- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 09 2008,18:15) Hi E,
Is he his own god?
Jn20 does not seem to say so.
He said he was returning to his God and ours.Should we not listen to and follow him?
Or are these DIVINES you elevate good enough?
answer the question N… yes or no… dos the scripture say Jesus is “God”Hi E,
Rather than enter your realm of confusion it would be better to worship the God of our Lord Jesus.
Being called god does not command such things.
Jesus said scripture calls men gods.
We do not worship men.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 10 2008,04:42) Hi E,
Rather than enter your realm of confusion it would be better to worship the God of our Lord Jesus.
Being called god does not command such things.
Jesus said scripture calls men gods.
We do not worship men.that's what I thought, you can't answer a simple straightforward question, can you Nick? Thus, your complicated man-made theologies have confused your mind, and you cannot bring yourself to admit that the simple truth that the Bible says Jesus is God.
John 1:1 (ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
blessings,
KenHi E,
You seem to draw some remarkable conclusions from scripture.
Of course these are not teachings but just personal conclusions.
We should really just keep it simple and learn from what is taught there.1Cor.8:
…and that there is no other God except One.
5 For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords,
6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.
7 But not in all is there this knowledge.EPPY,
Quote I “played”, and you still don't seem happy.
No, I'm glad someone finally responded.Quote By saying “All the firsts and lasts” I was referring to your selection of various passages throughout the NT where “first” is used of Jesus…. I highly doubt that John wanted his readers to think of all these rather different uses of the term, eg “first born”, “first fruits” etc when he used a standard phrase “first and last”. If he had wanted his readers to think “first fruit” or “firstborn” when he wrote “first and last”, it seems rather strange that he didn't just write “firstborn” or “firs fruits” etc. When he is referred to as “first fruits” we notice it is also in connection with his death:
However, now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the FIRSTFRUITS OF THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP [IN DEATH]. For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. (1 cor 15:20-22)Sure, we have the one scripture where “first” or “firstborn” is applied to Jesus in another sense. But even in that passage, note what we find further down:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, that he might become the one who is first in all things; (1 cor 1:15-18)
WHEN CHRIST IS REFERRED TO AS FIRST IN SCRIPTURE, IT IS USUALLY WITH REFERENCE TO HIM BEING THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, the first to be resurrected to immortal life, never to die again.
This is how THE BIBLE describes Jesus as being first.REVELATION 1:5
“and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD,”. . . “
ACTS 26:23
“Christ was to suffer and, as the FIRST to be RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD, . . .”“
1 CORINTHIANS 15:20
“Christ has been RAISE UP FROM THE DEAD, THE FIRSTFRUITS of those who have fallen asleep [in death].”
COLOSSIANS 1:18
“he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the BEGINNING, THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, that he might become the one who is FIRST in all things;”So, how can we disagree with the Bible? You say that there are many meanings of Jesus being called “firstborn” or “firstfruits.”
He is the FIRSTFRUITS of those who have fallen asleep in death. (ie: This refers to him in exactly the way I describe.)
The majority of texts where he is called “first” have to do with his death.AND, HERE'S THE KICKER!
If we look in the context of the verse in question, IT DOES THIS TOO! Case closed!WE have a number of other scriptures (the majority) that show that is how Jesus is described in the Bible as “first.”
So we have the context of the actual verse.I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hádes.”
Unless you have a basket full of scriptures somewhere that I don't know about, and you can also convince me that it's a COINCIDENCE THAT THE SCRIPTURE GOES ON TO MENTION JESUS DEATH, along with the OTHER APPARENT COINCIDENCE OF REVELATION 2:8 also doing that:
“These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life [again],”
then I'm really not sure what your argument is, or what evidence you have to the contrary. I don't think you did quote a list of scriptures showing Jesus being called “first” in some other way did you?
Quote So you can list how other Scriptures demonstrate Him to be first in various ways, but if you leave out “first and last”, then you are leaving out the very text that sparked this whole discussion, and have strayed from the text of Scripture itself to proof text your way around the bible and around the point at hand, that a phrase reserved for God alone is applied to Jesus. So you have nothing then? You're just going to keep saying that Rev 2:8 and Rev 1:17,18 is a coincidence that they say:
“the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead,”
and
“‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead”
so, this is just a weird coincidence?
Eppy, you didn't have to look very far for a clue:
REVELATION 1:5
“and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD,”. . . “Another coincidence perhaps? Do you think the Bible is conspiring to make it appear as if Jesus being the first was somehow connected to his death. hmmm.
Quote Of course “I am” is a very common phrase. But when Jesus used it in Jn 8:58, clearly the Pharisees were not getting upset over nothing, certainly not about Jesus using a very common verb!
Could it be that he was saying he was older than Abraham? Wouldn't that illicit some shock? If we had a politician on TV today say that he was older than Abraham Lincoln, do you think they'd not react? (And of course I did not say nor imply that anyone was getting upset over the verb! If I say: “I am a thousand years old” and someone reacts, would you think they're reacting to the “I am” part?
IT WASN'T A SECRET CODE. IT MEANT WHAT IT MEANS THE OTHER 10,000 TIMES!Quote You seem to be getting a lot of mileage, or at least seem to think there is something terribly important about human kings being refereed to as “king of kings”.
No, there's about many good examples. This is the one I most often remember. It's an unusual title or phrase. Apparently, it proves that if two people are called the same title, it doesn't mean they are the same person. Yet, you believe it does. This, disproves it. And you can say: “That's in the OT, so it doesn't count.” Well, I thought “all scripture was inspired of God….” (2 tim 3:16) What it and other similar scriptures DOES prove, is that you can't just consider two people to be the same person because they have the same title.Quote As far as addressing your original point(s), I did. The reasons were listed in the earlier post. Just because the same word “first” appears in the phrases “first and last” as well as in phrases like “firstborn of the dead” and
“first fruits of the resurrection” etc etc, it does not follow that when we see “first and last” we should automatically think “firstborn of the dead” or whatever other phrase you can think of where the word 'first” is used in reference to Jesus.
Go read the whole scripture. I'll wait. Read Rev 2:8 also. (The whole scripture.) Or, read a few verses before the scripture in question: Rev 1:5
I believe it is definitely up to you or anyone else to prove that these are just weird coincidences. Why do you think they both have these phrases right after being called the first and last?Quote While there may be a connection between Jesus being the “first and last” and the fact that BOTH Jesus RAISED HIMSELF from the dead and God the Father raised Him, what I am saying is that you are trying to obliterate the differences and ignore the significance
that phrase “first and last” has, in and of itself.SHOULDN'T THE CONTEXT HAVE SOME BEARING ON WHAT THE PHRASE MEANS? I mean, the OT when God is called first and last, it is usually very clearly in reference to his Godship, or he being king of eternity, right? He being God, has always existed and will always exist–first and last. The context usually explains.
Yet, in this case, you want to ignore the context of Rev 1:17,18 and Rev 2:8.WHY?
Quote “first and last” has, in and of itself, tremendous theological significance, and this is something JW's just don't want to consider,
Ya, we're just too busy looking at what the actual scripture says… those pesky words. That annoying context!Quote Lastly, perhaps Trinitarians were not responding because it is simply Friday afternoon/night, people have lives outside of heaven's net, and they just were not around. In any case, it does not seem to me that your points were necessarily difficult to counter.
If you go back, I think you'll see that I asked someone to respond, not once, but many times over a much longer period. The “Alpha/Omega” trinity proof, being considered by Is 1:18 and others I've talked to as being one of the most strong trinity proofs, I'd think it something people would have wanted to discuss. As it turns out, they don't.As for my points, which you still haven't answered: (Are these just bizarre coincidences? If so, why are those phrases put after “first and last” in those cases? And why do you think context isn't important?)
david
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 10 2008,05:13) Hi E,
You seem to draw some remarkable conclusions from scripture.
Of course these are not teachings but just personal conclusions.
We should really just keep it simple and learn from what is taught there.
You seem to draw some remarkable conclusions yourself Nick, but your problem is, you can't see that you are drawing conclusions, you just equate “Nick's word” with “God's word”… in your mind, they are the very same thing.Quote JESUS IS CALLED THE “FIRST AND THE LAST” IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY AND FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS THAN JEHOVAH IS CALLED THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE FIRST AND LAST. AND, WHAT'S MORE, THE CONTEXT, AND THE REST OF THE BIBLE IS ASTOUNDINGLY CLEAR ON WHY BOTH JESUS AND GOD ARE FIRST AND LAST IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RESPECTS. Anyone disagree?
I should rephrase this:
Does anyone disagree who can back it up with scriptural support?Quote Secondly, your quotation of Rev. 1:17-18 says that “first” means “firstborn”, this isn't the case. You said
Quote
“And when I saw him [referring to Jesus], I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First [“First,” א?VgSyh; A, “Firstborn.”] and the Last,Yes, “first” does not mean firstborn. True. It wasn't clear at all, my post. I think the Alexandrine Manuscript does have “firstborn.” I should have made it more clear. It doesn't matter. I'm just explaining what that post meant.
On page 540 of trinity thread, Is 1:18 stated:
Quote
“The 'First and Last', 'Alpha and Omega' verses are the strongest possible proof that Yahshua claimed to be God (YHWH), as this is a title that YHWH exclusively reserves for Himself. “It's only strong proof if you ignore the context of many scriptures and forget how the message was presented and who it was presented through.
It is because of words like the above, that I am confused as to why people actually believe in the trinity. I've heard those words before. But for such a strong proof, few wish to discuss it.
And why must we go to a highly symbolic book with a message related to someone and then given to someone else (so that there are a few speaking) to find the strongest proof?
I would think, the strongest proof would be clear.
The Revelation of JESUS CHRIST, which GOD GAVE TO 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:
Clearly, with all these passing on the message so to speak, we have room for confusion as to who is speaking and whose words are being said. In the introduction and closing, they all seem to say something.
I would actually really like a reply to my post on the previous page. Eppy, I know you did reply previously to what I said, but it's the questions I asked that I wonder about.
david I had spent literally hours on a post to you and I posted it, or thought I had anyway…. perhaps I had just written it in the reply field and then the page was refreshed or something, in any case, apparently the post is lost…. so I will have to try and write something close to it again, the most important point of it was that there is indeed much scriptural support for the title being a title of preeminence, and that the OT scriptures where the word is used as a title, led me to believe that in John's case, as well as Paul's, that when they used the title they had an eye towards the way the term was used in the OT. But, I will try and rewrite and re-do all the research I had put into that post and get it to you as soon as I can… that'll teach me for not writing in Word…
blessings,
KenQuote the most important point of it was that there is indeed much scriptural support for the title being a title of preeminence, Well, you can say that Jesus replied “I am” before Abraham, and that you have other supposed trinity proofs, which make you look at this scripture in that light.
BUT, you can't say that this scripture is actual proof that Jesus is God Almighty. And, therefore, this actual scripture, isn't any real proof in itself, and therefore isn't some of the strongest proof of the trinity, as certain ones attest.
Because the context of the actual scripture, the context of a very closely worded scripture (Rev 2:8) and several other scriptures that point to Jesus being first all convey the same thought, and one that doesn't support your ideas.
Quote and that the OT scriptures where the word is used as a title, led me to believe that in John's case, as well as Paul's, that when they used the title they had an eye towards the way the term was used in the OT.
First, so we are allowed to compare the whole Bible. The whole Bible is valid. Good.If your response is simply to ignore the context and my questions and keep saying that other verses prove “first and last” apply to Jesus in another way, this will demonstrate that the Alpha/Omega,First/Last scriptures aren't quite as strong as many believed.
david
Quote I had spent literally hours on a post to you
Thankyou for the time. I hate it when stuff like that happens.https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=1067;st=400
Eppy was going to discuss this with me and said he wrote out a very long post, but somehow lost it. He never did reply. No one seems to want to.
Quote (david @ Nov. 11 2008,22:26) Quote JESUS IS CALLED THE “FIRST AND THE LAST” IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY AND FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS THAN JEHOVAH IS CALLED THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE FIRST AND LAST. AND, WHAT'S MORE, THE CONTEXT, AND THE REST OF THE BIBLE IS ASTOUNDINGLY CLEAR ON WHY BOTH JESUS AND GOD ARE FIRST AND LAST IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RESPECTS. Anyone disagree?
I should rephrase this:
Does anyone disagree who can back it up with scriptural support?
Hi David,
I agree with you that the title “the first and the last” can refer to two different beings. I believe that if something is said to be the first and the last it could simply mean that they are an “only” one of that type, unique, an original. For instance, God the Father is not a God that is ever referred to as being a “firstborn” since He always existed and the only one that always existed and also the only source of all things. He is a first and last of His type. Then, the Son is also a first and last of His type. As I understand the Son, He is the only God that is said to be a firstborn and the only begotten of the Father. He is God because He was begotten of God, the only begotten of God and what does God beget…well, what does man beget…man, right? So God begets God. Both unique and if unique, a one of a kind…an always existent God-the Father and an only begotten God-a Son.If I had one child and the child was a boy I could say that he was the first one and the last one. I know that this is a simple way of looking at it. What do you think?
LUQuote If I had one child and the child was a boy I could say that he was the first one and the last one. I know that this is a simple way of looking at it. What do you think? Yes, I think the context of that very verse explains what it means, along with other verses that show how Jesus is first and last.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
