- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2012,12:44) John 1:18 NIV
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.That scripture is also from the NIV, Kathi, and it is probably the most nonsensical translation anyone could come up with for John 1:18. Really? No one has ever seen God, but thousands have seen “God the One and Only”?
And “God the ONE and ONLY” is at the side of God? But I thought you said he was “God the ONE and ONLY”. 
Hmmmm………………………In that post to Jeremy, I also turned him on to NETBible and NETNotes, right? I absolutely LOVE that site (which, btw, YOU turned me on to
) even though it was produced by 25 TRINITARIAN scholars. They say things like: pneuma = the third person in the Godhead Yet I still learn LOTS from these guys, and have learned to just overlook the nonsensical claims like the one above.
Similarly, I find the NIV to be written in easy to understand English – without them “babying us”, like the CEV does many times. (In all fairness, the CEV was intented to be read by 12 year olds and up.) But just because I enjoy the style of English in the NIV doesn't mean I buy into every Trinitarian slanted thing they say.
Now, would you please DIRECTLY address my three bolded questions from before, and the request for your opinion about John 9:38?
John 1:18King James Version (KJV)
18 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 NIV
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him knownOkay, so am I the only one that has a problem with these two translations being 100% different they're not even different translations they are complete switch outs of words. In what language can you make begotten son translate to God the one and only?
Hi Asana,
Some mss have “god” while others have “son”. Here is a long read about it from NETNotes:
tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
Like I just mentioned to Kathi, I learn alot from these 25 Trinitarian scholars, but certain things I must just dismiss as Trinitarian bias. For example, in their fine explanation about the varying mss, they claim that “monogenes” means “only”. That is not true. The Greek word “mono” means “only”. But they, being the Trinitarians that they are, attempt to avoid the “genes” part, which is from the Greek word “ginomai”, meaning “made”, “brought forth”, or “begotten”. They must avoid this part of the word “monogenes”, because they, being Trinitarians, don't like the implication that their God#2 was “begotten”.
NETNotes is a wonderful source for information…………. IF you are able to read between the Trinitarian lines.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2012,07:38) Hi Asana, Some mss have “god” while others have “son”. Here is a long read about it from NETNotes:
tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
Like I just mentioned to Kathi, I learn alot from these 25 Trinitarian scholars, but certain things I must just dismiss as Trinitarian bias. For example, in their fine explanation about the varying mss, they claim that “monogenes” means “only”. That is not true. The Greek word “mono” means “only”. But they, being the Trinitarians that they are, attempt to avoid the “genes” part, which is from the Greek word “ginomai”, meaning “made”, “brought forth”, or “begotten”. They must avoid this part of the word “monogenes”, because they, being Trinitarians, don't like the implication that their God#2 was “begotten”.
NETNotes is a wonderful source for information…………. IF you are able to read between the Trinitarian lines.
This is what I mean it is Bible tampering because “God” and “Son” are not comparable words if they were interchangeable we would never use the term “Son of God” as it would be easily translatable to “God of God” or “God of Son” or for that matter “Son of Son”Yeah, but who did the tampering? Was it originally “son”, and a scribe changed it to “god”? Or was it the other way around?
Surely Jesus is a “god”, according to the way the word was used in scripture. So either word could have been in the original text by John. How are we to know which one?
Mike,
Quote They must avoid this part of the word “monogenes”, because they, being Trinitarians, don't like the implication that their God#2 was “begotten”. The Trinitarian creeds mention that the Son was 'begotten before the ages' so I don't think what you said is a true reflection of the Trinitarians. You really don't have a grasp on what that doctrine teaches.
John 1:1 calls the Word 'theos' who is with the theos and so it is very likely that only 17 verses later, 'theos' is the intended word who is in the bosom of the Father, not to mention that it is in the earliest manuscripts.
Mike,
Read the difference if the comma is removed:John 1:18 NIV
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.John 1:18 NIV
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2012,20:56) Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2012,23:37) And you compare the bowing to Jesus as what is done to men?
Jesus was still a man when the disciples supposedly “worshipped” him, Kathi. All knees in heaven and earth were not yet bowing to him because his God and our God hadn't yet exalted him and GIVEN him the name above all others. So yes, during his time on earth, the bowing to show reverence to the man Jesus was the same as the bowing to show reverence to Daniel or King David.Now, by the time all knees in heaven and earth will bow to him, it will be much more significant than one man bowing before another man. At that time, we will be bowing to the King and Lord of heaven and earth, second only to his and our God.
But to whose glory is the bowing, Kathi? Is it not to the glory of “GOD, his Father”? We will be doing a service to our God and Creator by bowing before and serving the one HE appointed as our Lord and King. Just like the Hebrews did a service to God, by proxy, when they bowed to the King of Israel that He appointed over them.
Kathi, why is it that you can easily see the difference between Jesus and his servants, but not between God and His servant Jesus?
Jesus was given worship/bowed down to in a religious manner, every time as far as I can tell, unless He was being mocked by the Pharisees at the cross.Jesus was not worshiped/bowed down to in a civil manner. He was just a poor man. David was bowed down to in a civil manner because he had authority in the land, not because he was doing works of a supernatural nature like Jesus.
Also, both of them were glorified when Jesus is worshiped, not just the Father. But, because the Father is glorified when Jesus is worshiped, is proof that it is ok to worship the Father AND the Son.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2012,13:20) Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:28) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) How about those same verses in the translation I quoted? Do any of them describe people worshipping Jesus? YES or NO? Yes!
Wrong answer. The translations I showed depict men doing obeisance to Jesus, not worshiping him.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:28) Whether it is translated as obeisance or worship, it is still given in a religious sense as one would give homage to a God or idol. It doesn't matter which word is used.
So then any time in scripture where a man bowed to anyone, that man was WORSHIPPING the other man as if he was God? Try again.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:28) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Does the fact that Trinitarian translators generally render “proskuneo” as “worship” in the case of Jesus really PROVE that Jesus was worshipped by anyone? YES or NO? Yes!
Again, wrong answer.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:28) And then this: John 9:38
The healed blind man is worshiping Jesus, in a religious way, because he believes that Jesus is the Son of Man.
So it makes complete sense to you that a man worshiped Jesus as if he was God Almighty right in front of the Pharisees who had been looking for a reason to have Jesus put to death, and they did nothing to that man or to Jesus?Kathi, your posts show very clearly how what you WANT to be the truth will continue to override what the scriptures actually teach – many times with laughably illogical results.
The FACT of the matter is that the word “proskuneo” is used for either the worship of someone or something as your God…………. OR…………….. the simple act of bowing before another to show them respect or reverence. According to you, the simple Japanese act of greeting another is God-worship of that other.
You can PRETEND that “proskuneo” means worship when used of Jesus if you want to, but your PRETENSE won't make it so. Jesus himself told us who we are to worship and serve as our God. It was not him. I will do what my Lord says – you are free to do the opposite of what he says if you want to. I can't stop you.
Mike,
You are mistaken with this:Quote
Wrong answer. The translations I showed depict men doing obeisance to Jesus, not worshiping him.Whether it is obeisance or worship, it is done in a religious manner and would be violating the command of Jehovah if Jesus weren't to receive this type of obeisance or worship.
The disciples refused this type of action and so did the angel in Rev. Jesus did not refuse this religious obeisance/worship but in fact commended the action as one that demonstrated faith.
Quote The FACT of the matter is that the word “proskuneo” is used for either the worship of someone or something as your God…………. OR…………….. the simple act of bowing before another to show them respect or reverence. According to you, the simple Japanese act of greeting another is God-worship of that other. WHO RECEIVES WORSHIP?
God
Matthew 4:10 – Worship the Lord God only
Jesus
In all of these verses the NWT has replaced the word “worship” with “obeisance.”
Matthew 2:2, 11 – Magi worship Christ
Matthew 14:33 – Disciples worship Jesus
Matthew 28:9 – Mary worships Jesus
Matthew 28:16-17 – The eleven worship Jesus
John 9:38 – The healed blind man worshipped Jesus
Hebrews 1:6 – All angels worship Jesus
Revelation 5:11-14 – Millions of angels worship JesusPeople worshipped other people or angels and were rebuked for it. See Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9; Acts 10:25
What is obeisance?
Watchtower defines it as follows, “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person…” (Reasoning, p.215) Applying the Watchtower's own definition of obeisance to the verses describing people giving obeisance to Jesus, we could say that they “prostrated themselves before a god” since Jesus is “a god” in Watchtower theology. This is a clear and logical conclusion to reach by following the Watchtower's own definition of obeisance and who they believe Jesus is. Upon reaching this conclusion we need to go immediately to the following verse.
*Exodus 34:14 – For you must not prostrate yourself to another god, because Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, he is a jealous God.While the Watchtower attempts to draw the unwarranted conclusion that “obeisance” to Jesus is somehow different than worship, their own definition of obeisance leads them into clear and direct conflict with Exodus 34:14. Either Jesus is God or those rendering obeisance to him are guilty of “prostrating themselves before another god.”
This refutes the Watchtower's claim that “obeisance” to Jesus is ok because it is not worship. The Watchtower has inadvertently admitted that worship is given to Jesus in the Reasoning book p. 214. The question is stated as follows, “Does the fact that worship is given to Jesus prove that he is God?”
from: http://www.searchingthescriptures.net/main_pa….ion.htmGo ahead and laugh your head off Mike…the joke is really on you.
I said
Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:28) And then this: John 9:38
The healed blind man is worshiping Jesus, in a religious way, because he believes that Jesus is the Son of Man.you responded:
Quote So it makes complete sense to you that a man worshiped Jesus as if he was God Almighty right in front of the Pharisees who had been looking for a reason to have Jesus put to death, and they did nothing to that man or to Jesus? Now here is an example of you twisting my words to your misunderstanding of them. Look at my statement and the words that I bolded and then look at your statement and the words there that I bolded. I did not say that the healed blind man worshiped Jesus as if He was God Almighty. I said that he worshiped Jesus because he believed that He was the Son of Man.
He gave Jesus religious worship and not civil worship. Jesus accepted this. The disciples and the angel did not.
If you knew who God was in truth, you would also worship Jesus in a religious manner.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2012,13:22) Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:32) The Son naturally serves His Father. That does not mean that they are not a unity as Jehovah
Uh…….. DUH! A servant OF God is not God, Kathi. This should be common sense to anyone 3 years old and up.
Ummm Mike,
The servant of God here that you speak of, is the Lord of lords. Jehovah is both God of gods AND Lord of lords. In this unity, the Son serves His Father but the Father also serves His Son. Jehovah serves mankind. He lets rain come down on the believers and the non-believers, for example.Are you of the mindset that you serve Him but He does nothing for you??
Do you actually think that He who serves another cannot be God? Do you think that the shepherd does not serve the sheep? He takes constant care of them, Mike.
By calling the Messiah 'servant' verifies the heart of the Messiah and that He serves. It is not a derogatory or subservient term to be called a servant. Jesus said that no greater love hath no man than he that lay down his life for another.
So, as you say but back at ya, 'uh….DUH' the bigger the servant=the greater the love. Anyone watching a three year old knows that the one that is the greater servant in his home is his mom and dad, not himself.
So, the servant of the God of gods is the Lord of lords…this works both ways and would be part of a perfect unity.
You have not proved that the Father and the Son are not a unity as Jehovah just because one is the servant of the other.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2012,13:35) Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) Because Jesus' servants didn't get credit for creation (but Jesus and God do),
Wrong. He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. I've showed you MANY scriptures where Jesus is listed as someone OTHER THAN the ONE who created all things. If Jesus is not that ONE, then he has no choice but to BE one of the things created BY that ONE.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) salvation of all mankind (but Jesus and God do)
Many others are involved with the salvation of mankind (John 21:15-17)…………….. does that make them God too?Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) aren't called the 'First and the Last,' (but Jesus and God are) raise from the dead…
Good point. Death at one time had mastery over Jesus. When did death ever have mastery over God?Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) they didn't know all things (but Jesus and God do), they sinned (but Jesus and God don't), they didn't forgive
Jesus doesn't know the day and hour………… God does.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) they sinned (but Jesus and God don't),
God can't even be tempted to sin…………. Jesus was.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) they didn't forgive sins done to God (but Jesus and God do),
Yes, Jesus was GIVEN authority FROM HIS GOD to forgive sins on earth. Jesus later granted this authority to his disciples.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) they weren't qualified to remove the seals from the scroll (but Jesus was)
God is the One who holds the scroll in His hand, Kathi. Jesus is the one who was deemed worthy BY GOD to take the scroll from His hand.Can you truly not see all these differences?
You have been blinded by your own emotions, wishes, and most likely by the god of this world.Quote (Lightenup @ July 20 2012,22:44) Why can't you see that there is one called the Lord of lords that is worshiped with God. Jehovah is both God and Lord.
Scripture teaches of no such thing as Jesus being worshiped by anyone. But I agree that Jehovah is both the God of gods and the Lord of lords. Jesus has been appointed as a Lord over other lords, but he is never called “the God of gods”, is he?So while Jehovah remains both the God of gods AND the Lord of lords, Jesus is only a Lord of lords like King David was.
Mike,
Your post reflects the mind of a confused lost sheep who has stiffened his neck against truth.you mistakenly say:
Quote Wrong. He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. I've showed you MANY scriptures where Jesus is listed as someone OTHER THAN the ONE who created all things. If Jesus is not that ONE, then he has no choice but to BE one of the things created BY that ONE. Mike, did anything get created apart from the Son?
If no, then the Son was a part of the creating.
The phrase which you don't seem to understand from Tertullian, “He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another” is merely showing us that two different persons were involved in the act of creating and that things weren't created from just one person. You have missed his point. You know full well that Tertullian believed in the trinity, he even coined the phrase. What is the benefit of all this playing dumb, Mike?
Quote Many others are involved with the salvation of mankind (John 21:15-17)…………….. does that make them God too? Ah, another instance of playing dumb as if many others are saviors of all mankind. The Father sent the Son to be THE SAVIOR of the world, not one of the saviors of the world.
Quote Death at one time had mastery over Jesus. When did death ever have mastery over God? And yet another instance of playing dumb. Death could not have had mastery over Jesus unless He willingly became flesh and He allowed it; which means Jesus had mastery over His own death. He could have called down legions of angels to intervene…as a man, He could have commanded the angels.
Quote Jesus doesn't know the day and hour………… God does. The disciples told Him that they knew that He knew all things. So, if that is all you have that He didn't know, then knowing everything else would indicate that He knew as much as the Father except one specific date in time. Therefore, He knows how to create the universe. Only one who had the ability to create would know that. Only deity has the ability to create a universe.
Quote God can't even be tempted to sin…………. Jesus was. If it said that Jesus can't even be tempted to s
in then you probably would say that for Him to not sin was no big deal, right? I think this is another case of Mike playing dumb. As deity, Jesus couldn't be tempted to sin and that is why He had to become flesh so that He would be tempted and not sin, duh!Quote
Yes, Jesus was GIVEN authority FROM HIS GOD to forgive sins on earth. Jesus later granted this authority to his disciples.So, God gave authority to only one person. That person gave authority to several. Who looks more powerful now? Your point only makes Jesus look more powerful than God, funny how your own logic fails you, isn't it?
Quote God is the One who holds the scroll in His hand, Kathi. Jesus is the one who was deemed worthy BY GOD to take the scroll from His hand. So the Father depended on someone other than Himself to remove the seals from the scroll/book.
Rev 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?” 3And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it.
It looks to me like even the Father couldn't open the book in His hand or break its seals but depended on Jesus to do this. Hmmm, after all it says “no one in heaven was able to open the book or to look into it.” The Father is in heaven.
I'll bet you never looked at it like that, Mike. The Son could do something that the Father couldn't. You see Mike, they were interdependent on each other. Unities are like that.
Quote Scripture teaches of no such thing as Jesus being worshiped by anyone. I gave you 15 SCRIPTURAL passages where Jesus is worshiped in a religious manner and you say that “Scripture teaches of no such thing as Jesus being worshiped by anyone.” And you say that I am blind, ha!
Quote But I agree that Jehovah is both the God of gods and the Lord of lords. Well, you are one huge point ahead of one of your biggest fans here, then.
Quote Jesus has been appointed as a Lord over other lords, but he is never called “the God of gods”, is he? Ah, you say that He was appointed as Lord over other lords…where is your scripture of this 'appointment.'
Where does scripture call Jesus the Lord over 'other' lords? I have seen where He is called Lord of lords but not “Lord over other lords.' Mishandling the word of God, Mike, again.
Quote So while Jehovah remains both the God of gods AND the Lord of lords, Jesus is only a Lord of lords like King David was. Where was David called 'Lord of lords' in a civil way or a religious way, Mike? If you can't show me then this is another time you mishandle the word of God. Was Jesus the Lord of lords in a civil way or a religious way?? Can you get that answer right, Mike? I am kinda doubting it but miracles happen and the blind are given sight.
Quote but he is never called “the God of gods”, is he? No, that is why He is the Lord of lords in the unity with His Father, the God of gods. The Father isn't specifically called the Lord of lords either. Jehovah is, but not the Father specifically. But both of them together are the God of gods and Lord of lords, Hallelujah!
And now I come to the end of your book of questions. If you aren't interested in reading a long post, then you shouldn't be making so many inaccurate comments that need to be challenged.
God bless you, Mike!
Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,20:42) Whether it is obeisance or worship, it is done in a religious manner and would be violating the command of Jehovah………..
Could you show me the scripture where it is explained that Jesus was bowed down to “in a religious manner”? YES or NO? Also, could you show me where bowing before another man to show reverence (like to King David, for instance) is violating a command of Jehovah?1 Chronicles 29:20 KJV
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.Kathi, would you say King David was being worshipped as if he were God Almighty in the above verse? Would you say he was receiving “religious obeisance”? Why or why not? And how does this scripture differ from the ones where Jesus was bowed down to?
Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,20:42) Exodus 34:14 – For you must not prostrate yourself to another god, because Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, he is a jealous God.
So then King David, who according to Jesus in John 10:35 was a god, was actually God Almighty Himself because people prostrated themselves to him?Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,20:42) Now here is an example of you twisting my words to your misunderstanding of them. Look at my statement and the words that I bolded and then look at your statement and the words there that I bolded. I did not say that the healed blind man worshiped Jesus as if He was God Almighty. I said that he worshiped Jesus because he believed that He was the Son of Man.
Let me get this straight: First you quote Exodus 34:14 to me, and then say this formerly blind guy was WORSHIPPING Jesus, just not as God Almighty? If he wasn't worshipping Jesus as God, then what exactly are we fighting about? Kathi, will you tell me why this man gave Jesus “religious worship” in front of the Pharisees, who were already looking for a reason to have Jesus put to death, but they did nothing to Jesus or to the man who worshipped him religiously right in front of them?
Quote If you knew who God was in truth, you would also worship Jesus in a religious manner.
Don't you mean that if I knew who our TWO ALMIGHTY GODS were, I would worship BOTH OF THEM like you do?Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,20:08) Mike, Quote They must avoid this part of the word “monogenes”, because they, being Trinitarians, don't like the implication that their God#2 was “begotten”. The Trinitarian creeds mention that the Son was 'begotten before the ages' so I don't think what you said is a true reflection of the Trinitarians. You really don't have a grasp on what that doctrine teaches.
What I've said reflects the NEW Trinitarian movement, Kathi. Compare the KJV, NASB, NRSV, etc with the more recent Trinitarian translations. Tell me how many of the newer ones still use the correct phrase “only begotten” in John 1:18, 3:16, etc.They have decided that they now don't like the idea that their God #2 was “begotten”, and so have launched propaganda trying to convince people that “monogenes” means “only”, or “unique”, instead of what we both know it means.
And besides, why are you taking this out on ME, when I only quoted what NETNotes said?
Perhaps it is you who is out of touch, which would explain why no other Trinitarian I know would ever admit to TWO ALMIGHTY GODS.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,20:59) Do you actually think that He who serves another cannot be God? So, the servant of the God of gods is the Lord of lords…this works both ways and would be part of a perfect unity.
And who is God the Father the servant of? Who gives Him commands that He must obey?Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,20:59) You have not proved that the Father and the Son are not a unity as Jehovah just because one is the servant of the other.
I never set out to prove a negative in the first place, Kathi. YOU are the one making this illogical and unscriptural claim. It is not for me to DISPROVE IT, but for you to PROVE IT.I'm just helping you to see the many different ways your doctrine contradicts the scriptures.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,22:45) The phrase which you don't seem to understand from Tertullian, “He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another” is merely showing us that two different persons were involved in the act of creating and that things weren't created from just one person.
Did he say “THEY who create are one”? Or “HE who creates is one”?Tertullian, being a Trinitarian, was likely trying to distinguish between the PERSONS in his supposed Godhead, but his point remains the same: Only ONE person did the creating, so the things were created BY that ONE person THROUGH the other.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,22:45) Death could not have had mastery……
Jesus succombed to death, ergo, death had power over him. Praise be to his and our God though, that death no longer has power over our Lord.Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,22:45) The disciples told Him that they knew that He knew all things. So, if that is all you have that He didn't know, then knowing everything else would indicate that He knew as much as the Father except one specific date in time.
It is also written in scripture that certain disciples “knew all things”. It figure of speech that was said about Jesus and others. But if there is even ONE TINY thing that God knows and Jesus doesn't know, there is no equality. End of story.As for the rest of this post, you have asked twice for scriptures I've already given you, and answered many of my other points in laughably illogical ways, going as far as to infer that God Himself wasn't worthy to open the very scroll He held in His hand, and so Jesus could do something his own God couldn't do.
These kinds of things don't deserve my time, Kathi.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 24 2012,12:41) Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,22:45) The phrase which you don't seem to understand from Tertullian, “He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another” is merely showing us that two different persons were involved in the act of creating and that things weren't created from just one person.
Did he say “THEY who create are one”? Or “HE who creates is one”?Tertullian, being a Trinitarian, was likely trying to distinguish between the PERSONS in his supposed Godhead, but his point remains the same: Only ONE person did the creating, so the things were created BY that ONE person THROUGH the other.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,22:45) Death could not have had mastery……
Jesus succombed to death, ergo, death had power over him. Praise be to his and our God though, that death no longer has power over our Lord.Quote (Lightenup @ July 22 2012,22:45) The disciples told Him that they knew that He knew all things. So, if that is all you have that He didn't know, then knowing everything else would indicate that He knew as much as the Father except one specific date in time.
It is also written in scripture that certain disciples “knew all things”. It figure of speech that was said about Jesus and others. But if there is even ONE TINY thing that God knows and Jesus doesn't know, there is no equality. End of story.As for the rest of this post, you have asked twice for scriptures I've already given you, and answered many of my other points in laughably illogical ways, going as far as to infer that God Himself wasn't worthy to open the very scroll He held in His hand, and so Jesus could do something his own God couldn't do.
These kinds of things don't deserve my time, Kathi.
To me polytheism is a form of atheism, One says there is more than one God and the other says there is no God. The truth is There is ONLY ONE GOD.This should help you both (taken from the Aramaic Bible in Plain English I think but this gal calls it the HRV; she is responding to some questions about Jesus being YHWH):
For comparison, in the Old Testament, Isa. 45:21-23 (KJV) says, “who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD (YHWH)? and there is NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; A JUST GOD AND A SAVIOUR; there is none beside me. LOOK UNTO ME, AND BE YE SAVED, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That UNTO ME EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, every tongue shall swear.”
In the New Testament, Rom. 14:9-14 (HRV) says, “Messiah died and is alive and is raised that he might be YHWH to the dead and to the living….As it is written, I live, says YHWH. EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME and every tongue will confess me. Therefore let us not judge one another…I know and am persuaded by YHWH YESHUA that there is not a thing that is defiled from itself…”
John 12:12,13 (HRV) says, “when they heard that Yeshua was coming to Yerushalayim, they were crying and saying, Hoshianna, blessed is he who comes in the name of YHWH, THE KING OF ISRAEL” (as in Isa. 44:6).
Acts 9:29 (HRV) says, “Bar Nabba took him and brought him to the emissaries and related to them hoe on the road HE HAD SEEN YHWH and how he spoke with him and how in Darm'suk HE SPOKE BOLDLY IN THE NAME OF YESHUA.”
Acts10:36 (HRV) says, “YESHUA THE MESSIAH, HE IS YHWH OF ALL.”
Regarding communion, I Cor. 11:27 (HRV) says, “whoever eats of THE BREAD OF YHWH and drinks from his cup and is not worthy, he is indebted to THE BLOOD OF YHWH and to his body.”
I Cor. 12:3 (HRV) says, “there is no one who speaks by the spirit of Eloah (God) and says that Yeshua is accursed. And neither is a man able to say that YHWH IS YESHUA except by the Ruach HaKodesh” (Holy Spirit).
Revealing the Trinity, I Cor. 12:4-6 (HRV) says, “there are distributions of gifts but the SPIRIT IS ONE (the Holy Spirit). And there are distributions of services but YHWH IS ONE (Yahshua). And there are distributions of powers but ELOAH IS ONE” (the Father).
I Cor. 15:47 (HRV) says, “The first son of man (Adam) was dust that was from the earth. THE SECOND MAN (Yeshua) WAS YHWH FROM HEAVEN.”
I Cor. 8:6 (HRV) says, “But to us ourselves, [there] is ONE ELOAH, THE FATHER, from whom [are] all [things] and by whom we are, and ONE YHWH, YESHUA THE MESSIAH; by his hand [are] all [things] and by his hand we are also.”
James, brother of Yahshua/Jesus understood who Yahshua really was when he wrote this. In James 3:8,9 (HRV), he said, “But the tongue, no man is able to subdue; this evil, when it is not restrained, if full of the poison of death. With it we bless YHWH (Yahshua) AND THE FATHER (Eloah), and with it we curse the sons of men who are made in the likeness of Eloah” (i.e., having three parts, as we have body, soul and spirit).
In James 5:7 (HRV), he said, “my brothers, be patient UNTIL THE COMING OF YHWH, as the husbandman who waits for the precious fruit of his ground and is patient for them UNTIL HE RECEIVES THE EARLY AND LATTER RAIN.” This probably shows that at the Rapture, “the rain is over and gone,” as in Song of Solomon 2:11. The latter rain is in Nisan, which started March 23. I hope the Rapture will be on Ascension Day, May 17,2004.
In I Peter 3:15 (HRV), Peter said, “sanctify YHWH, THE MESSIAH.”
I got this from near the end of this webpage: http://prophecycorner.theforeverfamily.com/procon1114.html
Quote (bodhitharta @ July 23 2012,21:02) To me polytheism is a form of atheism, One says there is more than one God and the other says there is no God. The truth is There is ONLY ONE GOD.
Hi Asana,That certainly is the politically correct 21st century way of understanding it. The problem is that the Bible actually teaches about MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth.
Let me ask you this, Asana: Do you realize that the Hebrew words “elohim” and “el” were used of many different beings, both spiritual ones and fleshly ones?
Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2012,23:52) John 12:12,13 (HRV) says, “when they heard that Yeshua was coming to Yerushalayim, they were crying and saying, Hoshianna, blessed is he who comes in the name of YHWH, THE KING OF ISRAEL” (as in Isa. 44:6).
Kathi,Can't you see that the translators merely changed the Greek word “kurios” to “YHWH”? They took a text that said “Lord Jesus” and changed it to “YHWH Yeshua”. What kind of proof is that?
And look at John 12 that I quoted above: How can the one who comes in the name of YHWH be YHWH?
Can you imagine King David saying, “I come in the name of King David!” ? Or Jesus saying, “I come in the name of Jesus Christ!” ?
On the other hand, someone OTHER THAN David can come IN THE NAME OF David. And many disciples have come IN THE NAME OF Jesus Christ. Therefore, the information you yourself posted shows that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN YHWH, or he could not COME IN THE NAME OF YHWH.
Good job, Kathi.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
