- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,23:24) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,14:55) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,22:46) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,13:13) Mike Check AT Robertson and the Net on Titus 2 :13 and see if they agree with you.
I don't have to Keith. I already checked the actual Greek text. And it shows the word “kai” directly preceding the genetive form of “savior”.So it means “of the great God…….AND………of the Savior of us…….”
mike
MikeWhat is your source for that Mike?
In other words you think you understand the Greek better than AT Robertson and the NET?
Isn't that what you said was arrogance to JA?
WJ
More diversions Keith! Instead of throwing trinitarians in my face, why not just refute the point itself?
MikeWha Wha,
about throwing Trinitarians in your face.No diversion at all. You do understand the GSR don’t you? ATR does. Is it a diversion when you point to your sources? The fact is you pick and choose.
You accuse others for not accepting your sources as being “fact” then you reject the sources given you and put on like you know more!
The evidence is stacked against you including the GSR, AT Robertson and the NET, yet you put on like you know more than they Mike. Again, didn't you say that JA was arrogant for having this attitude? Are you teachable Mike?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,23:24) You DO know how the genetive form of the Greek words work, right? Go and read the Greek for yourself and see the “kai” preceeding the genetive “savior”. 
So you are arguing with AT Robertson and 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages who put together the NET?Do you know all there is to know about “Greek Parsing” Mike? This is a joke!
Do you think AT Robertson and the NET doesn't know the meaning? What in their explanations can you refute?
Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou qeou kai swthro Ihsou Cristou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with qeou and swthro just as in 2 Peter 1:1 2 Peter 1:11 . See Robertson, Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Cristou Ihsou. AT Robertson on Titus 2:13
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4. NET on Titus 2:13
Where are your credentials Mike? Where is your source even?
WJ
Dennison,
I am so sorry for your loss of one of your family members. I lost my Dad a few months ago and I know that it is hard, very, very hard.Bless you,
KathiJust a thought here as I was looking at the definitions of 'logos' and saw that 'decree' was a definition of that word. See here:
Quote Logos
1. of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.“You are my Son, today I have begotten you” is a decree…hmmm. Psalm 2, Hebrews 1
God is giving His Son His identity through this, maybe? Maybe John 1:1 is about the Son getting His identity from His Father.
In the beginning was the decree, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”Wondering…
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 13 2010,15:52) I see WJ and Mike handicapp/ignoring JA
Hi D,I can't speak for WJ, but as for me – I will continue to ignore posts that contain abnormal amounts of insults, ridicules and belittlement. I told JA beforehand that I would do it……..and then I did it.
When he speaks about the issues without excessive amounts of personal abuse, I will discuss anything with him and answer any questions he might ask.
Just so you know.
Sorry to hear of your lost loved one Dennison.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 13 2010,19:22) Just a thought here as I was looking at the definitions of 'logos' and saw that 'decree' was a definition of that word. See here: Quote Logos
1. of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.“You are my Son, today I have begotten you” is a decree…hmmm. Psalm 2, Hebrews 1
God is giving His Son His identity through this, maybe? Maybe John 1:1 is about the Son getting His identity from His Father.
In the beginning was the decree, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”Wondering…
KathiSo the “decree” was God? So the decree came in the flesh?
Don't think so.
So the “first day” must have been the “second day” since Jesus was born from the Father by procreation on the “first day” right?
WJ
Ahhh…..Keith is back! How wonderful!
Keith:
Quote Mike Not so fast!
The scriptures say he is both King and Prince. He (Jesus) is King of Kings and Lord of Lords over everything in heaven and in earth and under the earth, a divine title given to YHWH alone.
It's apparently NOT a title given to JHVH alone, for both JHVH and Jesus are afforded this title. And “not so fast” to yourself there mister. Paul says this about the “everything” Jesus is over:1 Corinthians 15:27 (New International Version)
27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
So Jesus is over exactly “everything” that his God put him over Keith. Who is mightier here: The God who puts another in a very high position, or the one who has been put in a very high position by his God?Keith:
Quote Not only that he says all things are his and all authority and power is given to him.
He sure does, Keith. He says his God has given him all power and authority.Keith:
Quote He took on the role of servant to his Father but that has nothing to do with his nature being God as the Father is God
I'm not talking about when he was on earth Keith. I'm talking about the 4 different instances in the Book of Acts where Jesus is STILL referred to as a servant of his God…….even after he has been raised. I'm talking about the 5 times in the Book of Revelation where Jesus refers to his Father as “my God”. I'm talking about Micah 5:4 and Ezekiel 34:24 where Jesus is distinguished as someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO Elohim.Jesus can NOT be a “part of Elohim” if he is a servant of Elohim. Or if OUR Elohim is also HIS Elohim, like he told us in John 20:17………AFTER he was raised from the dead.
Jesus can NOT be a “part of Elohim” if the Holy Scriptures clearly distinguish him as someone other than and lessor to Elohim.
Do you get it?
Keith:
Quote no more than you being less human than the President of the USA who has authority over you. So your point is a moot point.
I'm glad you brought this up Keith. I am a flesh and blood being, just like the President of the USA. But unlike the President, I can't speak a single word and start World War 3, can I? No, because I do not have 1 millionth of the power and resources he has. So while I can exist “in the form/nature” of the President of the USA, I am not actually the President of the USA.And even if President Obama made me the “President of Heaven Net”, and people here used the title “president” in referrence to me, I would still not be confused with THE President of the USA. And although being “President of HN” would give me “all power and authority” over what every single American on HN posted, it would NOT make me equal in stature or power or authority to THE President of the USA. And it would be clear that ANY power and authority I had at all was only mine because it was given to me by someone far greater than I.
Are you understanding this so far?
So Jehovah God is a spirit being. Jesus has the nature of his Father, so Jesus is a spirit being. (Just like Obama and I are flesh and blood, right?) So while Jesus can exist “in the form/nature” of Jehovah God, he can NOT actually BE Jehovah God, because for one to be “in the form” of another, there must be two beings, not one.
And the fact that the ONLY true God, Jehovah, gave Jesus power and authority only speaks to the fact that ONE is mighty enough to be able to give another power and authority. Just like my HN “Presidency”, Jesus has been given power and authority FROM someone who is much more powerful than himself. And since the fact that people on HN refer to me as “president” does not mean I am THE President, people referring to Jesus as “god” does not mean that he is THE God.
I hope this helps. And instead of just brushing this under the rug, could you actually try to refute it solidly and logically? In other words, are my comparisons accurate? If not, then why?
peace and love,
mikeKeith:
Quote Mike No Mike it is you that is playing word games. You insist when it is convenient for you that the word God clasifies “identity” or is exclusive to the Father.
You must use the context to decide if someone is talking about a “mighty one” in general, or “THE Almighty One”. And you have already admitted that Paul did not refer to “mighty ones” in general in Phil 2:6, so we have agreed the word “God” referred to the identity of the ONLY true God.Keith:
Quote Why is it not logical for one to say “Keith is in the form of humanity”?
It is logical to use that phrase Keith. And it is even logical to say “Keith was in the form of Mike”. What is NOT logical is to reason that Keith actually WAS Mike from that sentence, or to reason that Keith can be “in the form of” Keith.Keith:
Quote Is there any other that is in the “Form of God”?
No Keith, just one I think. We are made in the “image” of God, but that can't be what Paul meant by “in the form of” since 2:7 says that after existing “in the form of” God, Jesus emptied himself and then was made as a man. So I think that ONLY Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God, can be said to be “in the form/nature of” God Himself.You asked if the Father is “in the form of” God. And I think I've answered it solidly. No one being can logically be said to be “in the form of” themselves. So since the Father actually IS God, it would make no sense to say He was “in the form of God”.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 14 2010,04:20) Where are your credentials Mike? Where is your source even? WJ
Okay Keith,Let's get to the bottom of Titus 2:13 and be done with it. Here's what the JW's and their sources say:
In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοῦ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is possible in κοινή [koi‧ne′] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”
A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found: “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po‧loun′tas kai a‧go‧ra′zon‧tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so‧te′ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he‧mon′] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he do′xa tou me‧ga′lou The‧ou′ kai so‧te′ros he‧mon′], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The‧os′], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka‧ta′ ten kha′rin tou The‧ou′ he‧mon′ kai ky‧ri′ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.
First, let's discuss what all the scholars are saying, okay? YOUR scholars are saying that since the sentence doesn't have the definite article before “savior”, the sentence continues to be about one person. They imply that if it were talking about two different subjects, it would say “THE great God and [THE] Savior of us, Jesus Christ.”
What MY source is pointing out is that the second definite article was not always used if it was “common sense” that the writer was speaking of two subjects. MY sources list a few other scriptures that are similarly worded, yet it is clear there are two subjects. Here is one of them, 2 Peter 1:1-2:
1Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:2Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
You can see the bolded part in verse 1 makes it sound almost as if Peter is saying Jesus is our God. But the bolded part in verse 2 makes it very clear that there is “God”, and then there is “Jesus our Lord”. So two subjects, but only one definite article. And it's clear that Peter didn't think Jesus was God from the following,1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!The above source lists Matthew 21:12 as an example. It speaks of THE buyers and [THE] sellers, who are most obviously two different subjects, but only ONE definite article is used. It also mentions 2 Thess 1:12 as an example where virtually every translation adds the omitted second definite article based on the context:
2 Thess 1:12 NET
that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.NIV
We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.NASB
so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.BBE
So that glory may be given to the name of our Lord Jesus through you, and you may have glory in him, by the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.NRSV
so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.NKJV
that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.Almost every respectable translation adds the word “the” in front of Lord……..even though it's not in the Greek. Why? Because it is clear that two subjects are mentioned, even though only one definite article was used.
Keith, I won't throw my scholars in your face as if their word is written in stone. I WILL use them for the info they provide and then make my own informed decision. But instead of even discussing the wording of Titus 2:13, your entire defense was “if these admitted trinitarian scholars say so, then that is all I need for proof.” Can you really trust someone with an admitted trinity bias about something like this? Did your trinitarian scholars teach you about all the other scriptures that are similarly worded but clearly mention two subjects?
So I have at least “neutralized” the definite article problem using SCRIPTURE.
Next, I would like to point out that Paul made it very clear dozens of times in his writings that Jesus was someone other than God. I don't know how much clearer he could have been than in 1 Cor 8:6,
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.But just in case, he also wrote these,
Romans 15:6
so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.Ephesians 4:6
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,2 Corinthians 11:31
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,Yet you would have us believe that because of a missing definite article in ONE sentence Paul wrote, and against everything else he wrote, Paul thought Jesus was God Himself?
Well, if all this isn't enough to bring you to the honest truth, I have one more “fallback”. Let's just say for argument's sake that Paul DID call Jesus “god” in this one and only instance. Do you remember Isaiah 9:6? THE Almighty God Jehovah had already foretold 700 years before Jesus came as flesh that he would be called “mighty god”. So, even if Paul WAS calling Jesus “our great god and savior”, then he would have only been fulfilling the prophecy spoken by Jehovah through Isaiah. And that same Jehovah later went on to clarify that this “mighty god” that Isaiah prophesied about was someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO Himself.
Can you honestly refute anything I've posted here Keith? And I'm talking “refute”, not ” but AT Roberson says……”
peace and love,
mikeHi Keith,
These are just some questions that you must have overlooked from previous posts.
1. Keith cannot be said to be “in the form” of Keith, right? Why? Because Keith already IS Keith. Someone other than Keith can be said to be “in the form” of Keith, but not Keith himself.
Do you understand this logic? Can you refute it using any evidence from the history of the world where it is stated that any person was siad to be “in the form” of themselves? If you can't refute it, then stop playing word games.
2. Do you agree that Jesus had “goings forth” before the universe was created?
3. Do you agree that Ezekiel 34:24 and Micah 5:4 distinguish Jesus as someone other than and lessor to his God?
4. Ah, but Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. from the Institute for Creation Research DOES agree with me.
And what's more, the actual Greek words agree with me. You either missed or ignored my post last week in which I showed you all the uses of “monogenes” in the Bible and showed that all of them refer to an “only begotten” child.
Where is your evidence that a word that means “only” linked with a word that means “generated” means anything other than “only generated”?
I have seen the numerous claims of “only one of a kind” and “one and only”, but I have been able to find NO ancient Greek evidence whatsoever to support those claims. In fact, the trinitarians who made up those false claims in an effort to keep Jesus from having a beginning never show any Greek evidence for those claims. They just make the claim that it means “one and only” and expect us to just believe it. It's similar to the #2 definition of “theos” I just showed you. There is no basis for it except their biased desire to push the trinity doctrine.
By the way, Mr. Strong also agrees with ME!
5. Besides Keith, you must think it through completely. If Jesus was “in the form of God” – and that means that he WAS God, then when he emptied himself and was made as a human being, he was no longer “in the form of God” – and was therefore no longer “God”. Do you agree with this?
That's enough for now.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 13 2010,20:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 13 2010,19:22) Just a thought here as I was looking at the definitions of 'logos' and saw that 'decree' was a definition of that word. See here: Quote Logos
1. of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.“You are my Son, today I have begotten you” is a decree…hmmm. Psalm 2, Hebrews 1
God is giving His Son His identity through this, maybe? Maybe John 1:1 is about the Son getting His identity from His Father.
In the beginning was the decree, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”Wondering…
KathiSo the “decree” was God? So the decree came in the flesh?
Don't think so.
So the “first day” must have been the “second day” since Jesus was born from the Father by procreation on the “first day” right?
WJ
Keith,
What is so strange about substituting the word 'word' for 'decree?' You say the word was with God and was God, just maybe that word is the decree “You are my Son, Today I have begotten/procreated you.” You know that begotten and procreate are synonyms don't you?Definition of BEGET
1: to procreate as the father : sire
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beget
The object of the decree was with God and was God.
Okay!
You guys give me to much to respond to, but I will get to it somehow. I am going out of town to Florida Friday, Saturday and Sunday to a revival at an associate ministers church, one of my Papas in the Lord. We will be worshipping our God and the Glory of God will be falling on us because he promises he will inhabit the praises of his people.
I am expecting great things from the Lord there. So I say to all, “Exalt” Jesus with your whole heart and give him the Glory and honour he deserves, this pleases the Father for in worshipping him we are giving him the same honour as the Father. See you guys when I get back. I may find the internet there, don't know yet. They are putting me up in a hotel, but I am not sure if it will have access to the internet.
Blessings All Keith
Have a great time Keith! You speak in the future tense as if God does not inhabit you now? Does He come and go?
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 14 2010,16:10) Have a great time Keith! You speak in the future tense as if God does not inhabit you now? Does He come and go?
KathiI know what you mean, and yes he does inhabit me now. But there is something unique and special about being with a bunch of people worshipping God as one corporate body. The “manifest” presence and Glory of God is wonderful. Paul speaks of the Body functioning in the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12 and 14)
Jesus did say where there are two or three gathered in his name there he would be in the midst.
When Moses finished the house of God the Glory of God filled the house so that Moses could not even enter the house to minister. (Exod 40)
The corporate Body of Jesus Christ, the church is his house.
Haven't there been times in your life that you felt his manifest presence so strong that you just fell to your knees in adoration and worship? I surely hope so!
Keith
From Keith: 'Worshipping Jesus is giving him the same honor as God'
Please can someone analyse this statement from Keith and tell us all what is wrong with it.
This is also a test of Scriptural understanding.
Mike,
For once I totally agree with your last set of postings to Keith. I mean the parts that show purely scriptural commonsense concerning 'In the form of God' meaning 'In Spirit'.I'm not sure what to feel about your comment JA. It almost sounds like a compliment, but when you add in the “for once” and the “only certain parts” language, I fear it might be an insult in disguise.
But I will take it as a compliment and thank you……..so…….Thanks!
peace and love,
mikeYes Keith, I do enjoy corporate worship. I especially like being outdoors at our city's Riverbend Festival on Faith Night when there are tons of people from all the different area churches singing praises on a pleasant summer evening along the riverfront downtown with some famous Christian artist leading us.
Enjoy your revival
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 15 2010,09:37) From Keith: 'Worshipping Jesus is giving him the same honor as God' Please can someone analyse this statement from Keith and tell us all what is wrong with it.
This is also a test of Scriptural understanding.
Well, for one thing, we are explicitely told to worship only ONE in scripture, and one of the persons who told us this was Jesus himself.But I think it stems from Keith's misunderstanding of the words “just as” in John 5:23,
John 5:23 NIV
that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him.Keith takes that to mean “with the exact same amount of honor that you give the Father”, and therefore, by his understanding, it is saying Jesus recieves “AS MUCH” honor as the Father, so he must also be God. Jesus himself tells us that the one who is sent is not as great as the one who sent him.
And it doesn't say anything about worshipping Jesus. It only implies that the Son deserves honor for his role in salvation, just like the Father deserves honor for His role. Similarly, King David deserves honor for his role in bringing God's purpose to fruition. So do Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, etc.
Jesus speaks of prophets being honored everywhere except in their hometown. So basically, if we honor God Himself, we will then honor any who He sends in His behalf.
That's how I understand it. What do you say, JA?
peace and love,
mikeHi Mike,
Do you know of any scriptures that tell us to honor someone other than Christ, 'just as' we honor the Father?Hi Kathi,
No. But I know of many other people having honor in the scriptures. And I also know of many other uses of the Greek word “kathos”, which is the word translated “just as”. Here's one:
Luk 6:36 NET
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.Can we be “exactly” as merciful as the Father? Or is it saying that the Father shows mercy, so we too should show mercy?
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
