Jesus is a god in the sense of being like both the angels and being the greater Moses who prefigured Jesus is so many many many ways

Good grief. Satan is not a G-D.

And Moses was NEVER called G-D.

I mentioned this before. In the ritual reading of the Passover story, Moses, is only referred to once, and only as a "humble servant".

Judaism is about G-D.

There is only one G-D. No other G-D, in any parts.

Satan is a servant of G-D.

[Warrior4God]

How so? I think that there have only been a total of four posts in this exchange.

Your way up there in Maine and I am way down here in Florida.

I can't imagine what it would be like to live up there in winter.

[ralittlefield]

Your way up there in Maine and I am way down here in Florida.

I can't imagine what it would be like to live up there in winter.

And I can't imagine what it would be like to be able to fish open water year round!

Wanna trade places? :)

[Warrior4God]

And I can't imagine what it would be like to be able to fish open water year round!

Wanna trade places? :)

Heck no............I live in a very good place for fishing salt or fresh water.


Heres what gripes me...........You must have a fresh water license for fresh water and a salt water license for salt water.

Almost time to fish for speckled trout and will need to renew my saltwater license.............grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I should be more thankful huh?

[ralittlefield]

Heck no............I live in a very good place for fishing salt or fresh water.


Heres what gripes me...........You must have a fresh water license for fresh water and a salt water license for salt water.

Almost time to fish for speckled trout and will need to renew my saltwater license.............grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I should be more thankful huh?

Open water season will soon be closed up here. Ice fishing will open after the first of the year.

We have some good saltwater fishing too. Not like Florida, but still fun in good weather. Not much fun when the temp is below zero though.

[DRS]

Good grief. Satan is not a G-D.

And Moses was NEVER called G-D.

I mentioned this before. In the ritual reading of the Passover story, Moses, is only referred to once, and only as a "humble servant".

Judaism is about G-D.

There is only one G-D. No other G-D, in any parts.

Satan is a servant of G-D.

The word Elohim is translated God it not?

I can always post a word for word interlinear if you like

[DRS]

So how is that different than the gods described in the passages that I referenced? Those gods were also viewed as mighty beings (as angels are mighty beings) were they not?

Jesus the angels and Moses all directed their worship and the worship of others to the one and only Almighty

[CMike11]

The word Elohim is translated God it not?

I can always post a word for word interlinear if you like

It depends on the context.

It could mean a powerful person.

[DRS]

It depends on the context.

It could mean a powerful person.

The word is god it can be referring to angels or powerful ones or judges

[ralittlefield]

The word Elohim is translated God it not?

I can always post a word for word interlinear if you like

An interlinear does not give all possible translations for each word.

Perhaps you should check out a lexicon or dictionary. They would give you a better understanding of the meaning of a word.

Furthermore there are numerous interlinears. For instance I have a NIV/Greek New testament interlinear. It probably would not be identical to the interlinear that you would post.

The translation does depend on context.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV

[ralittlefield]

The word is god it can be referring to angels or powerful ones or judges

Not quite correct. The word can be god. It also can be translated differently.

The correct translation would be the one that conveys the original authors meaning in the language it is being translated to. There is not always only one word for word translation.

[Fire Watch]

It depends on the context.

:shhh: Carefull..that concept is verboten to some around here.

[CMike11]

:shhh: Carefull..that concept is verboten to some around here.

:))

What is your Avatar picture?

[CMike11]

The word is god it can be referring to angels or powerful ones or judges

You got it backwards. The definition, is also based on the context.

Neither angels nor Moses are ever referred to as G-D in Judaism.

There is only one G-D.

[Jacob_Rising]

Heck no............I live in a very good place for fishing salt or fresh water.


Heres what gripes me...........You must have a fresh water license for fresh water and a salt water license for salt water.

Almost time to fish for speckled trout and will need to renew my saltwater license.............grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I should be more thankful huh?I must do nothing, I have crab feasts with speckled trout broiling in mustard.

I might cut up 20 deer in one season and feed their caucasess to the fish I catch and eat.

I don't feel a need to pay anybody to do so, I never will.

[ralittlefield]

I must do nothing, I have crab feasts with speckled trout broiling in mustard.

I might cut up 20 deer in one season and feed their caucasess to the fish I catch and eat.

I don't feel a need to pay anybody to do so, I never will.

I hope that someday you realize how wrong that is.

[CMike11]

Not quite correct. The word can be god. It also can be translated differently.

The correct translation would be the one that conveys the original authors meaning in the language it is being translated to. There is not always only one word for word translation.

+1.

You get it.

[drmilo]

The word is god it can be referring to angels or powerful ones or judges

Let's get something straight, because you, DRS, can't seem to grasp the concept that languages are different.

In Hebrew, the word Elohim can mean God, or it can mean mighty being, mighty person etc...

In English, the word God does not refer, at all, to a person; instead, the word God refers to either The One True God, or the pagan gods. God or god, in english, does not mean "Mighty person." The word can, however, be used in a metaphorical sense in such a manner.

Therefore, when translating, context is key: Elohim can be translated to mean God in the correct context; in other contexts, when it does not refer to God, it is translated as Mighty Person.

The only exception to this is when the word "god" in english is used metaphorically to descriibe a powerful person (as in "you will be as a god to pharoah" or "I have said, ye are gods, buy ye shall die as men")

[Warrior4God]

I must do nothing, I have crab feasts with speckled trout broiling in mustard.

I might cut up 20 deer in one season and feed their caucasess to the fish I catch and eat.

I don't feel a need to pay anybody to do so, I never will.

If I don't get a license I could get a big fine and lose my kayak if I persist.

Plus I should obey the law even if in my opinion it is excessive.

So where you live you don't need a license or just fish and hunt without them?

[ralittlefield]

:shhh: Carefull..that concept is verboten to some around here.


I think that all the posters here are able to think for themselves.



But....


I am not sure all choose to do so.

[DRS]

An interlinear does not give all possible translations for each word.

Perhaps you should check out a lexicon or dictionary. They would give you a better understanding of the meaning of a word.

Furthermore there are numerous interlinears. For instance I have a NIV/Greek New testament interlinear. It probably would not be identical to the interlinear that you would post.

The translation does depend on context.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV

OF vourse I am sure you are aware that the translation is being argued against in an effort to prove angles do not have free will and that prior to the flood angels came to Earth and had relations with women

So maybe you agree with the jewish view on this and that is what you are defending

[DRS]

You got it backwards. The definition, is also based on the context.

Neither angels nor Moses are ever referred to as G-D in Judaism.

There is only one G-D.

They are biblically you just choose to alter the words in an attempt to go with jewish theology

[DRS]

Let's get something straight, because you, DRS, can't seem to grasp the concept that languages are different.

In Hebrew, the word Elohim can mean God, or it can mean mighty being, mighty person etc...

In English, the word God does not refer, at all, to a person; instead, the word God refers to either The One True God, or the pagan gods. God or god, in english, does not mean "Mighty person." The word can, however, be used in a metaphorical sense in such a manner.

Therefore, when translating, context is key: Elohim can be translated to mean God in the correct context; in other contexts, when it does not refer to God, it is translated as Mighty Person.

The only exception to this is when the word "god" in english is used metaphorically to descriibe a powerful person (as in "you will be as a god to pharoah" or "I have said, ye are gods, buy ye shall die as men")

Hmm both examples one who prefigues Jesus and another scripture Jesus uses to show why the title god is okay to be used on him

Of course by your adamant defence you have now said the jews are right and the apostles are wrong and prior to the flood sons of the noble had relations with the daughters of men

But hey anything to prove idolatry so what if you have to invalidte the word of God

[CMike11]

They are biblically you just choose to alter the words in an attempt to go with jewish theology

Hello. The Torah IS Jewish theology.

Shady had a good example.

The word "president" for example.

President can mean the president of the country, president of a busineess, or the president of an association.

The meaning of president depends of the context that it was used.

[CMike11]

OF vourse I am sure you are aware that the translation is being argued against in an effort to prove angles do not have free will and that prior to the flood angels came to Earth and had relations with women

So maybe you agree with the jewish view on this and that is what you are defending

Angels don't have free will, they are messengers of G-D.

[ralittlefield]

OF vourse I am sure you are aware that the translation is being argued against in an effort to prove angles do not have free will and that prior to the flood angels came to Earth and had relations with women

So maybe you agree with the jewish view on this and that is what you are defending

I am not sure I know what you are saying here.

I think that maybe you are reading too much into what I said. You said that you could post from an interlinear to prove that god is the correct translation.

All I am saying is that one interlinear does not present all the possible translations.

To get the meaning of a word, I would go to a lexicon or dictionary to see what the possible meanings are, then to to the context of how the word is used to see what would best fit.

Correct translation does include context.

For example the English word foot has different meanings.

It could mean the body part or a unit of measurement.

I need to know the context to decide how to translate to another language.

If I am translating foot into Spanish, I do not want to use the Spanish word for a body part, if the context requires a unit of measure.

[ralittlefield]

Angels don't have free will, they are messengers of G-D.

How does being messengers of God preclude them from having free will?

[ralittlefield]

Hmm both examples one who prefigues Jesus and another scripture Jesus uses to show why the title god is okay to be used on him

Of course by your adamant defence you have now said the jews are right and the apostles are wrong and prior to the flood sons of the noble had relations with the daughters of men

But hey anything to prove idolatry so what if you have to invalidte the word of God

He said no such thing. He is simply and correctly pointing out that you are not correct in your understanding of how words should be understood and translated.

[CMike11]

How does being messengers of God preclude them from having free will?

Because they can't decide between doing good and bad. They do what G-D sent them to do.

[DRS]

Hello. The Torah IS Jewish theology.

Shady had a good example.

The word "president" for example.

President can mean the president of the country, president of a busineess, or the president of an association.

The meaning of president depends of the context that it was used.

The oral torah is Jewish theology the written is the word of God and along with the writings of Matthew through Revelation is the basis faith for servents of God, one is not a contradiction of the other but rather compliment each other and help explain one another

[HardHammer]

Because they can't decide between doing good and bad. They do what G-D sent them to do.

Really? Mike could you please explain how Lucifier rebelled against God without a Free Will scenario?

[DRS]

He said no such thing. He is simply and correctly pointing out that you are not correct in your understanding of how words should be understood and translated.

In both cases the word is translated god and shows the term god also refers to angels and judges, powerful ones appointed by Almighy God. There being called gods in no way takes away from the Almightiness of Jehovahjust as Jesus being called god does not take away from Jehovah

5*You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,
And with glory and splendor you then crowned him.

82 God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;
In the middle of the gods he judges:

*2*“How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice
And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Se′lah.

*3*Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy.
To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice.

*4*Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one;
Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them].”

*5*They have not known, and they do not understand;
In darkness they keep walking about;
All the foundations of the earth are made to totter.

*6*“I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,
And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

[CMike11]

Really? Mike could you please explain how Lucifier rebelled against God without a Free Will scenario?

Easy. He didn't.

Satan serves G-D. What man is supposed to do is make himself closer to G-D.

We have free well. The evil inclination is controlled by Satan. Let's say there was no Satan, and no bad inclination.

If that happened man couldn't bring himself closer to G-D because he would get no credit for doing good things, because there is no temptation to do bad things.

Also, Satan serves as the prosecuting attorney (not literally), on the Day of Attonement, when Jews are judged based on their sins.

[CMike11]

The oral torah is Jewish theology the written is the word of God and along with the writings of Matthew through Revelation is the basis faith for servents of God, one is not a contradiction of the other but rather compliment each other and help explain one another

You are quite confused.

Jewish theology is based on the Torah (the five books of moses, including prophets, and scriptures).

The oral law was passed down from Moses, as well. It explains more about how the written law is supposed to be implemented.

These scriptures were written for the Jews. You are aware of that, aren't you?

[CMike11]

In both cases the word is translated god and shows the term god also refers to angels and judges, powerful ones appointed by Almighy God. There being called gods in no way takes away from the Almightiness of Jehovahjust as Jesus being called god does not take away from Jehovah

5*You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,
And with glory and splendor you then crowned him.

82 God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;
In the middle of the gods he judges:

*2*“How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice
And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Se′lah.

*3*Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy.
To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice.

*4*Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one;
Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them].”

*5*They have not known, and they do not understand;
In darkness they keep walking about;
All the foundations of the earth are made to totter.

*6*“I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,
And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

They are not called Gods.

Could you please give book, chapter, and verse, when you quote something.

[CMike11]

In both cases the word is translated god and shows the term god also refers to angels and judges, powerful ones appointed by Almighy God. There being called gods in no way takes away from the Almightiness of Jehovahjust as Jesus being called god does not take away from Jehovah

5*You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,
And with glory and splendor you then crowned him.

82 God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;
In the middle of the gods he judges:

*2*“How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice
And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Se′lah.

*3*Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy.
To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice.

*4*Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one;
Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them].”

*5*They have not known, and they do not understand;
In darkness they keep walking about;
All the foundations of the earth are made to totter.

*6*“I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,
And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

Psalms 82
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/16303/jewish/Chapter-82.htm


Tehillim - Chapter 82

1. A song of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He will judge.
2. How long will you judge unjustly and favor the wicked forever?
3. Judge the poor and orphan; justify the humble and the impoverished.
4. Release the poor and the needy; save [them] from the hands of [the] wicked.
5. They did not know and they do not understand [that] they will walk in darkness; all the foundations of the earth will totter.
6. I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."
7. Indeed, as man, you will die, and as one of the princes, you will fall.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You inherit all the nations.


Psalms 8
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/16229/jewish/Chapter-8.htm


4. When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You have established,
5. what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him?
6. Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty.
7. You give him dominion over the work of Your hands; You have placed everything beneath his feet.
8. Flocks and cattle, all of them, and also the beasts of the field;
9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, he traverses the ways of the seas.
10. O Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your name in all the earth!

[CMike11]

Yeah, I know, the Jewish scripture, has a Jewish slant to it :rolleyes:

[ralittlefield]

Because they can't decide between doing good and bad. They do what G-D sent them to do.

I know that they are God's messengers, but on what do you base the statement that they can't decide between doing good and bad

[CMike11]

I know that they are God's messengers, but on what do you base the statement that they can't decide between doing good and bad

I think this explains it well

http://www.freewebs.com/jewishangels/intro.htm

iIntroduction
Angels bring human beings closer to G-d and help one understand G-d's essence. The common Hebrew word for angel is malach, which means messenger. An angel is a "messenger" of G-d who carries out His "work". Although angels are superhuman beings, they must do exactly what G-d commands, as they have no free will. They are nothing more than G-d's assistants. All angels owe their existence to G-d and were created by G-d. Furthermore, they differ from G-d as they are not infallible:

Angels are sometimes referred to as the "Heavenly Court," due to the fact that they administer the work of the King, G-d. That is to say, just as a King makes the plans and his court discharges them, so too G-d makes the plans and His angels discharge them. If G-d wishes to sustain or create something, He can send an angel to bring it all about (2.6).
G-d created angels so that human beings to have some kind of being they could relate to. Human beings are not allowed to "see" G-d. Only a few people, like Moses, were allowed "see" G-d. However, we all have the ability to see and experience the presence of angels.

Angels lost their prominence in Jewish belief due to the Rabbis' fearing that people would worship angels instead of G-d. Indeed they felt that this might lead to blasphemy. However, as Margolies states in his book "A Gathering of Angels (1.7, p.11):

If we view angels as parts of our own beings, we affirm that G-d needs not angels --but we mortals do. Moreover, having angels within us helps narrow the vast chasm that separates us from G-d. Angels become aspects of being to whom we can relate.According to Wayne Dosick, "Jewish tradition describes an adversarial relationship between human beings and angels. Angels are jealous of humans because we humans have free will and they do not" (1.4). In fact legend (Midrash) states that the angels did not want human beings to be created. Of course, G-d won the debate.

The Rabbis have debated on the physical form of angels. However, angels did serve as a model for humankind on earth. Their form may not necessarily be human. They are created in the image and likeness of G-d. It is believed that they have a divine essence. According to the Encyclopedia Judiaca (1.2), angels can walk upright, speak Hebrew, and can fly.

Almost every book of the the Hebrew Bible refers to angels

[CMike11]

Angels are sent on missons. In fact, the name of the angel describes the mission.

I thought this was a good explanation too.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-14.html


Tradition does not take these descriptions literally. For example,
angels are seen in visions as having one leg because they lack free
will. They are automata that are "programmed" to do the will of God.
They therefore lack the power to progress, to improve themselves.
Man's power for growth, in contrast, is described as "walking". Jewish
law calls itself "halachah", the way to walk.

In addition, the Talmud tells us that every angel has only one
mission. Their missions are their names. In most cases, that means
that they don't last long enough for their names to warrant mention.
However, some have more far-reaching missions, and their names do make
it into the Torah or the prayer book. Kabbalistic prayers said by
Chassidic and Sepharadic Jews sometimes have names that are only to be
looked at, not read. But the most comonly cited names include:
* Refael: God Heals
* Michael (pronounced Me-cha-el, with the /ch/ like in the name
"Bach"): Who is Like God
* Uriel: God is My Light
* Gabriel: God is my strength with conotations of strength of
character, ability to resist and to stand firm. Not so much power
or force.
* HaSatan: the Challenger (he- is a prefix meaning "the"), the angel
who serves God by giving man challenges that he must resolve in
the right way. Making the choice of good over evil a choice. This
is different than the Christian notion of Satan and the Devil.

[CMike11]

I know that they are God's messengers, but on what do you base the statement that they can't decide between doing good and bad

Because they have no free will. They are messengers. They are responsible for carrying out their mission.


This interesting too
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-Judaism-952/Hello-2.htm

As far as the angelic beings themselves are concerned, there are many different kinds and forms. Each one has its specific goal and purpose for being created. A major principle in Judaism, is that whereas angels and other spiritual beings are not given free will, a human being is. It is for this reason that we were given the Torah, and not them. There is a story brought down of how the angels complained to G-d about the fact that He was giving the Torah to the humans. Their complaint seems logical at first glance: why give the highest form of G-dly intellect, which is also blueprint for creation, to human beings who are in a physical realm and in a physical form made of 'clay'- a state which is largely impure and not fit for G-dliness (at least on the apparent surface.)

HaShem 'turned' to Moshe Rabeinu (Moses) and instructed him to answer them. Moshe answered with a list of questions in return: The Torah speaks of not committing murder, adultery, theft, jealousy etc. Do you angels have a Yetzter Hora (Evil Inclination) that the Torah has to warn you about these things? Also, it speaks of G-d's taking the Jews out of Egypt- were you enslaved there, and did He take you out with wonders and miracles...?' Moshe went on speaking to them in this way, and in the end the angels agreed with him and even 'gave him gifts'.

While it is certainly possible for a man to journey through the angelic spheres, this is not the main purpose of creation- this is like sprinkles on the surface (though this can be a byproduct of, and an accessory to, G-dly service with true devotion and sincerity.) The sheer pleasure and bliss of a true G-dly connection with our Creator Himself, would overshadow any spiritual experience in this world in such a dramatic way that one would call out as the great Rabbi, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi once said 'I don't want your Gan Eden, I don't want your Olam Haba (World to come), all I want is you yourself (you alone)'

A deeper understanding will explain that the true purpose of Creation is for a human being, someone who is granted free will, to choose good and to uplift the physical realm to a pure state- one that can be 'a dwelling place for G-d'. Therefore, the angels have no place at the highest point- the Torah. An angel is really just a messenger for G-d, whereas a human is the central player. Also, a human has the ability to 'move' and 'travel' between one spiritual level and another; whereas an angel is assigned to his specific state of being (there are numerous sources which address this at great length.)
On the other hand, a human being finds himself at a low level once he is introduced to this world. From the first day on earth, the person's Yetzer Hora (Evil Inclination) and their Nefesh HaBehamis (Animal Soul) are both growing and strengthening. It is through effort on ones self, in addition to help from above (which always occurs at its proper time) that one can overcome this trend and break out of the boundaries of the physical limitations that form.

[DRS]

Yeah, I know, the Jewish scripture, has a Jewish slant to it :rolleyes:

See as a servent of God my faith in the Almighty is not threatened by words see I know it is referring to angels or men but the fact is the term used is God. When you see this and then see Jesus referred to with the word God you then understand his position and how he is not the Almighty but is a servent of the Almighty

[CMike11]

See as a servent of God my faith in the Almighty is not threatened by words see I know it is referring to angels or men but the fact is the term used is God. When you see this and then see Jesus referred to with the word God you then understand his position and how he is not the Almighty but is a servent of the Almighty

Jesus was never referred to as G-D in the bible (OT). The terms that was used was not G-D.

We are talking about translations. When translating from another language the context is very important.

Such as the foot example that was given. A "Foot" can be attached to your leg or it can be a unit of measurement depending on the context.

[DRS]

Jesus was never referred to as G-D in the bible (OT). The terms that was used was not G-D.

We are talking about translations. When translating from another language the context is very important.

Such as the foot example that was given. A "Foot" can be attached to your leg or it can be a unit of measurement depending on the context.

No see what you do is honestly translate the word so people can see the title god is used others besides the Almighty, even with the word god there I know that the ones being referred to are not the Almighty

See the thing with the foot is you would not change the word you would know what is being referred to by the sentence, you can try and justify changing the words in translation to suit the jewish ideas. It seems to me that it is done in order to prevent people from learning

Who is the God?

[drmilo]

Because they can't decide between doing good and bad. They do what G-D sent them to do.

If this is true, and if God were talking to angels in Genesis 3:22 when he said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" then how can you say that the angels don't know good and evil? Man didn't know good and evil from some special power bestowed upon them when they ate the fruit -- no, he knew good and evil because he committed evil (disobedience of the word of God) and thus has now experienced both good (obedience to God) and evil (disobedience to God).

God knows good and evil because He knows all. In a sense, God experiences evil without committing it (Just as we can experience evil without committing it) and thus he knows it. Once men committed evil, they experienced it, and every one of the descendents of men would know evil, and know the effect, thus they know good and evil. Angels, according to this verse (if God were speaking to angels) also know good and evil -- and as I said, good and evil are known by experiencing it; so if the angels experienced it, they must be able to decide accordingly. Thus they have free will.

[CMike11]

If this is true, and if God were talking to angels in Genesis 3:22 when he said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" then how can you say that the angels don't know good and evil? Man didn't know good and evil from some special power bestowed upon them when they ate the fruit -- no, he knew good and evil because he committed evil (disobedience of the word of God) and thus has now experienced both good (obedience to God) and evil (disobedience to God).

God knows good and evil because He knows all. In a sense, God experiences evil without committing it (Just as we can experience evil without committing it) and thus he knows it. Once men committed evil, they experienced it, and every one of the descendents of men would know evil, and know the effect, thus they know good and evil. Angels, according to this verse (if God were speaking to angels) also know good and evil -- and as I said, good and evil are known by experiencing it; so if the angels experienced it, they must be able to decide accordingly. Thus they have free will.

I didn't say angels don't know the difference between good and evil. I stated that angels can't decide between doing good and evil because they don't have free will and they are only messengers.

[CMike11]

No see what you do is honestly translate the word so people can see the title god is used others besides the Almighty, even with the word god there I know that the ones being referred to are not the Almighty

See the thing with the foot is you would not change the word you would know what is being referred to by the sentence, you can try and justify changing the words in translation to suit the jewish ideas. It seems to me that it is done in order to prevent people from learning

Who is the God?

As far as what you said about the foot you are right. You do see the context of the sentence to determine which "foot" you are talking about, in the jewish scripture as well, you determine the context of the sentence to figure out the meaning of the word for translation.

Neither Moses nor angels were ever called god.

[DRS]

As far as what you said about the foot you are right. You do see the context of the sentence to determine which "foot" you are talking about, in the jewish scripture as well, you determine the context of the sentence to figure out the meaning of the word for translation.

Neither Moses nor angels were ever called god.

They were called Elohim a word which translated in English is done as God

now when Jehovah to Moses I will make you as God to pharoah we know He did not mean an object of worship

And when Jehovah said regarding the messiah he would be made a little lower than the godlike ones, he was not saying the angels were to be worshipped either

Now about that question in hebrew when it refers to the God who is it referring to?

[DispensationalJim]

They were called Elohim a word which translated in English is done as God

now when Jehovah to Moses I will make you as God to pharoah we know He did not mean an object of worship

And when Jehovah said regarding the messiah he would be made a little lower than the godlike ones, he was not saying the angels were to be worshipped either

Now about that question in hebrew when it refers to the God who is it referring to?

I just did a word search of Hebrews, and find no "the God" there.

Would you mind giving us the reference again, DRS?

[DRS]

I just did a word search of Hebrews, and find no "the God" there.

Would you mind giving us the reference again, DRS?

It is not in hebrews it is in hebrew

Ha Elohim is found in Genesis and Job

Why would I be discussing a bible book that Mike does not considered inspired?

[Reeder]

It is not in hebrews it is in hebrew

Ha Elohim is found in Genesis and Job

Why would I be discussing a bible book that Mike does not considered inspired?

Because you believe it to be the Word of God? :shrug:

[CMike11]

They were called Elohim a word which translated in English is done as God

now when Jehovah to Moses I will make you as God to pharoah we know He did not mean an object of worship

And when Jehovah said regarding the messiah he would be made a little lower than the godlike ones, he was not saying the angels were to be worshipped either

Now about that question in hebrew when it refers to the God who is it referring to?

Based on the context it doesn't mean G-D.

[DRS]

Based on the context it doesn't mean G-D.

Oh what does it mean?

[DRS]

Because you believe it to be the Word of God? :shrug:

The beauty of Hebrews is it quotes the OT so you can actually use the original like Paul did :D

[Reeder]

The beauty of Hebrews is it quotes the OT so you can actually use the original like Paul did :D

So you disregard anything that doesn't quote the OT?

[DRS]

So you disregard anything that doesn't quote the OT?

The books of Matthew through Revelation quote extensively from or refer to the books of the OT, as that was the scripture they had and held the prophecies that needed explaining

[Angryamerican]

So you disregard anything that doesn't quote the OT?

The ot is where truth began,And where there is no end to truth.

[Warrior4God]

The ot is where truth began,And where there is no end to truth.

The OT is where the truth of the messiah began and Acts depicts the transition between the old and new and the epistles show us all how to live during this administration.

[CMike11]

Oh what does it mean?

It means the translation is based on the context. In different context, it can mean different things.

[Rhapsody848]

The Trinity-means three in one-the Triune God-Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It refers to God as a Triune God and I accept the Bible's authority.

[DispensationalJim]

The Trinity-means three in one-the Triune God-Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It refers to God as a Triune God and I accept the Bible's authority.

Amen and welcome to the Hannity "Trinity" thread. You will find lots of varying views on here if you stick around and try to keep up, but I hope you will stick to your guns and continue to participate.

[DRS]

It means the translation is based on the context. In different context, it can mean different things.

Can you give me examples where Ho Elohim refers to someone besides the Almighty

[DRS]

The Trinity-means three in one-the Triune God-Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It refers to God as a Triune God and I accept the Bible's authority.

Can you tell us where the bible refers to God as a triune God?

HOpefully not using the inserted verses in the KJV in 1 John 5:7.8

[CMike11]

Can you give me examples where Ho Elohim refers to someone besides the Almighty

You gave the examples yourself, the sons of "nobles" passage, and the angels passage.

[CMike11]

The Trinity-means three in one-the Triune God-Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It refers to God as a Triune God and I accept the Bible's authority.

Just remember, that everyone in this web site agrees with everything that I write...or oughta :shhh:

[ralittlefield]

just remember, that everyone in this web site agrees with everything that i write...or oughta :shhh:

:) ;) :) ;)

[drmilo]

Just remember, that everyone in this web site agrees with everything that I write...or oughta :shhh:

I for one, agree with everything that you write. Except, of course, when I disagree.

[DispensationalJim]

Can you tell us where the bible refers to God as a triune God?

HOpefully not using the inserted verses in the KJV in 1 John 5:7.8

Obviously, DRS, you have not read the pages of opposing views on 1John 5:7-8 that have been posted in the past favoring the inclusion of that passage.

[ralittlefield]

Can you tell us where the bible refers to God as a triune God?

HOpefully not using the inserted verses in the KJV in 1 John 5:7.8

This has all been gone over many times, but .....

Yes. I believe that a triune God can be seen in the bible. Perhaps not clearly in any one verse or passage, but it is there.


It is clearly taught that there is only one true God.

Isaiah 44
6...I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

8....You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

It is also taught that Jesus is God

John 1

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


We are even told some of what he was doing in the beginning, and the things he was doing can only be done by God.

Gen 1
“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness....


He participated in the creation.

John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col 1
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.

We are also shown that the Holy Spirit is God.

Acts 5
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

If we accept the fact that there is only one God, and if we believe that the bible does not contradict itself, then I believe that we must accept the Trinity.

[Warrior4God]

This has all been gone over many times, but .....

Yes. I believe that a triune God can be seen in the bible. Perhaps not clearly in any one verse or passage, but it is there.


It is clearly taught that there is only one true God.

Isaiah 44
6...I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

8....You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

It is also taught that Jesus is God

John 1

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


We are even told some of what he was doing in the beginning, and the things he was doing can only be done by God.

Gen 1
“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness....


He participated in the creation.

John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col 1
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.

We are also shown that the Holy Spirit is God.

Acts 5
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

If we accept the fact that there is only one God, and if we believe that the bible does not contradict itself, then I believe that we must accept the Trinity.

I believe that many times when The Holy Spirit is mentioned it is refering to God who is Holy and who is Spirit.


In other words its refering to The Holy Spirit and not holy spirit.

[DispensationalJim]

I believe that many times when The Holy Spirit is mentioned it is refering to God who is Holy and who is Spirit.


In other words its refering to The Holy Spirit and not holy spirit.

So, Warrior, are you saying that the Bible could have said, "God the Holy Spirit" just like we Trinitarians often say it?

[Warrior4God]

So, Warrior, are you saying that the Bible could have said, "God the Holy Spirit" just like we Trinitarians often say it?

If I follow what your saying (not sure if I am)then absolutely.

[ralittlefield]

I believe that many times when The Holy Spirit is mentioned it is refering to God who is Holy and who is Spirit.


In other words its refering to The Holy Spirit and not holy spirit.

Maybe many times, but not always. Take a look at John 14 for example:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.


Beautiful verse for this thread!

Jesus will ask the Father, and the Father will send the Holy Spirit. All three person are mentioned.

[CMike11]

I for one, agree with everything that you write. Except, of course, when I disagree.

That's okay, you can't be right all the time :D

[drmilo]

That's okay, you can't be right all the time :D

That's okay, as long as I'm never left.

[DRS]

This has all been gone over many times, but .....

Yes. I believe that a triune God can be seen in the bible. Perhaps not clearly in any one verse or passage, but it is there.


It is clearly taught that there is only one true God.

Isaiah 44
6...I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

8....You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

It is also taught that Jesus is God

John 1

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


We are even told some of what he was doing in the beginning, and the things he was doing can only be done by God.

Gen 1
“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness....


He participated in the creation.

John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col 1
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.

We are also shown that the Holy Spirit is God.

Acts 5
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

If we accept the fact that there is only one God, and if we believe that the bible does not contradict itself, then I believe that we must accept the Trinity.

you seem to try to string things together omitting even parts of verses

John 1:1 in the original greek shows differences between the two instances of God there

Other scriptures refer to others as God, Moses, Angels, Satan, the belly

We see from other passages angels were present at creation

It aslo things were created through Jesus and this coincides with Proverbs 8:22-31

The holy spirit does not have a name, all persons in the bible have names, and sinning against the holy spirit is seen in the OT also

The triune god does not appear in scripture it is not mentioned until some time after the death of the last eye witness of Jesus, John

The bible is clear Jehovah alone is Most High

Messiah was anointed by and a servent of the Most High

Jesus is referred to only as son of the Most and his rule is described prophetically as princely

[Warrior4God]

Maybe many times, but not always. Take a look at John 14 for example:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.


Beautiful verse for this thread!

Jesus will ask the Father, and the Father will send the Holy Spirit. All three person are mentioned.

Beautiful verse for this thread!........I agree.

Does not prove a trinity though

[DispensationalJim]

...
John 1:1 in the original greek shows differences between the two instances of God there
...


Wow, DRS! You actually have THE ORIGINAL GREEK text of the whole NT? That is amazing. Where did you find it? Scholars have been digging for it for some 2,000 years.

Actually, the last I checked, the oldest manuscript of any NT books was known as P46 (dated around AD 200), which was a partial papyri of a small portion of John. Maybe you have that!?

I am so proud to know you, DRS. You must be rich. That P46 is worth some serious bucks, I think.

[DRS]

I'd share it with you but it would shake your we KJV only :D

[ralittlefield]

I'd share it with you but it would shake your we KJV only :D

How about addressing his point: You do not have access to the original Greek

[Koushi Shinigami]

*lurk*

[ralittlefield]

you seem to try to string things together omitting even parts of verses

I am looking at the whole of scripture. I do not believe that you have a problem with that.

John 1:1 in the original greek shows differences between the two instances of God there

First, as DJ has pointed out, you do not have access to the original Greek.

Second, please elaborate. If you are referring to the absence of the definite article in the second instance of theos in John 1:1, please explain why it appears 5 other times in that chapter (6, 12, 13 and twice in 18) but is not translated "a god".

Other scriptures refer to others as God, Moses, Angels, Satan, the belly

Please quit beating this dead horse. None of your above example are attributed with qualities of Jehovah. Jesus is. He is the creator, He forgives sin, He gives life.

We see from other passages angels were present at creation

Are you saying that Jesus is an angel, or that angels participated in the creation?

It aslo things were created through Jesus and this coincides with Proverbs 8:22-31

Not sure what you are trying to say here

The holy spirit does not have a name, all persons in the bible have names, and sinning against the holy spirit is seen in the OT also

Other than your opinion that He should have one, explain why the Holy Spirit must have a name that you can know.

The triune god does not appear in scripture it is not mentioned until some time after the death of the last eye witness of Jesus, John

I disagree, and believe that I have shown you why in my previous post.

The bible is clear Jehovah alone is Most High

You got this one right.

Messiah was anointed by and a servent of the Most High

I assume that your point is that God is not a servant. If not, please elaborate. If so, I refer you to Phil 2

Jesus is referred to only as son of the Most and his rule is described prophetically as princely

Please elaborate. (How can you sayONLY son of the Most (High?)

[ralittlefield]

*lurk*

You are welcome as a lurker, or to join in. Care to share a comment or thought?

[Koushi Shinigami]

You are welcome as a lurker, or to join in. Care to share a comment or thought?

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.

Already made my meaningful contribution to this. I'm done. Ring around the rosey makes me dizzy.

[DRS]

How about addressing his point: You do not have access to the original Greek

No we have access to the oldest greek manuscripts, now basically your also admitting you do not have access to the original

Now what is there in the oldest greek is a difference between the two instances of God so address that

[DRS]

First, as DJ has pointed out, you do not have access to the original Greek.

Second, please elaborate. If you are referring to the absence of the definite article in the second instance of theos in John 1:1, please explain why it appears 5 other times in that chapter (6, 12, 13 and twice in 18) but is not translated "a god".



are two instances of God in those scrpitures and finally is the God translated as a god in john 1:1

[DRS]

Please quit beating this dead horse. None of your above example are attributed with qualities of Jehovah. Jesus is. He is the creator, He forgives sin, He gives life.





Created through Jesus

And who gave Jesus the authority to forgive sins?

[DRS]

Are you saying that Jesus is an angel, or that angels participated in the creation?


Jesus is not the Most high God so what else would he be in heaven?

[DRS]

I assume that your point is that God is not a servant. If not, please elaborate. If so, I refer you to Phil 2



you mean where Jesus gave no consideration to taking by force something that did not belong to him?

[DRS]

Please elaborate. (How can you sayONLY son of the Most (High?)

If your of the Most High you are not the most high

You can be a prince or a great prince, high priest but you are not the most high

[Warrior4God]

If your of the Most High you are not the most high

You can be a prince or a great prince, high priest but you are not the most high

Pure logic.

[ralittlefield]

If your of the Most High you are not the most high

You can be a prince or a great prince, high priest but you are not the most high


Unless the Trinity is true. And I believe that it is.

[ralittlefield]

you mean where Jesus gave no consideration to taking by force something that did not belong to him?


I do not see how that fits the context of the passage.

The context of the passage is a lesson in humility:

Phil 2
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Now in that context, for Christ to not hold onto a position that He was entitled to is an example of humility.

Rather than hold on to that position, the passage tells us that he gave it up to serve us:

Phip 2

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!

That is an example of humility and fits the context of the passage.


What you propose, on the other hand would be an example of honesty, but not humility.


To not take something that does not belong to you is an honest (but not humble) thing to do.

I realize that this does not fit your theology, but don't you honestly see how it fits what the text is saying.

[Warrior4God]

Unless the Trinity is true. And I believe that it is.

The thing your missing that what DRS has posted shows that the trinity is not true ,IMO of course

[ralittlefield]

The thing your missing that what DRS has posted shows that the trinity is not true ,IMO of course

Actually, what DRS posted puts human limits on God.

If you are comfortable saying that something is not possible with God, because it does not fit human ideas of how things should be, then go for it, and you are welcome to it. I choose not to put my limitations on God.

[ralittlefield]

Jesus is not the Most high God so what else would he be in heaven?

So you believe that he has to be either an angel or the Most High? I can go with that!

Angels are created beings and Col 1 says that Christ created them, so unless he created himself, he can not be an angel. So that leaves only one choice.

[ralittlefield]

are two instances of God in those scrpitures and finally is the God translated as a god in john 1:1

Yes. John 1:18 has two instances of God.

Back that that "the" God thing again?

[ralittlefield]

No we have access to the oldest greek manuscripts, now basically your also admitting you do not have access to the original

Now what is there in the oldest greek is a difference between the two instances of God so address that

There are two instances of God in verse 18 also. Both instances are translated God.