- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:06) 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?
Charles,This is getting old. You are desparately trying to make a claim that Jesus IS God because he said he is sending his disciples as prophets – and it is most likely the WEAKEST “Jesus is God” claim I've heard to date.
He does NOT say, “I have SENT you prophets”. He says, “Look, I send you prophets”. It means, “Look, I AM SENDING you prophets”, which is exactly the way many Bibles render it:
New International Version (©1984)
Therefore I am sending you prophets………….New Living Translation (©2007)
“Therefore, I am sending you prophets………New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets……………International Standard Version (©2008)
“That is why I am sending you prophets…………Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Because of this behold, I am sending to you Prophets………..GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I'm sending you prophets…………Weymouth New Testament
“For this reason I am sending to you Prophets………..NETBible ©
“For this reason I am sending you prophets……….The NETBible adds this footnote: Greek: “behold I am sending.”
And the Greek lexicon at Biblos.com says: behold I sending unto you prophets……….
SourceSo it seems to me you are wasting my time with a non-issue, Charles. Please let this go, for it in no way makes a claim for Jesus being God Almighty.
peace,
mikeQuote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:47)
First which scriture states:”God created me as the first of His works”
Proverbs 8:22.Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:47)
These scriptures are not proof enough that Jesus is not from eternity.
Sure they are, Charles. And there are other ones, like in John 6 where Jesus says “I live because of the Father”.So you can pretend that “firstBORN of every creature” and “only BEGOTTEN Son of God” and “BEGINNING of the CREATION of God” don't mean what they clearly say if you want to. You can pretend they have some other, mystical meaning that has nothing to do with what the words actually say. That is up to you. As for me, I accept the words as they are. And if those words say “firstBORN”, it refers to a BEGINNING. If the words say Jesus' ORIGINS are from a long time ago, it refers to a BEGINNING. If those words say Jesus was BEGOTTEN, it refers to a BEGINNING.
But the point is: Can you show even ONE scripture that CLEARLY says something about Jesus being from eternity?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeangel @ Oct. 30 2011,12:07) MIke I did read it all. Really. I see where you are coming from and why you have your reasoning on the translations.
Praise God, Mark. At least now when you see the NWT's “and the Word was a god” translation, you'll know that they have every right to translate it that way, and they don't do it because they are some “cult” or “idiots butchering the scriptures”.In fact, in that NETNotes info I quoted part of earlier, the first thing those 25 Trinitarian scholars acknowledge is that there are THREE faithful ways to translate John 1:1. “The Word was a god” is one of those three ways.
What I hope for you now is that you come to terms with the other thing the NETNote's scholars said: 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”);
You have to ask yourself if it makes sense that “the person of God” was WITH “the person of God” in the beginning. It doesn't to me. And that's why I know John 1:1 speaks of TWO who were together in the beginning – only ONE of whom was “THE God”.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2011,13:26) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 30 2011,12:07) MIke I did read it all. Really. I see where you are coming from and why you have your reasoning on the translations.
Praise God, Mark. At least now when you see the NWT's “and the Word was a god” translation, you'll know that they have every right to translate it that way, and they don't do it because they are some “cult” or “idiots butchering the scriptures”.In fact, in that NETNotes info I quoted part of earlier, the first thing those 25 Trinitarian scholars acknowledge is that there are THREE faithful ways to translate John 1:1. “The Word was a god” is one of those three ways.
What I hope for you now is that you come to terms with the other thing the NETNote's scholars said: 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”);
You have to ask yourself if it makes sense that “the person of God” was WITH “the person of God” in the beginning. It doesn't to me. And that's why I know John 1:1 speaks of TWO who were together in the beginning – only ONE of whom was “THE God”.
peace,
mike
Mike,
You didn't comment on the rest of the post. I believe God and Jesus are separate, but one, from eternity, as your Micah 5 NWT supports. He was with him in the beginning because he was part of him, as was his spirit “from time indefinite”(eternity, infinity, unlimited by definition). It is actually more confirming what I already know. Peace, MarkP.S. It doesn't have to make sense. Sometimes the truth doesn't make sense, but it nevertheless is the truth. Is your spirit with you now?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2011,13:00) Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:47)
First which scriture states:”God created me as the first of His works”
Proverbs 8:22.Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:47)
These scriptures are not proof enough that Jesus is not from eternity.
Sure they are, Charles. And there are other ones, like in John 6 where Jesus says “I live because of the Father”.So you can pretend that “firstBORN of every creature” and “only BEGOTTEN Son of God” and “BEGINNING of the CREATION of God” don't mean what they clearly say if you want to. You can pretend they have some other, mystical meaning that has nothing to do with what the words actually say. That is up to you. As for me, I accept the words as they are. And if those words say “firstBORN”, it refers to a BEGINNING. If the words say Jesus' ORIGINS are from a long time ago, it refers to a BEGINNING. If those words say Jesus was BEGOTTEN, it refers to a BEGINNING.
But the point is: Can you show even ONE scripture that CLEARLY says something about Jesus being from eternity?
peace and love,
mikeQuote First which scriture states:”God created me as the first of His works” Mike,
which scriptures state:
“God created me as the first of His works”
Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,04:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2011,13:26) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 30 2011,12:07) MIke I did read it all. Really. I see where you are coming from and why you have your reasoning on the translations.
Praise God, Mark. At least now when you see the NWT's “and the Word was a god” translation, you'll know that they have every right to translate it that way, and they don't do it because they are some “cult” or “idiots butchering the scriptures”.In fact, in that NETNotes info I quoted part of earlier, the first thing those 25 Trinitarian scholars acknowledge is that there are THREE faithful ways to translate John 1:1. “The Word was a god” is one of those three ways.
What I hope for you now is that you come to terms with the other thing the NETNote's scholars said: 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”);
You have to ask yourself if it makes sense that “the person of God” was WITH “the person of God” in the beginning. It doesn't to me. And that's why I know John 1:1 speaks of TWO who were together in the beginning – only ONE of whom was “THE God”.
peace,
mike
Mike,
You didn't comment on the rest of the post. I believe God and Jesus are separate, but one, from eternity, as your Micah 5 NWT supports. He was with him in the beginning because he was part of him, as was his spirit “from time indefinite”(eternity, infinity, unlimited by definition). It is actually more confirming what I already know. Peace, Mark
Hi Mark,I just made a post concerning the words used in Micah 5:2. I showed you the NETNotes info, along with the supporting scriptures they quoted. The Hebrew words refer to “a long time ago” – not “eternity” – as can be easily seen in the scriptures they listed as support.
You are confused that “time indefinite” means “from eternity”. It means “an undefined amount of time” – hence the word “indefinite”.
It could refer to one hour ago, or to a billion years ago, or even longer ago. But because of the fact that Jesus' ORIGIN was from time indefinite, and ORIGIN refers to a BEGINNING, then “from time indefinite” in this scripture cannot possibly mean “from eternity”. Someone who is “from eternity” doesn't have an ORIGIN at all.
peace,
mikeQuote (carmel @ Oct. 31 2011,16:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2011,13:00) Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:47)
First which scriture states:”God created me as the first of His works”
Proverbs 8:22.Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:47)
These scriptures are not proof enough that Jesus is not from eternity.
Sure they are, Charles. And there are other ones, like in John 6 where Jesus says “I live because of the Father”.So you can pretend that “firstBORN of every creature” and “only BEGOTTEN Son of God” and “BEGINNING of the CREATION of God” don't mean what they clearly say if you want to. You can pretend they have some other, mystical meaning that has nothing to do with what the words actually say. That is up to you. As for me, I accept the words as they are. And if those words say “firstBORN”, it refers to a BEGINNING. If the words say Jesus' ORIGINS are from a long time ago, it refers to a BEGINNING. If those words say Jesus was BEGOTTEN, it refers to a BEGINNING.
But the point is: Can you show even ONE scripture that CLEARLY says something about Jesus being from eternity?
peace and love,
mikeQuote First which scriture states:”God created me as the first of His works” Mike,
which scriptures state:
“God created me as the first of His works”
I already answered that, Charles. Look in my post above.It is Proverbs 8:22;
NET © The Lord created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.NIV ©
“The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;NLT ©
“The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else.MSG ©
“GOD sovereignly made me–the first, the basic–before he did anything else.BBE ©
The Lord made me as the start of his way, the first of his works in the past.NRSV ©
The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.peace,
mikeQuote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,04:20) P.S. It doesn't have to make sense. Sometimes the truth doesn't make sense, but it nevertheless is the truth. Is your spirit with you now?
Then let's all just have free reign to create our own meanings of all the scriptures. Here's one:When Jesus said eternal life is the taking in of knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ that He sent, he really meant that we should believe in unicorns to be saved!
Will you fall for that, Mark? If not, why? Wasn't it you who said scripture doesn't have to make sense?
Our God is not a God of confusion, Mark. While His knowledge is infinite, He knows that ours is not. He would not purposely confuse us about having a Godhead of three by telling us over and over in scripture that we have but ONE God, and that ONE God has a Son.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2011,09:25) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,04:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2011,13:26) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 30 2011,12:07) MIke I did read it all. Really. I see where you are coming from and why you have your reasoning on the translations.
Praise God, Mark. At least now when you see the NWT's “and the Word was a god” translation, you'll know that they have every right to translate it that way, and they don't do it because they are some “cult” or “idiots butchering the scriptures”.In fact, in that NETNotes info I quoted part of earlier, the first thing those 25 Trinitarian scholars acknowledge is that there are THREE faithful ways to translate John 1:1. “The Word was a god” is one of those three ways.
What I hope for you now is that you come to terms with the other thing the NETNote's scholars said: 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”);
You have to ask yourself if it makes sense that “the person of God” was WITH “the person of God” in the beginning. It doesn't to me. And that's why I know John 1:1 speaks of TWO who were together in the beginning – only ONE of whom was “THE God”.
peace,
mike
Mike,
You didn't comment on the rest of the post. I believe God and Jesus are separate, but one, from eternity, as your Micah 5 NWT supports. He was with him in the beginning because he was part of him, as was his spirit “from time indefinite”(eternity, infinity, unlimited by definition). It is actually more confirming what I already know. Peace, Mark
Hi Mark,I just made a post concerning the words used in Micah 5:2. I showed you the NETNotes info, along with the supporting scriptures they quoted. The Hebrew words refer to “a long time ago” – not “eternity” – as can be easily seen in the scriptures they listed as support.
You are confused that “time indefinite” means “from eternity”. It means “an undefined amount of time” – hence the word “indefinite”.
It could refer to one hour ago, or to a billion years ago, or even longer ago. But because of the fact that Jesus' ORIGIN was from time indefinite, and ORIGIN refers to a BEGINNING, then “from time indefinite” in this scripture cannot possibly mean “from eternity”. Someone who is “from eternity” doesn't have an ORIGIN at all.
peace,
mike
Thats your opinon, based on your beliefs. “time indefinite” is unlimited as the definition states. (no limit). Also known as infinity. The prophets communicated what the holy spirit prompted them to. ( i.e. speaking Gods word) . Gods spirit only states two Mike, get it TWO beings with the SAME title “alpha and omega”, and “first and last” as we have already shown. You say “indefinite doesn't have to mean eternity” ok, but it still means infinity. An hour ago is definite. A billion years ago is definite. FIRST. Jesus,as well as God the Father, will also be LAST. “time indefinite”. Only them Mike, with thier spirit, will be last. The same (1), but three. One God FOREVER AND EVER, “time indefinite”.I never thought of what you stated last. That if it is infinity back they had no origin. Hmmm. That means they would have no beginning and no end. Thats deep. I have to ponder that for a while-Thanks. Peace Mike-Mark
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2011,09:38) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,04:20) P.S. It doesn't have to make sense. Sometimes the truth doesn't make sense, but it nevertheless is the truth. Is your spirit with you now?
Then let's all just have free reign to create our own meanings of all the scriptures. Here's one:When Jesus said eternal life is the taking in of knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ that He sent, he really meant that we should believe in unicorns to be saved!
Will you fall for that, Mark? If not, why? Wasn't it you who said scripture doesn't have to make sense?
Our God is not a God of confusion, Mark. While His knowledge is infinite, He knows that ours is not. He would not purposely confuse us about having a Godhead of three by telling us over and over in scripture that we have but ONE God, and that ONE God has a Son.
peace,
mike
I never said we could create our own truth Mike. You didn't answer the question- Is your spirit with you now? Is it you?Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:11) You say “indefinite doesn't have to mean eternity” ok, but it still means infinity.
No it doesn't, Mark. If I take the kids to the park, and they ask how long can we stay, and I say “INDEFINITELY”, it simply refers to an UNKNOWN time period. It doesn't mean “forever”.You are confused on the meaning of the word “indefinite”, Mark. And since that's the case, you'd be better off using the NETBibles translation of Micah 5:2;
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.See Mark? They don't know exactly how long ago Jesus had his beginning – only that it was in the distant past. And that is also what “from time indefinite” means in the NWT version. They are saying, “We don't know the DEFINITE amount of time from Jesus' ORIGIN until Micah wrote 5:2, but we do know it was a long time ago – so we'll translate it as an UNKNOWN time period by saying 'from time indefinite'.”
Get it? We don't know the DEFINITE amount of time, so he began his existence an INDEFINITE amount of time ago.
“Indefinite” does NOT mean “from eternity” or “infinity”.
And don't forget about the word “ORIGIN” in Micah 5:2, which speaks of Jesus' BEGINNING.
Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:14)
I never said we could create our own truth Mike.
Well that's EXACTLY what you're doing, Mark. Scripture says we have but ONE God, and that Jesus is the Son OF that ONE God. See? Scripture says “Son OF God” and Trinity says “God the Son”. They have created their own truth, and you've bought into it hook, line, and sinker.I am soon to post a “Scripture says versus Trinity says” thread that will address the many UNSCRIPTURAL things the Trinitarians claim as truth.
Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:14)
You didn't answer the question- Is your spirit with you now? Is it you?
No, and No. My spirit is a part OF me, and therefore is neither me nor with me.I've already nipped this thinking in the bud with Charles, Mark. Unless you are willing to start claiming that the three PARTS of a human being are all individual PERSONS with their own minds, don't even bother with the “spirit/soul/body” trinity theory. Unless you are willing to claim that your spirit is the GOD OF your body, while your soul is the PRIEST OF your spirit, etc, then don't bother with this line of reasoning against me.
Mark, let's put 1:1 in YOUR terms so you can see the logic:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Godhead, and the Word was the Godhead.
Do you see it yet? Can you see how “the Godhead” could not be WITH “the Godhead” unless there were TWO Godheads?
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2011,11:54) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:14)
You didn't answer the question- Is your spirit with you now? Is it you?
No, and No. My spirit is a part OF me, and therefore is neither me nor with me.
Hi Mike,Possessions are either with someone or not with someone;
how is your spirit (which you call a possession) not with you?
Or does the story change depending on who you are talking to?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2011,11:54) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:14)
I never said we could create our own truth Mike.
Well that's EXACTLY what you're doing, Mark. Scripture says we have but ONE God, and that Jesus is the Son OF that ONE God. See? Scripture says “Son OF God” and Trinity says “God the Son”. They have created their own truth, and you've bought into it hook, line, and sinker.I am soon to post a “Scripture says versus Trinity says” thread that will address the many UNSCRIPTURAL things the Trinitarians claim as truth.
Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:14)
You didn't answer the question- Is your spirit with you now? Is it you?
No, and No. My spirit is a part OF me, and therefore is neither me nor with me.I've already nipped this thinking in the bud with Charles, Mark. Unless you are willing to start claiming that the three PARTS of a human being are all individual PERSONS with their own minds, don't even bother with the “spirit/soul/body” trinity theory. Unless you are willing to claim that your spirit is the GOD OF your body, while your soul is the PRIEST OF your spirit, etc, then don't bother with this line of reasoning against me.
Mark, let's put 1:1 in YOUR terms so you can see the logic:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Godhead, and the Word was the Godhead.
Do you see it yet? Can you see how “the Godhead” could not be WITH “the Godhead” unless there were TWO Godheads?
peace,
mike
No Mike, thats EXACTLY what YOUR doing. For all the time of Jews and Christians from the beginning, they knew what it ment for Jesus to claim to be the Son of God. They understood that it equated to him claiming equality to God.“30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
It was known what Jesus was, and what it ment through scriptures about the Messiah. That is why so many places in the Bible give them both the same Title. It was understood for many, many centurys, until, LATER, just like it says in scripture. Men twisted knowledge and reduced him to the same stature as a prophet. They re-wrote scriptures that had been read for centurys, and asserted thier own opinion of Jesus, twisting the Kingship and authority and power of Jesus.
“In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed an independent group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to study the Bible.[16][17] During the course of his ministry Russell disputed many of the creeds, doctrines, and traditions of mainstream Christianity including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world.”
How to view this man? Let's see how he honored his vow to God in marriage-
“On March 13, 1879, Russell married Maria Frances Ackley (/məˈraɪ.ə/; 1850–1938) after a few months' acquaintance.[20] The couple separated in 1897. Russell blamed the marriage breakup on disagreements over Maria's insistence for a greater editorial role in Zion's Watch Tower magazine,[21] though a later court judgment noted that he had labelled the marriage “a mistake” three years before the dispute over her editorial ambitions had arisen.[22] Maria Russell filed a suit for legal separation in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in June 1903 and three years later filed for divorce under the claim of mental cruelty.[23] She was granted a divorce from bed and board, with alimony, in 1908.[24] Maria Russell died at the age of 88 in St. Petersburg, Florida on March 12, 1938 from complications related to Hodgkin's disease.[25]”
Also, it is written in scripture to judge a prophet on how his predictions play out. If they do not come to pass, do not fear them. They predicted many times the inauguration of the Kingdom, which never materialized. Nope. don't fear him.This is all prophysied in scripture. It doesn't change, however, the truth of Jesus' divinity, origin, and authority over the world. It is stated as a “Mystery”, which will be revealed. I believe the scriptures as written for centurys a true inspiration of God's word, as he willed and inspired. Also what the Christian church formed around and believed all these centurys, up to being twisted in the last days, as fortold.
Mike, I will not debate with you any more in this. You believe what has been programed into you by Lawers (Charles was one of them) of scripture. “Woe to you Lawyers”. You claim whatever you want to. We'll learn the truth soon enough, as it also states in scripture. I'm tired of you picking and choosing transations to fit your assertions, and then claiming yourself triumphant. Most obvious of this worthless “peeing contest” is your claim that your spirit isn't you. Mine is me, and it says Jesus is God and King of this world, with his spirit and his Father. “30 I and the Father are one.”
Peace and Love Mike-Mark
In the NWT, every time the Greek word “proskuneo” is used in reference to God, it is translated as “worship” (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time “proskuneo” is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as “obeisance” (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word “prosekunhsan” used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating “proskuneo” as “worship”, how would the verses above referring to Christ read?
The NWT translates the Greek word “kyrios” as “Jehovah” more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word “Jehovah” translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as “Jehovah” in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)?I found this interesting.
Mark! Even Jesus said that His Father is greater then He is….There is no trinity, if that is what you are implying here….. The trinity is mam made doctrine and not of God….The Holy Spirit is not the third person of the trinity… It is the power of, God…. Also there is a Scripture that says this
Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Jhn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
Peace IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 31 2011,12:44) Quote (carmel @ Oct. 30 2011,09:06) 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?
Charles,This is getting old. You are desparately trying to make a claim that Jesus IS God because he said he is sending his disciples as prophets – and it is most likely the WEAKEST “Jesus is God” claim I've heard to date.
He does NOT say, “I have SENT you prophets”. He says, “Look, I send you prophets”. It means, “Look, I AM SENDING you prophets”, which is exactly the way many Bibles render it:
New International Version (©1984)
Therefore I am sending you prophets………….New Living Translation (©2007)
“Therefore, I am sending you prophets………New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets……………International Standard Version (©2008)
“That is why I am sending you prophets…………Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Because of this behold, I am sending to you Prophets………..GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I'm sending you prophets…………Weymouth New Testament
“For this reason I am sending to you Prophets………..NETBible ©
“For this reason I am sending you prophets……….The NETBible adds this footnote: Greek: “behold I am sending.”
And the Greek lexicon at Biblos.com says: behold I sending unto you prophets……….
SourceSo it seems to me you are wasting my time with a non-issue, Charles. Please let this go, for it in no way makes a claim for Jesus being God Almighty.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2011,11:54) Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:14)
I never said we could create our own truth Mike.
Well that's EXACTLY what you're doing, Mark. Scripture says we have but ONE God, and that Jesus is the Son OF that ONE God. See? Scripture says “Son OF God” and Trinity says “God the Son”. They have created their own truth, and you've bought into it hook, line, and sinker.I am soon to post a “Scripture says versus Trinity says” thread that will address the many UNSCRIPTURAL things the Trinitarians claim as truth.
Quote (mikeangel @ Oct. 31 2011,18:14)
You didn't answer the question- Is your spirit with you now? Is it you?
No, and No. My spirit is a part OF me, and therefore is neither me nor with me.I've already nipped this thinking in the bud with Charles, Mark. Unless you are willing to start claiming that the three PARTS of a human being are all individual PERSONS with their own minds, don't even bother with the “spirit/soul/body” trinity theory. Unless you are willing to claim that your spirit is the GOD OF your body, while your soul is the PRIEST OF your spirit, etc, then don't bother with this line of reasoning against me.
Mark, let's put 1:1 in YOUR terms so you can see the logic:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Godhead, and the Word was the Godhead.
Do you see it yet? Can you see how “the Godhead” could not be WITH “the Godhead” unless there were TWO Godheads?
peace,
mikeQuote Scripture says we have but ONE God, and that Jesus is the Son OF that ONE God. Mike,
I know Mike that this is not your prefered way .
I simply posted them not for you but for others to meditate sriously. from the other hand ,do read them all,although I already posted them and you completely twisted them to quench your thirst,and ignoring that JESUS IS GOD IN FLESH.
Scriptures also say that the Son of God is also God,
FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT SLAVES TO WORLDLY WISDOM,COMMON SENSE, AND CARNAL LOGIC.
Most of the following is taken from Arnold Fruchtembaum's book 'Messianic Christology'.
Some verses show that the Messiah would also be God…
other verses show that He cannot simply be a man.
1. Isaiah 9:6 ‘For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;’This child which is born is called El-Gibbor, which as I’m sure you know is 'Mighty God' and is never used of a man. Avi-Ad is literally ‘Father of Eternity’ and could never describe a mere man. Some quotes for you…
In the Targum of Isaiah we read: “His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us.”
Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele [“Miracle”], Yo'etz [“Counselor”], Mashiah [“Messiah”], El [“God”], Gibbor [“Hero”], and Avi 'Ad Shalom [“Eternal Father of Peace”]
The great rabbi Ibn Ezra said: There are some interpreters who say that ‘wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father’ are the names of God, and that only ‘prince of peace’ is the name of the child. But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child. (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)
Clearly, if this was the only verse, it shows that this child is called God. The Rabbis called the Messiah by the name ‘God’.
2. Jeremiah 23:5-6 'The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.The Messiah is given the name of God alone. YHWH. Jehovah. The Midrash on Proverbs 19:21 says ‘Rabbi Hunah said ‘Eight names are given to the Messiah which are Yinnon, Shiloh, David, Menachem, Jehovah, Justi de Nostra, Tzemmach, Elias.’
The Midrash on Lam 1:16 says ‘What is the name of the Messiah? Rav Ava ben Kahanna said ‘Jehovah is his name and this is proved by, ‘this is his name… [quoting Jer 23:6].’
So this passage and these Rabbinic quotes show that the Messiah was called Jehovah. No mere man would ever be called by God’s n
ame.3. Micah 5:2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.
The Targum Jonathan (second century A. D.) : ‘And You Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, From you shall come forth before Me The Messiah.’
In regards to the Messiah’s human origin He is said to have been born in Bethlehem, but regarding His divine origin He is said to be ‘from old, from ancient days.’ Arnold Fruchenbaum writes ‘The Hebrew for ‘from long ago, from the days of eternity’ are the strongest Hebrew words ever used for eternity past. They are used of God the Father in Psalm 90:2… Again we have a passage which shows that Messiah is to be human – being born at some specific point in time at some specific place – yet having existed since eternity past, and therefore divine.’
4. Psalm 2:7-12
Messiah would be the Son of God. Therefore He would be divine. And in case you think this isn’t about the Messiah, Rabbi Rashi says ‘Our Rabbis expound it as relating to King Messiah.’
5. Isaiah 7:14
While you don’t like it, the prophecy shows that a virgin would give birth to a child who is literally, ‘God with us’. The Hebrew word 'Almah' is used in this passage and speaks of a virgin. Arnold Fruchtenbaum writes ‘Since everyone agrees that 'almah' means an unmarried woman, if the woman in Isaiah 7:14 were a non-virgin, then God would be promising a sign involving fornication and illegitimacy. It is unthinkable that God would sanction sin, and in any case, what would be so unusual about an illegitimate baby that could possibly constitute a sign? As far as ancient Jewish writers were concerned, there are no arguments about Isaiah 7:14 predicting a virgin birth… The Jews who made this translation (Septuagint), living much closer to the times of Isaiah than we do today, translated Isaiah 7:14 using the Greek word parthenos which very clearly and exclusively means a virgin.
6. Psalm 110
We know from 1 Kings 2:19 that anyone who sits at the king’s right hand must be equal with the King. This Psalm of David’s speaks of someone other than Jehovah who is David’s lord. This Lord is both a priest and a king and sits at Jehovah’s right hand. It is a joke to say that this is David himself as David was from not a priest, but was from the tribe of Judah. Nor does he sit at the right hand of God. It is the Messiah who is spoken about in this passage and He is equal to God.
7. Prov 30:4
Here is a riddle for you… It consists of 6 questions. The first 4 questions are obviously about God Himself as only God could accomplish these things. The fifth question asks what the name of God is. I’m sure you can answer this one. The sixth question reveals that God has a Son! And it asks what His name is! Oh, oh! I know, I know. The Messiah is the son of God and His name is Jesus!
8. Psalm 45:6-7
Elohim is applied to two divine personalities in the same verse! The second Elohim is called the God of the first Elohim! Only makes sense in terms of the Messiah being God, the son of God as other verses have shown!
9. Hosea 1:7
We see the same thing where the speaker (God – Elohim) will save them by the Jehovah, their Elohim. Elohim is again spoken of as two distinct personalities. Another example is Gen 19:24.
10. Zech 2:10-11
Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,” declares the LORD. “Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.’ The LORD is going to dwell amongst us and it is the LORD Almighty that sent Him! Can it get any clearer? This shows the YHWH sent YHWH and only makes sense when you know that the Messiah Jesus is God! He is the one who lived amongst us. He is ‘God with us!’
That is why in the Shema, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!’, the ‘our God’ part is plural in the Hebrew (literally ‘our Gods’ and the word for ‘one’ is echad – a compound unity, not absolute unity as in the word ‘yachid’.) Arnold writes ‘If Moses had intended to teach God’s absolute oneness as opposed to His compound oneness, this would have been a far more appropriate word (yachid) to use.’ But he didn’t! He used echad which is used in such passages as Gen 1:5 where evening and morning are called one (echad’) day. Gen 2:24 where when man and woman come together in marriage and are called ‘one flesh’. Ezra 2:64 where the whole assembly was one, though ofcourse it comprised of many people. Or Ezek 37:17 where the two sticks are combined to become one. These are all uses of echad and show that it is a compound unity.
Even in the Old Testament there are three distinct personalities that are considered divine.
1. The Lord YHWH
2. The Angel of YHWH
3. The Spirit of God.
The Angel of the Lord is clearly seen to be divine in passages such as Gen 16:7-14, Gen 22:9-16, Gen 31:11-13, 32:24-30, Ex 3:1-5, Judges 6:11-24 amongst others. These passages show that ‘The Angel of the Lord’ is much more than just an angel and is a fulfillment of the Micah prophecy about the Messiah ‘whose goings forth have been from eternity.’
The Spirit of God is clearly divine in such passages as Gen 1:2, Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 11:2, Isaiah 63:10, Isaiah 63:14 amongst others. Arnold writes ‘The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because, as can be seen in these quotations, He has all the characteristics of personality – intellect, emotion and will – and is considered divine.’
Arnold points out that all three personalities are used in the same passage such as Isa 48:12-16 where God the creator of the earth is speaking and says that He has been sent by another, Jehovah, together with a third person, the Spirit of Jehovah. This is the trinity! And it is clearly seen in the Tanach. The three are seen also in Isaiah 63:7-14.
I hope this helps as to say that there is no passage that shows that the Messiah is God goes against scripture and the position of the ancient Rabbis.
ENJOY,TWIST AND DONT REPLY SINCE IT IS NOT FOR YOU,AND ALSO SINCE YOU CONSIDERING IT A WASTE OF TIME TO SEARCH FOR TRUTH!!
Quote So it seems to me you are wasting my time ONE MORE THING:
KEEP IN MIND ALWAYS THIS:
lUKE 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and
NO MAN KNOWETH WHO THE SON IS, BUT THE FATHER; AND WHO THE FATHER IS, BUT THE SON,
and he to whom the Son will reveal him.peace and love in Jesus
CHARLES
Quote (mikeangel @ Nov. 01 2011,09:43)
Mike, I will not debate with you any more in this. You believe what has been programed into you by Lawers (Charles was one of them) of scripture.
Hi Mark,I don't follow any man, including Charles Taze Russell. What you just posted about him is more than I ever knew about him. I don't know that much about him because I don't follow him. If it is absolutely necessary for you to bash the JWs in an attempt to make yourself feel better or wiser or “right”, then at least save those bashes for David; because I'm not a JW, nor have I ever been one.
Quote (mikeangel @ Nov. 01 2011,09:43)
You claim whatever you want to
I claim exactly what the scriptures teach – nothing less and nothing more.Quote (mikeangel @ Nov. 01 2011,09:43)
I'm tired of you picking and choosing transations to fit your assertions, and then claiming yourself triumphant.
For example?Quote (mikeangel @ Nov. 01 2011,09:43)
Most obvious of this worthless “peeing contest” is your claim that your spirit isn't you. Mine is me, and it says Jesus is God and King of this world, with his spirit and his Father.
Look at your own words, Mark: YOUR spirit and MINE spirit. Don't you know that words like “YOURS” and “MINE” are words that describe POSSESSIONS OF a person, and NOT words that describe that person himself?
“That car is MINE” doesn't mean the car IS you, but that it BELONGS TO you.
Our spirits don't even actually belong to us, Mark. They are on loan from God, and go back to Him who gave them upon our death. But I guess we can call them “ours”, as we do with our other POSSESSIONS, even though “everything under heaven belongs to Jehovah”. (Read my signature)
I haven't been trying to have a “peeing contest” with you, Mark. I honestly thought I was teaching you what God has taught me. And judging by your post about “the Word was a god”, I actually thought I was making some headway with you. You were learning scriptural things you didn't know before……….isn't that a GOOD thing?
Speaking of which, I am in the Book of Isaiah right now on my fourth time through the entire scriptures, and read this part today:
Isaiah 23:7 NET ©
Is this really your boisterous city whose origins are in the distant past, and whose feet led her to a distant land to reside?Do those bolded words sound familiar to you? They should, because they are the same Hebrew and English words from Micah 5:2. But this scripture is about the city of Tyre, not Jesus. I wonder if you'll try to make the same claim that the city of Tyre is from eternity – since the same words are used about its origin as are used about Jesus' origin?
Mark, please don't walk away from our discussion. It's understandable that you are angry with me because I'm showing you things that don't align with your doctrine. Old habits die hard. But while the things I've been showing you don't align with your doctrine, they DO align perfectly with scripture. Doesn't that account for anything?
I'm preparing that thread I spoke about yesterday – getting all my ducks in a row, so to speak. I think you'll find it interesting to see in black and white just how far from the scriptures your doctrine really is.
As for the scriptures you quoted:
John 10
“30 I and the Father are one.”31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Verse 30:
1. If you are to take this literally, instead of what is really meant (being one IN PURPOSE), then you'll have to give up your Trinity belief and move onto a Oneness belief. Because if this statement is literal, then Jesus isn't “God the Son”, but “God the Father” Himself.2. Jesus later conveys his hope that we too will be one with him and his Father. Does this mean that Jesus hopes we will all become “persons in the Godhead”? Or does it make more sense that Jesus hopes for us to become one IN PURPOSE with him and his God?
Verse 32:
Jesus identifies himself as someone OTHER THAN the Father, and explains that the works he did were not his own, but actually works that his Father did THROUGH him. (This is supported by many other quotes of Jesus himself in scripture.)Verse 33:
The word “theon” in that verse is without the definite article “the” – just like in John 1:1c. The Jews were claiming that Jesus, a mere MAN, was making himself out to be a god, not THE God. But either way, Jesus clearly explained to them that God Himself had called other men “gods” before. He also explained that he never claimed to be God, but the Son OF God.peace,
mikeQuote (carmel @ Nov. 01 2011,15:28) I know Mike that this is not your prefered way . I simply posted them not for you but for others to meditate sriously.
Okay, then I hope the others do what you want. I might take a look at them someday when I have the time.Quote (carmel @ Nov. 01 2011,15:28) ONE MORE THING: KEEP IN MIND ALWAYS THIS:
lUKE 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and
NO MAN KNOWETH WHO THE SON IS, BUT THE FATHER; AND WHO THE FATHER IS, BUT THE SON,
and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
YOU should keep that in mind, Charles. It clearly says that all things Jesus has were GIVEN to him by his Father and God. It further lists Jesus as someone OTHER THAN his Father, who we all know from scripture is “the ONLY true God”.peace,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
