Charles&#39; Jesus is God Proof Texts

Participant

Mikeboll,

You have not shown where it does not mean that Jesus wasn't with God from the very beginning, because he was literally part of God. He and his Father are the only beings in scripture to have the title “first and last” and “alpha and omega”. There is no one else to ascribe to being part of the literal God, but Jesus, and that means that to us, he is God. You tell me from scripture, exactly what compromises Jesus. What part of him is God the Father? When exactly did he begin? When Mary was overshadowed by the holy spirit, what happened when she got pregnant to make her that way? You claim to know it all. Explain it to me please. Peace-Mark

October 29, 2011 at 1:28 pm#261471

Participant

“Everlasting Father”

Why in the world would he be called this? Remember it says FATHER. Why Mike?

October 29, 2011 at 1:50 pm#261472

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 29 2011,14:40)

Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 28 2011,06:01)

Hi Mark,

What about this one…

Micah 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.

Ed,

Time for you to move into the 21st century and get a newer translation – one that has the benefits of all the research and mss that have come AFTER the KJV was written.

Here are some newer Bibles for you to consider:
NET
As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah – from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past.

NIV ©
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

NLT ©
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past.

MSG ©
But you, Bethlehem, David's country, the runt of the litter–From you will come the leader who will shepherd-rule Israel. He'll be no upstart, no pretender. His family tree is ancient and distinguished.

NRSV ©
But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

The fact is that the Hebrew words “yowm” and “qedem” don't refer to “eternity” or “everlasting”, but to “of old” and “ancient”.

So what Micah 5:2 REALLY says is that the ORIGINS (beginning) of Jesus was from A LONG TIME AGO. And since that “long time ago” was from Micah's perspective, this scripture goes a long way in proving Jesus' pre-existence, but does absolutely nothing in the way of suggesting Jesus is from eternity.

peace,
mike

Tell me Mike, why does it say in scripture that in the last days people would twist the true way and decieve? It doesn't say “The word of God will be flawed and in the end the word of God will be re-written? why does it say “because of you, the true way will be subject to contempt”. The many translations show me that it is a matter of perspective, and if one is already inclined in thier belief, that will affect the intracate renderings of certain phrases in the bible. Like your assertion of the addition of an “a” in “the word was God”, even though ALL other translations do not have it. WHY? What is so important in showing incorrectly that Jesus was only a man?Peace-Mark

October 29, 2011 at 1:53 pm#261473

Participant

New International Version (©1984)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New Living Translation (©2007)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version (©2001)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version (©2008)
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Bible in Basic English
From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Darby Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

October 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm#261475

Participant

So the word was God. You don't believe it, but there it is. Now, back to our first three words, when was “in the beginning”. When did the idea of Jesus being only a man begin? With the Jehovahs witnesses or wwcog? Tell me, that is an honest question. When did all this division start? Was the whole world decieved all through the 19 or 20 centurys untill somone decided to re-write the Bible?

October 29, 2011 at 3:31 pm#261476

Blocked

Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 29 2011,07:27)

Mikeboll,

You have not shown where it does not mean that Jesus wasn't with God from the very beginning…………….

More to the point, YOU have not shown any scripture that says Jesus WAS from eternity. How can you just make a claim like that based solely on your wishes, Mark?

As for me, I'm just getting started – because we were dealing with your scriptures first. For my FIRST (of many) scripture, why don't we start with the one already posted by Ed?

Micah 5 NWT
2 And you, O Beth′le‧hem Eph′ra‧thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

4 And he will certainly stand and do shepherding in the strength of Jehovah, in the superiority of the name of Jehovah his God. And they will certainly keep dwelling, for now he will be great as far as the ends of the earth.

Mark, the word “origin” that almost all Bibles today use in 5:2 comes from much research into the matter. (Note: ALL of the 5:2 translations I quoted in my post to Ed were translated by TRINITARIANS – so your claim that the antichrist is changing the words shoots YOUR people in the foot, not mine.)

Consider this FACT of the matter: Had Micah 5:2 been about ANYONE ELSE but Jesus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It is only because 5:2 clearly speaks of the origin of JESUS that you have a problem with it. But suffice to say, even the TRINITARIAN experts in the Hebrew language have now concluded from much research that the word “mowtsa'ah” does indeed refer to the ORIGIN of Jesus – which is why all the TRINITARIAN translations I listed for Ed have the word “ORIGINS”.

As far as the phrase “from everlasting”, or “from eternity” that some translators end 5:2 with, NETNotes, which was compiled by 25 TRINITARIAN scholars, says:

tn Heb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.” Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel. For מִקֶּדֶם (miqqedem, “from the past”) see Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10. For מִימֵי עוֹלָם (mimey ’olam, “from the days of antiquity”) see Isa 63:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4. In Neh 12:46 and Amos 9:11 the Davidic era is in view.

See? The Hebrew words don't mean “from eternity”, but instead refer to “a long time ago”. There are scriptures listed there for you to reference – just in case you think the TRINITARIANS of NETNotes are antichrists who are trying to change things up.

Now, consider verse 4 for a minute. How do you suppose Jesus, as God Almighty Himself, will rule in the strength and superiority of the name of “Jehovah, HIS GOD“?

I seriously want to know how that computes in your head. Because I can't see God Almighty even HAVING a God of his own, let alone having to rely on his own God's strength to shepherd the flock. Or having to rely on his own God to place his enemies at his feet so that he can subdue them. How does that work in your mind? How is it that your “God Almighty” needs HIS OWN God to help and empower him?

Mark, PLEASE actually address the points I've made in this post. And by that I mean: Either tell me that you accept the “origins” translation that your own TRINITARIAN scholars have accepted, or show EVIDENCE that Micah 5:2 DOESN'T speak of the ORIGINS of Jesus.

peace,
mike

October 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm#261477

Blocked

Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 29 2011,07:28)

“Everlasting Father”

Why in the world would he be called this? Remember it says FATHER. Why Mike?

2 Kings 13:14
[ Death of Elisha ] When Elisha became sick with the illness of which he was to die, Joash the king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!”

Elisha also called his master, Elijah, “father”.

Compare that with all the priests today that are called “Father” by their congregations.

It is a term of endearment, and not to be taken as a biological father.

Why do YOU think Jesus was to be called “everlasting father”? Are you making a claim that the Son IS the Father? If not, then what is your point?

October 29, 2011 at 4:46 pm#261478

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 17 2011,04:58)

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 16 2011,06:08)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 11 2011,11:46)

Define how they would have literally “ate his body” even if he was God. It is metaphorical, Charles.

Isn’t the whole of creation the manifestation of God in Jesus' Spirit, since only the spirit gives life.

No Charles. We are not the “manifestation of God”. We are creations of God.

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 16 2011,06:08)

I have a definition through scriptures to be aware of this possibility,thanks to the Holy Spirit.but I believe that you won't accept it!

You are probably right.

Charles, you didn't really address my point. Could you LITERALLY EAT GOD? Or would it have to be a metaphor?

Mike,

Quote

No Charles. We are not the “manifestation of God”. We are creations of God.

Colossians 1:15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16For 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:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

The above scriptures says it clear that the entire creation exist in the Son's spirit, by the Son's spirit, for the Son's spirit.

Now isn't that God Himself within nature through His Son with the power of the Holy Spirit in order to keep it alive since:

NIV
John 6:63)
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.

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

So all visible matter no matter what it is, EXISITS AND ALIVE only through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Father is well pleased that ALL FULLNESS DWELL IN HIM, and reconciled all things onto Himself, through His blood of the cross.(BEFORE ALL WAS SATAN'S WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SELECT)

Therefore creation is the manifestation (materialization) of God in Jesus’ Spirit.

peace and love in Jesus

Charles

October 29, 2011 at 4:46 pm#261479

Blocked

Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 29 2011,07:50)

Like your assertion of the addition of an “a” in “the word was God”, even though ALL other translations do not have it.

Mark, I know this is a long post. But I worked hard on it and I hope you will read every word of it.

First of all, it is not my addition of the word “a” that raises questions, Mark. It is the Trinitarian's refusal to insert the word that is negligible.

Consider:
1. The English word “a” is added into scripture about 7000 times by English translators. This is because the Hebrew and Greek languages did not use the indefinite article “a” in their speech or their writings.

2. Have you ever witnessed (on TV or in real life) a person from another culture speaking broken English? A Russian will tell you, “That is nice car you have”. He will not say, “That is A nice car you have”, right? Or the guy at the Chinese restaurant will say, “You have nice family, mister”. He won't say, “You have A nice family”, will he?

But because WE speak English, and the English language DOES use the indefinite article “a”, WE would say, “You have A nice car” and “You have A nice family”. Are you with me so far, Mark?

So, page through your Bible for a minute or two and notice all the instances where an English translator added the word “a” or “an”, so the sentence makes sense to us in English. And then remember that not one of those “a's” or “an's” were actually in the Hebrew or Greek mss. They were ADDED by English translators – about 7000 TIMES in scripture.

John 1:1 is the only example where these same translators, because they are Trinitarians and illogically want Jesus to BE the God he is the Son OF, DON'T insert the needed indefinite article “a”. But the translation of John 1:1 THEY come up with makes no sense, and they just hope that the average intelligent person will overlook this obvious flaw.

First of all, the Word was WITH God. The Being of God cannot logically be said to be WITH the Being of God, Mark. Even the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NETNotes realize this, for they say:

The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”);

Even these TRINITARIANS know what you refuse to accept: “the person of God” could not sensibly be said to be WITH “the person of God”.

Now, although the Greek language doesn't use the indefinite article “a”, they DO use the definite article “the”. And John tells us that in the beginning, THE Word (as in the main one) was with THE GOD (as in the main One), and was himself god.

Notice that John does NOT tell us the Word was with THE God and was THE God. How could he? That would make no sense, as the Trinitarian authors of NETNotes just pointed out for you. But John uses the definite article for only one of the TWO gods mentioned in 1:1. He is telling us that the Word was A god who was WITH THE God in the beginning.

Mark, I am trying to show you FACTS here. I am not trying to beat you up or “be right”. I am trying to share with you the education God has given me over the last three years.

Consider just one scripture where English translators have added the word “a”:

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Neither one of those “a's” are actually in the Greek text. John actually wrote “he was murderer” and “he is liar”. But to us in English, we would understand those phrases to mean Satan was THE Murderer and THE Liar. But in Greek, if John wanted to say “THE Murderer” and “THE Liar”, he would have used the definite article “THE” before “murderer” and “liar” – just like he did before the God the Word was with in 1:1.

But because John DIDN'T use the definite article “the” before “murderer” and “liar”, we can know that his intention was NOT to tell us that Satan was “THE Murderer” or “THE Liar”, but that Satan was “A murderer” and “A liar”.

It is the same in John 1:1, Mark. If John had wanted to tell us Jesus was THE God, then he would have used the definite article “the” TWO times in 1:1. He would not have used it ONLY for the God the Word was with.

And because he DIDN'T use the definite article in part c, “and the Word was god”, then just like in 8:44 above, we can conclude that Jesus was not THE God, but A god – as we all also conclude that Satan was A murderer and A liar, not THE Murderer and THE Liar.

But take extreme notice of the fact that someone with an ax to grind, or a flawed doctrine to force, could easily use the fact that the Greeks didn't have an indefinite article to make a claim that Satan had the official name “THE MURDERER” in 8:44. All evidence would point to “a murderer”, but because of this Greek to English discrepancy, a person COULD make the claim that, because there is no “a”, John was saying Satan was “THE MURDERER”.

This is the discrepancy the Trinitarians take advantage of in John 1:1, Mark. They go against all logic, and use the fact that the Greek doesn't actually SAY “a god” to make the nonsensical claim that John was saying Jesus was THE God he was WITH.

I will look around and find an even better comparison than John 8:44 for you. I will find a scripture where changing the implied “a” for “the” would change the whole meaning of scripture. And then I will show you how all translations add “a”, even though a heretic could make an illogical claim for “the”, thereby changing the whole of scripture.

Questions?

peace,
mike

October 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm#261480

Blocked

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 29 2011,10:46)

The Father is well pleased that ALL FULLNESS DWELL IN HIM,

Correct. The Father, (who IS God Almighty), was pleased to have so much of Him dwell in the Son He begot. Once again, you've shown scriptural words that distinguish the Son as someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO his own God, the Father.

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 29 2011,10:46)

Therefore creation is the manifestation (materialization) of God in Jesus’ Spirit.

The word “creation” tells us that we are CREATIONS of God. If all things were “manifestations of God”, then we would be called “manifestations”, not CREATIONS.

peace to you
mike

October 29, 2011 at 5:17 pm#261481

Blocked

Hi Mark,

Matthew 11:9
Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.

Matthew 13:57
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

Matthew 14:5
Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet.

Matthew 21:46
They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

Okay Mark, look at the phrases “a prophet” in all four of the above scriptures. Two scriptures are about John the Baptist, and two are about Jesus.

But take away the English word “a”, and change it to “the”, and see the confusion it creates. For then we would have scripture saying John was THE Prophet, and scripture saying Jesus was THE Prophet.

And someone who was trying to illogically claim that John WAS Jesus, and therefore also the “manifestation of God” could use the absence of the Greek indefinite article to try to prove this by claiming all these “a prophet's” are really “THE Prophet's”. And they could add in John 1:6, where it says John came from God – and presto! – we now have TWO Messiahs sent from God who are BOTH “THE Prophet of God”.

Oh my! John the Baptist WAS Jesus who WAS God! That means John WAS God also!

This was just a quick example that I didn't spend much time on. But what I want you to learn is that the absence of the word “a” in the Greek language could provide a legitimate way for all kinds of heretical claims to be made.

It provides one in John 1:1, and the Trinitarians try to take advantage of it to make the nonsensical and heretical claim that God's Son is the God he is the Son of – and that God could somehow be WITH God in the beginning.

peace,
mike

October 29, 2011 at 5:28 pm#261482

Blocked

Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 29 2011,07:59)

Now, back to our first three words, when was “in the beginning”. When did the idea of Jesus being only a man begin? With the Jehovahs witnesses or wwcog? Tell me, that is an honest question. When did all this division start? Was the whole world decieved all through the 19 or 20 centurys untill somone decided to re-write the Bible?

I have never asserted that Jesus was “only a man”, nor do I know when this non-preexistent thought started. I know it was not with the JWs, for they acknowledge the truth that Jesus existed in the form of his God before being made into the likeness of a human being. And they acknowledge that Jesus was raised back up to a spirit being at the right hand of his God.

But I don't know what any of this has to do with our “in the beginning” discussion. It is for you to prove that the simple phrase “in the beginning” referred to “from eternity” in John 1:1. If you have no proof of this, then it is only your wishful thinking that “from eternity” is what was meant by John.

I am waiting for your supporting scriptures that teach Jesus has always existed – as opposed to being begotten and created like the scriptures actually teach.

Like I said before, I have many scriptures to support my “Jesus had a beginning” understanding. In our effort to go “one scripture at a time”, we have begun with Micah 5:2.

The question is: What scripture do YOU have to CONTRADICT my scriptures while supporting your claim that Jesus has always existed?

mike

October 29, 2011 at 8:26 pm#261485

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 29 2011,13:07)

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 28 2011,09:32)

Mike,

Quote

Now, do YOU have at least ONE scripture that clearly tells us Jesus WAS from everlasting before I move on to my SECOND scripture?

What would you say about this:

KJV.Isaiah
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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

peace and love in Jesus

Charles

Hi Charles,

What part of 9:6 teaches that Jesus was FROM everlasting?

Mike,

Quote

Hi Charles,

What part of 9:6 teaches that Jesus was FROM everlasting?

According to you to whom the scripture Isaiah 9:6 is referring??

October 29, 2011 at 11:13 pm#261490

Blocked

Hi Charles,

It refers to Jesus. But what words tell you this coming Messiah was FROM eternity?

October 30, 2011 at 6:46 am#261496

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 30 2011,10:13)

Hi Charles,

It refers to Jesus. But what words tell you this coming Messiah was FROM eternity?

Mike,

Quote

It refers to Jesus. But what words tell you this coming Messiah was FROM eternity?

what words tell you that Jesus is not from eternity,from the same scripture?

October 30, 2011 at 2:38 pm#261511

Blocked

No words in THAT scripture tell me Jesus is not from eternity. It is the words in OTHER scriptures that tell me Jesus is not from eternity. Words like “today I have begotten you” and “God created me as the first of His works” and “I am the beginning of the creation of God”, etc.

October 30, 2011 at 3:06 pm#261512

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 28 2011,09:54)

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 27 2011,14:01)

Jesus used the present tense not the future tense,and this is the vital point in order to establish the whole meaning of the sentence.

Why, since according to you He was referring to the future,and in the same time, He used the present tense,and not the proper future tense?

Also the tense WILL is not used for the future tense only especially the way it is used in this sentence,but I rather leave it to you to comment first!

Charles, I'm lost here. It is YOU who made the claim that because Jesus sent out his disciples as prophets, he must be God Himself. And now you are trying to say something about the present/future tense that is supposed to be supporting your claim – but I'm not seeing it. Please expand on your thoughts so I know what you're claiming.

Are you claiming that when Jesus said, “I [now] send you prophets, some of whom you WILL kill”, he was really saying, “I HAVE SENT you prophets, some of whom you KILLED IN THE PAST”?

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 27 2011,14:01)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

Or have you forgotten that Jesus himself was also a prophet OF GOD?

No Mike I didn't forget that He was a prophet.

A prophet OF WHOM, Charles?

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 27 2011,14:01)

To whom “BEFORE HIM ” and “FOR THE LORD” ARE referring?

Isn't it to the LORD THEIR GOD, since it is in the same context?

Luke 1:16 definitely refers to Jehovah. Verse 17 could refer to either Jesus or Jehovah as far as I can tell, but my guess is that 17 also refers to Jehovah. But if 17 did refer to Jesus, how exactly would that equate Jesus, who is often called “Lord”, with “the Lord their God” from verse 16?

peace,
mike

Quote

Mike,
this is the scripture in full:

Matthew 23:34 Therefore behold I SEND to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them YOU WILL PUT to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:

I stated:
Jesus in the above scriptures, FIRST HE USED THE MODE “I SEND”,AND THEN HE USED THE MODE “YOU WILL PUT” to indicate that He sent them in the past.

Youstated:

Quote (carmel @ Oct. 15 2011,11:06)

How is this a reference to the OT? It is merely Jesus saying that he is sending his disciples out among them – some of which will have been given the gift of prophecy, others the gift of teaching, and others the gift of wisdom, etc. (1 Cor 12:27-31)

Then you stated this:

Are you claiming that when Jesus said, “I [now] send you prophets, some of whom you WILL kill”, he was really saying, “I HAVE SENT you prophets, some of whom you KILLED IN THE PAST”?

Now I would like to know ,why Jesus in His speech used the present tense, I SEND YOU PROPHETS…… if He meant to send them in the future,as you claim,and not use the future tense I WILL SEND YOU,or I SHALL SEND YOU?

And then He used the future tense “YOU WILL PUT to death and crucify,

Here is an example which is all in the future tense:

Micah 5:12 “I will cut off sorceries from your hand, And you will have fortune-tellers no more.

Now let see some scriptures in the present:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Deuteronomy: 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Now Mike Can you discern the actual meaning of these various scriptures in order to discover the truth of what Jesus also meant through His mode of speech in Matthew 23:34?

peace and love in Jesus

Charles

October 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm#261515

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2011,01:38)

Quote

Words like “today I have begotten you” and “God created me as the first of His works” and “I am the beginning of the creation of God”, etc.

Mike,

These scriptures are not proof enough that Jesus is not from eternity.

First which scriture states:”God created me as the first of His works”

“today I have begotten you” is a proof that Jesus was born a man on earth,and officially acquired the fullness of God's spirit.

I am the beginning of earth is not a proof that the Son of God as a spirit was not eternal.

That is a proof that the Son of God commenced the recreation (Genesis 1:3,)of the world by consuming His spirit through the power of the Holy Spirit from the Father and became the first born of every specie ever existed.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Now the only way to return to the Father was to create the virgin Mary's substance in order for Him to become first, as God in flesh, and then die as a criminal carrying Satan's spirit down to Hell to lock him and release all the innocent souls who were there,and was raised in Glory with the Father through the Holy Spirit in a mystical body.

Matthew 13:44Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

45Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: 46Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

October 30, 2011 at 5:57 pm#261517

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 30 2011,02:31)

Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 29 2011,07:27)

Mikeboll,

You have not shown where it does not mean that Jesus wasn't with God from the very beginning…………….

More to the point, YOU have not shown any scripture that says Jesus WAS from eternity. How can you just make a claim like that based solely on your wishes, Mark?

As for me, I'm just getting started – because we were dealing with your scriptures first. For my FIRST (of many) scripture, why don't we start with the one already posted by Ed?

As far as the phrase “from everlasting”, or “from eternity” that some translators end 5:2 with, NETNotes, which was compiled by 25 TRINITARIAN scholars, says:

Now, consider verse 4 for a minute. How do you suppose Jesus, as God Almighty Himself, will rule in the strength and superiority of the name of “Jehovah, HIS GOD“?

peace,
mike

Quote

Micah 5 NWT
2 And you, O Beth′le‧hem Eph′ra‧thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

4 And he will certainly stand and do shepherding in the strength of Jehovah, in the superiority of the name of Jehovah his God. And they will certainly keep dwelling, for now he will be great as far as the ends of the earth.

K. This is from you. To me “from the days of time indefinite” still supports eternity. “indefinite” not “definite”.

in·def·i·nite /ɪnˈdɛfənɪt/ Show Spelled[in-def-uh-nit] Show IPA
adjective
1.not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.

UNLIMITED!!!Forever. Infinity. Thanks for the “better” translation. His God simply refers to him on earth. They are separate, but the same. When you saw him, you saw the Father as well. Peace-Mark

October 30, 2011 at 6:07 pm#261518