- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Nick,
I rely on the entire scriptures and they agree with a right worship of the Father and Son as those who are due the glory and dominion over all creation for ever and ever. I have used many verses over the years here as ‘witness’ to this. Thanks for asking though.
Great, I appreciate your willingness to consider another view. It is refreshing.
Hi LU,
So Jesus Christ to you is an offspring from God?
Heb 7
But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.
LU,
Isaiah 8:12-15
11 Jehovah spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying,
12 Say ye not, A conspiracy, concerning all whereof this people shall say, A conspiracy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be in dread thereof .
13 Jehovah of hosts, him shall ye sanctify; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many shall stumble thereon, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.So your point is that since Jehovah is speaking of himself in the third person therefore he must be speaking of another person.
Matthew 9:9Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
So does this passage prove to you that Matthew the Apostle did not write the book of Matthew or 2) Matthew the Apostle has chosen to write of himself in the third person for his own reasons.
@kerwin
Well, my point is that He is speaking of another person and not of Himself in the third person. I understand that at times Jehovah or anyone can speak in third person and it is actually regarding themselves. Our belief system, if incorrect, will blind us to the correct understanding.@NickHassan
you said:So Jesus Christ to you is an offspring from God?
Heb 7
But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.
Yes, the person of Jesus is an offspring of and from the one true God, the Father. The offspring eternally existed with the Father and is a part of the Father. Which makes Him the same type of being as the one true God, the Father. If you don’t acknowledge Him as an eternal part of the Father then you deny who He is significantly and hence you understand the Son to be much less than He is, imo.
@NickHassan
Regarding the Word being a person…He appears in visions, He takes Abraham by the hand, He walks, He speaks, etc.
Maybe you think that a message is personified by these terms but I think the person is symbolized by the term “word” since He reveals God’s mind.LU,
Well, my point is that He is speaking of another person and not of Himself in the third person. I understand that at times Jehovah or anyone can speak in third person and it is actually regarding themselves. Our belief system, if incorrect, will blind us to the correct understanding.
So without the context of already believing that Jesus is a second Jehovah, Isaiah 8:12-15 is not evidence he is as God could well be speaking of himself in the third person.
@Nick
you asked:So we are to deduce that he is a person?
Scripture does not need to tell us?
The Word was with God and was God.Is God a person or two persons by your deductions?
An offspring from the one true God and yet is the one true God??If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and came from a duck…it is another duck, right!?
Think about it.Kerwin,
It is just one of many instances where Jesus is identified as Jehovah, not the only one.
Who is the Lord of lords in the OT?
Who is the Lord of lords in the NT?
Who is the First and the Last in the OT?
Who is the First and the Last in the NT?
Who is the good shepherd in the OT?
Who is the good shepherd in the NT?
Whose name did the Israelites do things in, in the OT?
Whose name did the apostles do things in, in the NT? etc…The only true God, the Father, has a part of Him that is just like Him as offsprings always are. Hebrew names, from what I understand, reflect some significant character, feature, or purpose from what I have read and the name Jehovah reflects a state of being…an always existent state of being and that sets Him apart from all created beings that might be called theos somewhere in scripture. I believe that the one true God, the Father, always existed and I know you do also and His name reflects that-Jehovah. I also believe the Son always existed as an offspring part of the one true God and thus the name Jehovah reflects His always existence. What is unique about an offspring ‘part’ of a person, is that that particular part is just like the person that he is a part of as opposed to the foot or the elbow part per se.
You seem to understand the one true God as one that does not have an eternal offspring part to Him. I understand the one true God, the Father as one that does have an eternal offspring part to Him. That seems to be the main difference to what influences us as we process the Word of God.
When Jehovah, the Father speaks about being God alone, the offspring part of Him is included as part of Him, as I understand it. The offspring part of the one true God, the Father is an extremely important part of the Father. With the offspring part, the Father directly creates the cosmos and relates to that creation and provides redemption and salvation to creation. That offspring part, Jehovah (the Son) acts as the Word of His Father and the image of His Father. It is all very beautiful to know the offspring part of the one true God, as God to us also; as the eternal offspring part of the one true God, the Father.
There is a ton of assumptions here and little scripture.
John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.Jesus was talking to the Pharisees (I think) and I imagine that they had lots of theories about this and that like you do.
Is God your father, or is he a committee?
One way to deny truth is to say, something like, “The Father is not God”. Another way to deny truth is to say, “the Father is God, BUT so is the son, and this and that…”.
If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and came from a duck…it is another duck, right!?
Think about it.Could also be an image of a duck, made in the likeness of a duck, or the offspring of a duck.
God is theos in nature but is also the one true Theos.
Satan is devil in nature and identity. Other are devil in nature but not the Devil himself.
If you ignore these possibilities then yes you are left with your theory that God includes all theos except false ones. But your thinking is flawed because it ignores many things.
Is Eve Adam himself because she walked and talked like a human. No, but she was adam, i.e., part of mankind. But there is one Adam from whom all human originate. Just as there is one God in whom all spirits came.
I know this will go right over your head. Like water off a ducks back as the saying goes. No absorption of understanding. Just falls right off the surface of your mind. I might as well be saying quack quack.
Lu,
Kerwin,
It is just one of many instances where Jesus is identified as Jehovah, not the only one.
Who is the Lord of lords in the OT?
Who is the Lord of lords in the NT?
Who is the First and the Last in the OT?
Who is the First and the Last in the NT?
Who is the good shepherd in the OT?
Who is the good shepherd in the NT?
Whose name did the Israelites do things in, in the OT?
Whose name did the apostles do things in, in the NT? etc…It is just one of many instances where Jesus is identified as Jehovah, not the only one.
We already discussed this and you admitted that it could be a case of Jehovah addressing himself in the third person but which you because of you choice of beliefs believe is Jehovah speaking of another Jehovah who you because of your convictions believe is Jesus. The fact you have such a conviction is not enough evidence to convince other who hear different things from the same passage.
The rest is titles and the same title can be applied to more than one person. Cesar was literally a Lord of Lords and King of Kings because because many kings were subject. The same could be said of Nebakanezer. Even the title first and last is not reserved for God alone and in the OT is simply meant one and only. Scripture calls the head god of other nation Elohim but it does not mean they are the one true God.
The last one is that the Israelites of the OT did many things in the name of God but I am not sure how that is evidence to support your claim that Jesus is a second Jehovah.
To me it is strait forward Jesus was tempted by sin while the one true God cannot be therefore Jesus cannot be God. Because I find it impossible for Jesus to be God I cannot see where others see Jesus being God because God is speaking of himself in the third person or Jesus has the same titles God does.
you said:
To me it is strait forward Jesus was tempted by sin while the one true God cannot be therefore Jesus cannot be God.
Did you ever consider that is one of the reasons the person of Jesus had to become a man?
You also said:
We already discussed this and you admitted that it could be a case of Jehovah addressing himself in the third person but which you because of you choice of beliefs believe is Jehovah speaking of another Jehovah who you because of your convictions believe is Jesus. The fact you have such a conviction is not enough evidence to convince other who hear different things from the same passage.
Can the same type of thing be said about you? Can you admit that when someone is using third person pronouns, they are normally speaking of ANOTHER PERSON? Peter supports my conclusion and not yours. It is Peter that identifies Jesus as the rock of offense written about in scripture. If the name Yahweh/Jehovah was used in the Greek texts instead of the word kurios/lord, we would see clearly that Jesus is also called Yahweh/Jehovah if my understanding is correct. Look at the many times the article “the” is ADDED before the word Lord/LORD in the NT. If you look in the original Greek, you will see where the article is added and if you analyze the translations, some translations that substitute the name Yahweh for Lord and add the article will bracket the word ‘the’ and write [the] Lord as in the Darby translation, for example:
Darby Bible Translation
For it is written, *I* live, saith [the] Lord, that to me shall bow every knee, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Btw, the word is Jehovah and not Lord where ‘it is written’ in the OT.Also, think about how the Jews perceived all the titles that they knew to be only Jehovah’s but were applied to Jesus. I believe they knew that Jesus was being identified with the Jehovah of their Torah. He was killed with the charges of blasphemy after all.
Consider this…if Philippians 2 is intended to mean that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Yahweh where it is translated as Jesus Christ is Lord, you would be changing your beliefs, right? Well, I believe that is what you will be confessing when every knee will be bowing…the name Jehovah is the name above all names, is it not?
Philippians 2
9Because of this, God has also greatly exalted him and he has given him The Name which is greater than all names, 10That in The Name of Yeshua, every knee shall bow, which is in Heaven and in The Earth and which is under The Earth, 11And every tongue shall confess that Yeshua The Messiah is THE LORD JEHOVAH* to the glory of God his Father.LU,
you said:
To me it is strait forward Jesus was tempted by sin while the one true God cannot be therefore Jesus cannot be God.
Did you ever consider that is one of the reasons the person of Jesus had to become a man?
The statement in Scripture is not God cannot be tempted by sin. He would have to stop being the one true God in order to be tempted by sin. I am convinced he cannot even do so as it involves him subjecting himself to Satan to the extent of being tempted to the extent there is a possibility he would choose sin. Another thing is if God stopped being God there would be no God.
We as a kind were made subject to sin because our own sinned so it follows the we as a kind can only be freed by one of our own doing right. Angels who also have been tempted by sin cannot save us even though many of them have continued to do right. If we only required one who had been tempted by sin but did not give in then any one of God’s loyal angels would do. Instead we need a one that was human just like his siblings.
LU,
Can the same type of thing be said about you? Can you admit that when someone is using third person pronouns, they are normally speaking of ANOTHER PERSON?
I consider that I have already both of those things so I do not see a reason to repeat myself.
Peter supports my conclusion and not yours. It is Peter that identifies Jesus as the rock of offense written about in scripture.
I do not share your point of view so I disagree with you. Peter is calling Jesus a type of the rock of stumbling because Jesus was not yet conceived, much less ascended to heaven in order to mediate the new covenant, at the time Isaiah was writing Jehovah’s words in the OT.
Isaiah 28:13-16Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them
precept upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line;
here a little, and there a little;
that they might go, and fall backward,
and be broken, and snared, and taken.14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord,
ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death,
and with hell are we at agreement;
when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us:
for we have made lies our refuge,
and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 therefore thus saith the Lord God,
Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone,
a precious corner stone, a sure foundation:
he that believeth shall not make haste.Is speaking about the Word of God in the form of Law that the Jews of the OT would cherry pick and so fall. The Pharisees that Jesus rebuked are an example of such. Those that believe in the Law and so so the one who made the Law found it a sure foundation. Again Jesus is a type as he is the Author and Finisher of the new covenant.
LU,
The tradition of using the Lord to address God and also to address Jesus is confusing. Scripture does call Jesus the Lord but it also makes clear that God whom it also calls the Lord is superior to him. That fact tells you they are not the same individual even though they carry the same title. It also tells you the titles are not equivalent in power though they are the same in verbalize. You are trying to say Scripture reserves certain title for God in order to support your own doctrine but without any evidence your claim is true. You can say that, you can believe it is true but you have no evidence to convince anyone else it is true. If they choose to believe the same thing then they choose to believe because of something internal to them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
