- This topic has 2,076 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike,
You said:
Just because another person may also be a Lord of other lords, a King of other kings, or a Teacher of other teachers does not equate them with Yahweh – or make them a part of a Unity of Spirit with Yahweh.
True, however Jesus is also the giver of eternal life, the Lord of all creation, has all authority in heaven and on earth, is called Yahweh, is called the only begotten God, the head of the church, the eternal king, our one Lord, our Redeemer, our Savior, etc. Surely you can see the difference between Neb and Artie and Jesus.
Btw, I don’t think that 1 Timothy 6:14-16 is talking about the Father as King of kings and Lord of lords. It is talking about Jesus…another discussion will spring from that, I presume, haha.
People come up with the most weird and creative doctrines in order to avoid truly believing that Jesus is the Son of God.
I personally think this is why people preach false doctrine here.
Anything but the Son of God.
Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven
The only begotten Son of God is another way of saying the only begotten God. John 1 uses both for the same person.
Hi gadam.
I do not believe that I have ever wrote anything on this subject. But I did look at this many years ago. So I think it is time to study it and write something about it so I have an answer for next time. For now, I will share my thoughts.
LORD is the word YHWH, (as you know). The Jews did not want to pronounce or mispronounce the name of YHWH out of reverence. They did not want to risk violating the commandment that says, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain”. So YHWH is not related to Lord directly, but I think you already know that.
(YHWH) is not found in any New Testament manuscript. The New Testament instead used Kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God). Obviously both testaments were written in different languages. Apart from direct quotes, words are translated to an equivalent meaning.
Peter tells is that God made Jesus, Lord. “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”Hi Proclaimer, I appreciate your honesty and patience in answering my post on One God and One Lord.
The problem here is that the Hebrew Bible does not talk about anything on this Jesus, the mysterious person who was much honored along with One (true) God in the NT. It’s because of the the imagination and invention by the NT writers by twisting the texts in the Hebrew Bible which is much debated by the Jewish audience who are the present owners of the Hebrew Bible and its religion.
The statements of the NT writers which you quoted above on Jesus are purely the strange concepts and are no where visible in the Hebrew Bible. Yes the word LORD or Lord in the English translations of the Hebrew Bible talks about Yahweh (YHWH) the God of the Hebrew people or Israelis. The verse in Deut 10:17 “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe,” talks about this Yahweh the God of Israelis. You are right Lord or lord in English talks about a person who is in some authority and God is certainly the Lord of all who is above all authority in this creation. And this Jesus who was assumed to be the coming Messiah of Jewish people had been made by those NT writers as more than just human Messiah but as some godly being who was preexisting along with God in the beginning, involved in God’s creation and came in the flesh. The Christianity further made this Jesus as the second person of the Triune Godhead. Both Judaism and Islam hated this mysterious religious phenomena as an Idolatry or Polytheism.
This is where I am vexed with these mysterious religious concepts on Jesus and finding these texts of those NT writers as some mythology like any other religion in my country.
Hi LU
Thanks for your post. So you believe in two separate Yahwehs that act as one Yahweh? Is that correct?
Me
Father and Son have the same divine NAME (YHVH) AND they ACT as ONE GOD (ELOHIM)
WHY You write “YHVH ” WITH a “s”?
YHVH IS a divine NAME OF the TRUE “ELOHIM” AND OF HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
So I believe in two separate divine beings(God the Father and HIS Son) that act as one God named YHVH .
And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD(YHVH) will be the only one, and His name the only one.
Zechariah 14:9(NASB)
🙏
Adam, the reason the Jews hate it is because it’s a “Lie” , there is “ONLY” ONE “TRUE “God, Just as Jesus said , He even quoted the ‘SHEMA’ . That was not only the Jew’s creed it was his also.
If you take in consideration all Scripture and draw a summary, you will see what I told you is true, because it fits , both the truth written in the New and Old Testements. The some of the New Testement translators used words like (dia) which can carry many different meanings, to push their trinitarian teachings, but if you do what Paul told the Berean’s to do, compare what is said or written , with what the scripture say’s then you can get the truth, and remember when Paul said that there existed “ONLY” the Old Testement writings, so what ever any one says it must agree with what is written in the Old Testement.
WHAT trinitarians say does not say what is written in the Old Testement. When Jesus said every word must be fulfilled which is written in the scriptures, he was speaking of the Old Testement writtings, because the New Testement had not been written yet, so if anything written in the New Testement, that does not match what is written in the Old Testement, is a (Lie) . Simple that.
If we read things that aline with the old testement like this,…” Father, this is eternal life, that they might know you the “ONLY” true GOD, and (the man) Jesus Christ who you have sent. And again, as for God’s there are many so-called God’s, but unto us (true believers) there is but “ONE” GOD, and “ONE”, “MEDIATOR”, between men and God, “THE MAN” Jesus Christ.
Adam us that as an anchor , and if no matter what others say doesn’t fit that, then see them a false teachers , I do.
Peace and love to you and yours Adam. ………gene
WHAT trinitarians say does not say what is written in the Old Testement. When Jesus said every word must be fulfilled which is written in the scriptures, he was speaking of the Old Testement writtings, because the New Testement had not been written yet, so if anything written in the New Testement, that does not match what is written in the Old Testement, is a (Lie) . Simple that.
If we read things that aline with the old testement like this,…” Father, this is eternal life, that they might know you the “ONLY” true GOD, and (the man) Jesus Christ who you have sent. And again, as for God’s there are many so-called God’s, but unto us (true believers) there is but “ONE” GOD, and “ONE”, “MEDIATOR”, between men and God, “THE MAN” Jesus Christ.
Adam us that as an anchor , and if no matter what others say doesn’t fit that, then see them a false teachers , I do.
Hi brother Gene, thanks again for your kind reply to my post. Yes there were no NT writings at the time of Jesus or Paul. But the words written on Jesus were the opinions and the conceptions of the NT writers who were Greek speaking Christians after decades after the so called incidents and the words spoken presumed to be of Jesus by those writers for which there is no proof as we find them with lot of deviations from those of Hebrew Bible.
Please take the example of John 17:3 which you quoted above in your post. Here the so called statement of Jesus claimed by this writer of Fourth Gospel – Father is the only True God and some one has to believe this God as well as Jesus Christ whom he had sent for claiming the so called eternal life. This statement of believing ‘God and his Messiah’ is no where found in the Hebrew Bible even when we read about the promised Messiah who would be God’s warrior prince for his people Israel. This strange concept of believing in Messiah is no where found in the Hebrew Bible forget about treating him non-human being who was preexisting prior to his birth on this earth. And involvement of Messiah in God’s creation is further deviation from the Hebrew Bible and making him a mythological being like in any pagan religion.
These are the few of my observations on the NT writings on Jesus.
Adam, ….I agree with most of what you have said , but one thing that the Messiah was not written about in the old testement , Moses clearly wrote about him , and told us to listen to what he was saying , And Isaiah described him and what he would do, which is exactly what Jesus did Do. So we may have some differences on , that he was not mentioned in the old testement, but he certainly was not mentioned as a God of anykind or that he prexisted or was alive at that time, in the old testement, that was all added by false teachers later, who twisted up the writings of the scriptures in the new testement .
Making Jesus out to be a God, and presenting him as a preexisting being of any kind is simply a “LIE” , and remember Adam, Jesus said the big deception would be about him, …..“for “many” shall Come in my name and “DECIEVE”, MANY.
Modern day Christanity is beyond a doubt the biggest “deciever” about who “The Man” Jesus is on this earth today, read, no study, what…….2 Ths 2, is saying , they have turned the “IMAGE” of the “Son of Man”, Jesus Christ who “NOW”, Sits in the temple of God, into a God, and “they” worship him as their God. This false “IMAGE” OF Jesus is what turns the “image” of him, into a man of Sin. There is no real man of sin , it is this “false image” of Jesus being a God, that Jesus will completely destroy at his return , just as it says he will, it’s not a real person, he will destroy, with his own mouth, but a “LIE”, about himself, he will abolish at his return .
That will be the first thing Jesus does when he returns, just as it is written, then we will see what happens to these, prexisting, Jesus as a God , people, when they hear these words, “depart from me you workers of iniquity”,” I know you not”. I have told everyone on this site this over and over so they can’t say they never heard of this before.
Adam, Jesus Christ is the “true’, “Messiah”, that is the truth brother.
Peace and love to you and yours Adam. ……….gene
Proclaimer: What you engage in Mike is not science however. You are not qualified. At this stage, you are a person seeking to look at anything that backs up your predefined belief and discard anything that contradicts it. I have met people like this before. They were the Trinitarians. So enamoured by their doctrine, that all scripture, reason, and observation was discarded by default.
This condition of wilful blindness can happen to anyone it seems. But the common elements IMO would have to be pride and trusting in your own understanding above all else. It is what happens to people who have ears but choose not to hear. Such make themselves into fools.
Says the guy who is so ignorant on the issue that he doesn’t even realize that Big Bang, Deep Time Uniformitarianism and Common Descent Evolution aren’t even a part of science at all.
Dr. Colin Patterson was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts who wrote many books on the subject, including a book called “Evolution”. In that book, this highly regarded evolutionist pointed out that the theory of evolution isn’t even a part of science…
“…it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.“
It is the same for the big bang idea, and for the idea that the world/universe is billions of years old. They are pure speculation about unique events that are alleged to have occurred in the past – and are therefore not even a part of science, because they are not observable, testable, and repeatable.
Dr. Patterson acknowledged late in his life that he’d been working on evolution for twenty years of his life – and couldn’t actually prove one single thing about it. Then he started asking his colleagues (the most prominent figures in common descent evolution) if they could tell him one true thing about evolution – and they couldn’t…
“Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).
You can read a very short article about this interview here: http://www.creation-facts.org/scientists/colin-patterson/
Proclaimer, I can tell you why and when Scientism went from steady state theory to big bang theory… and show you all the blatant flaws associated with it ever since. And I can tell you who the author of Uniformitarianism was, what it is, why it is so blatantly flawed, and how it gave rise to Darwin’s idea of common descent evolution.
So you keep blindly parroting fanciful stories that you saw on the internet about our world, and telling yourself that I’m the one who is science illiterate if it makes you feel special. But like I told you before, I’ve forgotten more about YOUR Scientism stories than you’ve ever learned – let alone understood – in the first place.
Proclaimer, your comment above describes you – not me.
Mike: Just because another person may also be a Lord of other lords, a King of other kings, or a Teacher of other teachers does not equate them with Yahweh – or make them a part of a Unity of Spirit with Yahweh.
LU: True, however Jesus is also the giver of eternal life, the Lord of all creation, has all authority in heaven and on earth, is called Yahweh, is called the only begotten God, the head of the church, the eternal king, our one Lord, our Redeemer, our Savior, etc. Surely you can see the difference between Neb and Artie and Jesus.
Jesus is never definitively called Yahweh in scripture. That being said, yes, I can clearly identify many differences between Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar/Artaxerxes.
But Jesus is also called the son, servant, priest, prophet, sacrificial lamb, holy one, mediator, and anointed one OF Yahweh, right? One cannot conceivably BE the very God he is all those things OF, Kathi.
Jesus can be “the Lord of all creation” without being the Most High God. But Jesus can’t be “God’s holy servant Jesus” while also being the very God he is the servant of.
Jesus can be “the head of the church” without being the Most High God. But Jesus can’t be “God’s messiah” while also being the very God who anointed him.
Understand? It is possible for Jesus to have all of the titles and accolades that you listed without actually being God. But it is impossible for Jesus to have any of the titles I listed while also being God.
Hey, do any of you long-standing members here remember when we could have a “signature” that showed up at the bottom of our posts?
I remember that Proclaimer’s (t8’s) signature was: A mistaken but honest man, once proven to be mistaken, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest.
That’s why I sometimes throw his own saying back in his face when he is proven to be mistaken about something, but can’t bring himself to acknowledge his mistake.
My signature was my favorite scripture from Job 41:11… Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.
That scripture recently came to mind and got me wondering… In the heliocentric model, what would those words from Yahweh even mean? If “the heavens” are the vast vacuum of space filled with stars and planets and galaxies, what would “under heaven” be? Here’s a Scientism illustration of the universe (I added the red parts)…
Did Job and his friends live “underneath” the heliocentric universe or something? Is God’s throne “above” the heliocentric universe? What would distinguish that God dwells “above” it, and what would it mean that He owns everything “underneath” it?
On the other hand, the Biblical description of an earth with a domed firmament (heaven) over it aligns with this statement by the God who created that very world. His throne is above the firmament (eg: Ezekiel 1:26), and Job and his friends existed underneath it. Therefore God was vindicated in pointing out that, no matter how dire things looked for Job, nobody on earth has a claim against God since He owns everything and everybody that dwells “under heaven” (ie: the firmament of heaven).
It’s just another example of how the Scientism model of our world contradicts the Biblical description of it – even when the Biblical description is given by the very God who created our world.
Proclaimer, what and where is “under heaven” in your model?
I’ve Created a New Thread
Since there is clearly a lot of confusion and denial concerning the many gods in the Bible, I have started a new thread centered on that one subject. When I came to HN, I didn’t know too much about the Trinity Doctrine – or even that there were people who believed Jesus didn’t preexist his time on earth. It was through much discussion on this forum and Biblical research that many of us became “experts” on both of those subjects. I hope this new thread will be a way for the members to also become experts on the Biblical fact that there exist many gods, and one Most High God of all the other ones.
I have started the thread with one simple question. Let’s please make this thread a place for honest discussion without ad hominem attacks or ridicule. And let’s remember that HONEST discussion of any subject involves various parties challenging the other parties’ beliefs with questions. In an HONEST discussion, those questions are DIRECTLY and HONESTLY answered/addressed by the other parties (as opposed to being ignored, or responded to with pontification about a bunch of crap that doesn’t even address the question).
Here are some examples of things that won’t be actual honest ANSWERS to my first question…
Gene: Mike the mistake is made by not truly understanding what the actual word God means, it’s not a person it’s “A DESCRIPTOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP”, you have with something, anything.
This may or may not be a true statement, but it hasn’t actually ANSWERED any of the “god” questions that I’ve asked Gene in this thread – and it won’t be an actual ANSWER to the first question on the new thread.
Adam: Hi brother Gene, this is the problem with many JW and other Christians who make Jesus a god like Satan who is the god of this world as per 2 Corinthians 4:4. This is where I am vexed with these mysterious religious concepts on Jesus and finding these texts of those NT writers as some mythology like any other religion in my country.
Likewise, Adam’s personal beliefs about why one God is okay, but more than one god is “mythology” doesn’t actually ANSWER the question of whether or not – according to both OT and NT scriptures – Jesus, Satan, and many others are gods.
Proclaimer: And when Mike says ‘Jesus is a god”, I believe he is wrong too because there is no indefinite article in Greek, so you would say ‘the God’, not ‘a god’.
I feel like I have to repeat myself over and over regarding this. The first man was Adam. His offspring are in nature, adam which simply means ‘man’ or ‘mankind’. It seems people really cannot grasp the difference between identity and nature however.
Maybe most people who post here are not that smart or intellectual.
And this is especially what I’d prefer not to see in the new thread. First of all, it is the scriptures that say Jesus is a god. I didn’t make it up out of thin air. Secondly, Proclaimer can’t seem to grasp the fact (after being told MANY times) that a single member of mankind is, by definition, “a man”. If you are “man” by nature, then you are “a man”. If you are “god” by nature, then you are “a god”. And thirdly, ad hominem attacks are not welcomed in any respectable debate.
That being said, I truly hope that EVERY member of HN comes to this new thread, joins the debate, makes valid arguments, asks honest questions, and – most importantly – stands and defends their arguments by directly and honestly ANSWERING the questions of others.
Here is the thread…
Hi Mike,
You: If you show me a scripture that clearly and undeniably teaches us about a previous “perfect earth”, I’m willing to learn about it.
Me: Mike, I ALREADY POSTED THIS SCRIPTURE BUT THOUGH YOU READ IT, FOR YOUR OWN INTEREST, YOU NEVER SAID ANYTHING,
OBVIOUS, BECAUSE IT SIMPLY SAYS THE TRUTH!
Read this scripture HEREUNDER again please and answer:
IS HE TALKING ABOUT THE SIX-DAY CREATION?
YES OR NO Please!
Jeremiah:4:23 I beheld the earth, and lo it was void, and nothing: and
THE HEAVENS, and there was no light in them.
24I looked upon the mountains, and behold they trembled: and all the hills were troubled
25 I beheld, and lo there was no man:
and all the birds of the air were gone.
26I looked, and behold Carmel was a WILDERNESS: and all its cities were destroyed at the presence of the Lord, and at the presence of the wrath of his indignation.
I am waiting?
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Mike,
You said:
Jesus is never definitively called Yahweh in scripture.
Wrong. The Branch is Jesus who is called Yahweh our righteousness. In Hebrews 1, the Father identifies the Son as Yahweh who laid the foundation of the earth…
But it is impossible for Jesus to have any of the titles I listed while also being God.
Correction, it is impossible for Jesus to have any of the titles you listed while also being God the Father. It is not impossible for Jesus to have any of the titles you listed while being the One who is united with the Father as His Son in the Yahweh Unity.
Proclaimer,
Please answer this:
You said:
If you say ‘Jesus is God’. Then in Greek, you are saying that ‘Jesus is the God’ in Greek and that is wrong.
And what if you say Jesus is the only begotten God who was with God the Father in the beginning and through the only begotten God, all things were made.
Is that a correct statement according to you?
Lightenup said:
And what if you say Jesus is the only begotten God who was with God the Father in the beginning and through the only begotten God, all things were made. Is that a correct statement according to you?
It could lead to confusion. Especially since you are capitalizing God.
You would be better off saying “Jesus is the only begotten Son who was with God the Father in the beginning and through the only begotten Son, all things were made. That would communicate the central message regarding his place with God and agree with scripture elsewhere.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.
The real question is why do you not do that? Why not devote the time you argue here about Jesus being God into Jesus being the Son. After all, being the Son means that he was born of the Father and from that, you can easily derive what nature he would have. Further, it wouldn’t be controversial at all. Finally, you would be building on the foundation of the Church and be commended by the Father.
“Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
And if you were saying that, then you wouldn’t be weird anymore. Rather you would be a soldier fighting a good cause and being commended by God, Jesus, and the righteous.
Mike said:
PROCLAIMER, WHAT AND WHERE IS “UNDER HEAVEN” IN YOUR MODEL?
On land / a planet / could be the sea if you were on a boat. The heaven or heavens would be the sky.
Mike said:
And this is especially what I’d prefer not to see in the new thread. First of all, it is the scriptures that say Jesus is a god. I didn’t make it up out of thin air.
You did add in the indefinite article. Greek only uses the definite article or none at all.
Secondly, Proclaimer can’t seem to grasp the fact (after being told MANY times) that a single member of mankind is, by definition, “a man”. If you are “man” by nature, then you are “a man”. If you are “god” by nature, then you are “a god”.
In Greek, if you talk of nature then you can say man or mankind. But if you single out a single man, then you say “the man”. Not ‘a man”.
Mike said:
Says the guy who is so ignorant on the issue that he doesn’t even realize that Big Bang, Deep Time Uniformitarianism and Common Descent Evolution aren’t even a part of science at all.
Are you trying to impress me with big words?
And if God created the heavens and the earth and spreads out the heavens, then the Big Bang supports that. Because that theory doesn’t purport to know how something came from nothing. It only says that from very little (a singularity) everything came. It doesn’t say anything about where the seed came from or what is outside of this seed that is growing.
Proclaimer, I can tell you why and when Scientism went from steady state theory to big bang theory… and show you all the blatant flaws associated with it ever since. And I can tell you who the author of Uniformitarianism was, what it is, why it is so blatantly flawed, and how it gave rise to Darwin’s idea of common descent evolution.
Steady State didn’t need a God because the universe is always existing. Big Bang did and does require God. Go figure. Science made an argument for God. Love it. And Darwin stole his ideas. He was a fool according to scripture. and perhaps a thief too. He took the work of another scientist who said that natural selection let the best of a species survive thereby preserving the species. Darwin stole that idea and drew an opposite conclusion. That species change to other species. Regardless, Genesis doesn’t even debunk species changing. It says that God made the kinds or that two of every kind went on the ark. The created kind is a much broader category than the modern classification called species. For example, various types of dogs can breed with one another. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. Regardless, Darwin appeals to men who have no God as they think Darwin proves that there is no God. Such men are blind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
