- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2012,10:10) Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2012,08:55) The God of gods (the Father) AND the Lord of lords (the Son) are both referred to as theos in the NT.
And how does your understanding fit in with 1 Timothy 6:15, where it is the Father who is called “the Lord of lords”?You are simply trying to FORCE scriptures like Deuteronomy 10:17 to speak of TWO, when it is clear throughout scripture that the Most High God is ONE, and that ONE has a Son named Jesus.
It is not a matter of semantics, Kathi, but a matter of you showing a total disregard for what the scriptures actually teach just because you WANT them to teach something else.
Mike,
Where does it say “Father” in 1 Timothy 6:15? This could very well be speaking of the unity who is God of gods and Lord of lords.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2012,13:31) Quote (bodhitharta @ June 30 2012,16:33) Jesus is clearly saying he is not the son of David. What you also fail to understand is the usage of the word son usually meant “servant” You have the right idea, but the wrong word. The word in Acts 4:30 is “pais”, which means “boy”, and is often used of servants. Have you ever heard in a Mexican restaurant, “More water paison”? Those who say this are literally calling the waiter a “boy”, with the meaning of servant. Sort of like, “I'll send the boy up with your bags, sir” – only he's not talking about his literal son when he says this. He is talking about one of his servants.
Anyway, the word used in Mark 12:37 and Matthew 22:44 is “huios”, which is not used to refer to servants, but to actual sons.
Quote (bodhitharta @ June 30 2012,16:33) My point exactly he is receiving the throne of another man who was also called “son of God” and his son Solomon was also called “son of God” Slomon however was literally and directly the son of David and literally his seed. Jesus was not born through an act of intercourse nd David certainly was not his Father except in expression of a servant of God
Jesus is literally of the ancestry of David – according to the flesh – because his mother was Mary. The geneaologies are recorded in Matthew and Luke.
No, you made the only important aspect the point I was making. Ancestry certainly doesn't literally designate anyone as an actual parent because theoretically all humans alive are children of Adam from that viewpoint.That would make Jesus the Son of Adam and Adam was the son of God so therefore Jesu would be the son of God in the same way Adam was called the son of God in geneology
The genealogy of Christ Jesus in Luke 3:23-38 ends with Jesus and starts with Adam which was the son of God.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2012,22:33) Mike,
Who is the begotten theos?Was the begotten theos nailed to a cross?
The begotten god is the Son of the ONE and ONLY Most High God.And yes, the only begotten god died on a tree. But the ONE and ONLY Most High God Jehovah, who created the heavens, the earth, and everything in them, did not.
God so loved the world that He sent His Son, knowing he would be put to death for our sins. He did not come Himself to die.
So the only begotten god was used as a sacrificial lamb by his own God and Savior.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2012,22:37) Mike,
Where does it say “Father” in 1 Timothy 6:15? This could very well be speaking of the unity who is God of gods and Lord of lords.
Isn't it you who says “context is king”, Kathi?1 Timothy 6
14 keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.Does the context tell us that “God the Son”, who doesn't even know the day or the hour, will bring about his own appearing in his own time? (Compare with Hebrews 1:6, where it is GOD who will “bring His Son into the world” the second time.)
Does the context, which talks about a God no one has seen or can see speak of “God the Son”, whom thousands of people had seen?
Quote (bodhitharta @ June 30 2012,23:29) No, you made the only important aspect the point I was making. Ancestry certainly doesn't literally designate anyone as an actual parent because theoretically all humans alive are children of Adam from that viewpoint.
And?
Asana, we are all sons and daughters of Noah, and in turn, Adam. The Jews are all sons and daughters of Abraham.
God sent His Son, born of a woman. (Gal 4:4) That woman was of the ancestry of David, meaning she was a daughter of David. That means any son she gave birth to was a son of David, and in turn, a son of Abraham, Noah, and Adam.
Quote (bodhitharta @ July 01 2012,00:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2012,13:31) Quote (bodhitharta @ June 30 2012,16:33) Jesus is clearly saying he is not the son of David. What you also fail to understand is the usage of the word son usually meant “servant” You have the right idea, but the wrong word. The word in Acts 4:30 is “pais”, which means “boy”, and is often used of servants. Have you ever heard in a Mexican restaurant, “More water paison”? Those who say this are literally calling the waiter a “boy”, with the meaning of servant. Sort of like, “I'll send the boy up with your bags, sir” – only he's not talking about his literal son when he says this. He is talking about one of his servants.
Anyway, the word used in Mark 12:37 and Matthew 22:44 is “huios”, which is not used to refer to servants, but to actual sons.
Quote (bodhitharta @ June 30 2012,16:33) My point exactly he is receiving the throne of another man who was also called “son of God” and his son Solomon was also called “son of God” Slomon however was literally and directly the son of David and literally his seed. Jesus was not born through an act of intercourse nd David certainly was not his Father except in expression of a servant of God
Jesus is literally of the ancestry of David – according to the flesh – because his mother was Mary. The geneaologies are recorded in Matthew and Luke.
No, you made the only important aspect the point I was making. Ancestry certainly doesn't literally designate anyone as an actual parent because theoretically all humans alive are children of Adam from that viewpoint.That would make Jesus the Son of Adam and Adam was the son of God so therefore Jesu would be the son of God in the same way Adam was called the son of God in geneology
The genealogy of Christ Jesus in Luke 3:23-38 ends with Jesus and starts with Adam which was the son of God.
BD,
And then there is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. This one isn't just one of the billions…He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, aka ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD of who…GOD!Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2012,09:55) Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2012,22:33) Mike,
Who is the begotten theos?Was the begotten theos nailed to a cross?
The begotten god is the Son of the ONE and ONLY Most High God.And yes, the only begotten god died on a tree. But the ONE and ONLY Most High God Jehovah, who created the heavens, the earth, and everything in them, did not.
God so loved the world that He sent His Son, knowing he would be put to death for our sins. He did not come Himself to die.
So the only begotten god was used as a sacrificial lamb by his own God and Savior.
Mike,
In this scripture, how many 'theos' are on the throne in this passage since you agree that the Son is the ony begotten theos and you know that He is also called the Lamb.Rev 22:1Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 2in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him;
How many Mike, one or two or more??
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2012,10:03) Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2012,22:37) Mike,
Where does it say “Father” in 1 Timothy 6:15? This could very well be speaking of the unity who is God of gods and Lord of lords.
Isn't it you who says “context is king”, Kathi?1 Timothy 6
14 keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.Does the context tell us that “God the Son”, who doesn't even know the day or the hour, will bring about his own appearing in his own time? (Compare with Hebrews 1:6, where it is GOD who will “bring His Son into the world” the second time.)
Does the context, which talks about a God no one has seen or can see speak of “God the Son”, whom thousands of people had seen?
Mike,
People saw Jesus according to the flesh. Paul couldn't see Jesus on the road to Damascus because He was surrounded by inapproachable light. No one has seen the Father with the Son…as a unity.Context is king and God, the Father specifically is not written in this context. Whenever it is not designated as such, theos may be Jesus, the Father, or both together with their Spirit as the fullness of God. In Timothy 6:15, it could mean the fullness of God and a member within that fullness does know when He is sending His Son again.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2012,23:29) Mike,
In this scripture, how many 'theos' are on the throne in this passage since you agree that the Son is the ony begotten theos and you know that He is also called the Lamb.
Your question is flawed because you think John speaks of one throne. He speaks of the throne of God and [the throne] of the Lamb.Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2012,23:38) Mike,
People saw Jesus according to the flesh. Paul couldn't see Jesus on the road to Damascus because He was surrounded by inapproachable light.
Yet Stephen was able to see heaven opened up, and Jesus sitting at the right hand of THE GLORY OF God. He could see Jesus, but not God.And 1 Tim speaks of the Father as the Lord of lords.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2012,16:17) Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2012,23:29) Mike,
In this scripture, how many 'theos' are on the throne in this passage since you agree that the Son is the ony begotten theos and you know that He is also called the Lamb.
Your question is flawed because you think John speaks of one throne. He speaks of the throne of God and [the throne] of the Lamb.
Mike,
The word 'throne' is singular. They are both together, on one throne.See Gill:
but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; God himself will be there, his tabernacle will be among men; the name of this city will be “Jehovah Shammah”, the Lord is here; the pure and spotless Lamb of God, the Son of the Blessed, will be here, whose presence will make it an happy state; these will both have their throne, or seat, here; they will sit on one throne, being the one God over all, blessed for ever; this city will be the city of the great King, where his royal glory and majesty will be most illustriously displayed, and which will greatly make for the felicity of this state, and secure it from the curse:
and his servants shall serve him: either the angels, who are ministering spirits, and the servants of God and of the Lamb; or the ministers of the Gospel, the servants of the most high God; or rather all the true followers of Christ, who shall be where he is, and “serve him”: both God and the Lamb, who are one in nature, though two distinct persons; wherefore serving them both is not serving two masters: and the service the saints will be employed in, in this state, will not be preaching the word, or attending on the ministry of it, or subjecting to ordinances, which will now be at an end, but celebrating the praises of God, adoring the perfections of his nature, ascribing the glory of every providence, and of all salvation to him, and magnifying the riches of his grace; and this they will perform in the most spiritual, fervent, and perfect manner, and that continually;
So, Mike, nice try but the word is singular. That makes two distinct theos who sit on the one throne of God and together reign as one.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2012,16:20) Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2012,23:38) Mike,
People saw Jesus according to the flesh. Paul couldn't see Jesus on the road to Damascus because He was surrounded by inapproachable light.
Yet Stephen was able to see heaven opened up, and Jesus sitting at the right hand of THE GLORY OF God. He could see Jesus, but not God.And 1 Tim speaks of the Father as the Lord of lords.
Mike,Stephen saw Jesus as the 'Son of Man.' Stephen also prayed to Jesus there, btw.
Also, Stephen saw Jesus and God.
55But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
1 Tim speaks of the fullness of God which is the Father, Son and their Spirit.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 02 2012,18:32) So, Mike, nice try but the word is singular. That makes two distinct theos who sit on the one throne of God and together reign as one.
Matthew 23:25
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.Is Jesus talking about the outside of a cup AND the outside of a dish? Or is the cup and dish a unity, and there is only one “outside” of this unity? Perhaps it means, “the outside of the cup and [the outside] of the dish”, huh?
Mark 2:18
And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast………..I know that “disciples” is a plural word, but it should be clear that this is speaking of two separate groups. It means “the disciples of John, and [the disciples] of the Pharisees”, right?
Mark 12:13
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.This means “certain of the Pharisees and [certain] of the Herodians”, because two groups of people are being sent from.
Luke 12:56
“Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time?Surely the face of the earth is not the face of the sky, right? Surely Jesus meant “the face of the sky and [the face] of the earth”, right?
Kathi, there are dozens more examples just like this in scripture. You're focusing so hard on a common figure of speech that you think is some “loophole”, that you've completely glossed over the fact that one of the people mentioned the scriptures you posted is “GOD”, while the other one is His sacrificial Lamb. How can you gloss over the fact that Jesus said he would grant to sit on HIS OWN throne those who overcame? Do you think those who overcome will sit on the very throne of God and rule from there with Him?
Please acknowledge that you understood my examples, and recognize that this is just a manner of speaking. Surely you are aware that TWO thrones are mentioned in Revelation – one for Jesus and one for his God, right? And surely you can understand that John was saying “the throne of God and [the throne] of the Lamb”, right?
Mike,
Your 'examples' are not comparable to the verse in Rev 22 regarding the throne. A better comparison would require a place (singular) of person 1 and of person 2 that is proven that the place is not shared by both person 1 and person 2 but each person has their own place. Like this verse…how many homes are being talked about and do Simon and Andrew share the place or do they each have their own place.Mark 1:29And immediately after they came out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
Does this verse mean that “they came into the house of Simon and another house of Andrew?” Or, is it saying that Simon and Andrew live in the same house?
Put your scholar cap on here Mike because the grammar in the verse in Mark is like the grammar in Rev 22.
Quote You're focusing so hard on a common figure of speech that you think is some “loophole”, that you've completely glossed over the fact that one of the people mentioned the scriptures you posted is “GOD”, while the other one is His sacrificial Lamb. Mike, you forget that the sacrificial Lamb is a theos too. When the scripture talks about Jesus as a servant, a lamb, an only begotten Son of God, it is referring to a theos who was with the theos in the beginning. If you substitute 'Lamb' with 'only begotten theos' then you see that the throne is of the theos and of the only begotten theos.
Quote Do you think those who overcome will sit on the very throne of God and rule from there with Him?
I think that those who overcome will sit on the very throne of David with the only Begotten theos. The only begotten theos is on two thrones, one with the Father, and the other with those who overcome. The throne with the Father has two theos on one throne…the theos and the only begotten theos.Mike,
Quote And surely you can understand that John was saying “the throne of God and [the throne] of the Lamb”, right? No, that is not what I understand. You do realize that Jesus is seated with the Father on His throne, right?
Rev 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
The throne is not a “chair” but a position of power and authority, which is why He could overcome and sit down with His Father on His throne (having been given all power and authority) while we can join Jesus on His “throne” of ruling and reigning (one may have several “thrones” in their lives, some shared, others… maybe not).
My opinion – Wm
Quote (Lightenup @ July 03 2012,23:51) Mark 1:29And immediately after they came out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Does this verse mean that “they came into the house of Simon and another house of Andrew?” Or, is it saying that Simon and Andrew live in the same house?
Put your scholar cap on here Mike because the grammar in the verse in Mark is like the grammar in Rev 22.
What is the context, Kathi? Imagine Mark 1:29 said, Before departing on their ministry, Simon needed to stop by his house and tell his wife goodbye, and Andrew needed to stop by his house for a change of clothes. So when they left the synagogue, they stopped by the house of Simon, and of Andrew.”
Now because the context has already spoken of separate houses, we would naturally understand that they stopped by the house of Simon, and [the house] of Andrew, right?
So what's the context of Revelation? Is there only one throne for God and His Servant? Or have we already been told that they each have their own throne?
Kathi will jump through any hoop to make Jesus “God” she will even call God a sacrificial lamb an a man although the scripture clearly states that God cannot be a man or have flesh:
Isaiah 31:3
Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.Kathi doesn't understand That Jesus was here as a Flesh and Blood “Man” neither which can be God although can obtain Godliness nd bear the image of God. But man can never be God according to the scriptures.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 03 2012,23:51) The only begotten theos is on two thrones, one with the Father, and the other with those who overcome. The throne with the Father has two theos on one throne…the theos and the only begotten theos.
Kathi,To me this is nonsensical mish-mash, driven by a person who is willing to bend her own mind in illogical ways so that her own, personal truth prevails in the end. You make it seem as if there are TWO different Jesuses, each one on a different throne; one of whom is God Almighty, and the other of whom is a servant of God Almighty.
There is but one Most High God. That One has a Son and servant named Jesus. God has a throne from which He rules, and Jesus has a throne from which he rules. For the time being, God has GRANTED His servant to sit on His own throne, until the enemies God has placed at the feet of His servant are subdued by that servant, by means of the power his God has given him.
Then comes the end, when the servant hands the reign of the Kingdom back to Him who gave him authority over that Kingdom in the first place. At that time, Jesus will be back on HIS OWN throne, while God remains on His. It is at this time, when they are each on THEIR OWN throne, that the events in the scriptures you posted take place.
Therefore, the scriptures you posted speak of a time when Jesus is back on his own throne, and the God of Jesus is on His own throne. And since we are talking of TWO thrones at this time, the meaning of Rev 22:1 and 3 is “the throne of God and [the throne] of the Lamb”.
Quote (seekingtruth @ July 04 2012,02:34) The throne is not a “chair” but a position of power and authority, which is why He could overcome and sit down with His Father on His throne (having been given all power and authority) while we can join Jesus on His “throne” of ruling and reigning (one may have several “thrones” in their lives, some shared, others… maybe not). My opinion – Wm
Hi William,
I'm glad you joined us here! I do think that a throne has to do with authority but when a throne is something that you see in a vision, I think that it is a chair with a person who holds the authority sitting on it. In Rev. it seems to be symbolic to represent a certain level of authority like you suggest and I agree that one person can sit on more than one throne because of having authority over specific things. Also, there can be more than one person with authority over the same thing like you say.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
