- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 08 2013,10:48) The “the” is not in the Greek text. And I only found one English Bible that ADDS it…….. the MSG Bible. Also notice that blessing, honor, glory and strength are attributed to both the “one who sits on the throne”, AND to the Lamb.
That distinguishes the Lamb as someone OTHER THAN “the one who sits on the throne”.
Wow Mike,
I would think you would have checked the Greek before you claimed that the article was not there. It most certainly is there.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/5-13.htmAlso, yes there are two who receive the SAME honor, praise, dominion, etc.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 08 2013,10:50) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 07 2013,13:11) Jesus was the ETERNAL LIFE that WAS WITH THE FATHER from the beginning. I am not assuming anything but letting the word speak for itself.
Okay. And the earth is the planet that was created by God “in the beginning”. Does the word “beginning” mean the earth is “from eternity”? If not, then the word “beginning” doesn't mean Jesus was “from eternity” either.
It says that ETERNAL LIFE was…with the Father. That means even in the beginning He was eternal life. Makes sense since He was also God in the beginning.If the eternal planet was with God from the beginning, then we could see that the planet always existed too. The key words are eternal life and was.
Ask yourself what is this verse saying that existed from the beginning. The answer is the eternal life, i.e. Jesus!
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 08 2013,16:58) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 02 2013,09:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,16:18) Yes, Mike would honor the Servant OF God Almighty the same way whether he was born in 2000 BCE, 1885 AD, or somehow “existed” from eternity inside of the God who begot him.
He would still deserve the honor of a great SERVANT of God – not the honor of the God he serves.
Mike,
Do you honor the Son as much as you honor Gabriel who serves God? If you give the Son more honor, why?
The son is the first begotten of the Father, the firstborn of all creation. He was with the Father in the beginning. HE came from God, and is like God to the point that he is the image of the invisible God.
He is the ONLY begotten. That means 1 of a kind son.Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 08 2013,19:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,00:53) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 04 2013,15:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 05 2013,02:16) Jesus is also Lord of all and the First and the Last and Jehovah of hosts. I don't see anywhere that He was 'appointed' as Lord of all or the First and the Last or Jehovah of hosts. All things were made through Him and for Him.
LU,Jesus is the First in the Last Messiah as there is no other. He is also the Alpha and Omega Heir as their is no other.
Jesus was appointed King over heaven and earth which means he was not already King over heaven and earth.
There nowhere that Scripture states Jesus is or was Jehovah of hosts.
All thing were made through him by his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead.
Kerwin,
You are adding your own bias to these. Can you admit that?you said:
Quote Jesus is the First in the Last Messiah as there is no other. He is also the Alpha and Omega Heir as their is no other. You added the word 'Messiah' and the word 'Heir' which is NOT in the scripture. You are forcing your opinion and adding to scripture. If left alone as inspired you will see that Jesus is identifying Himself with Jehovah.
Quote Jesus was appointed King over heaven and earth which means he was not already King over heaven and earth. Jesus was born 'King of the Jews” and after His resurrection He became King of kings from my understanding and possibly alludes to His human nature.
Quote There nowhere that Scripture states Jesus is or was Jehovah of hosts. Peter identifies Jesus as Jehovah of hosts from Isa 8, in 1 Peter 2.
Quote All thing were made through him by his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. What scripture do you have for that? Here you are adding to scripture AGAIN. You must surrender your own understanding in order to be able to see more clearly, Kerwin. You are stumbling over the stone who is Jehovah of hosts/Jesus.
LU,I am putting it like it is.
There is no evidence First and Last or Alpha and Omega are attempts by Jesus to identify himself with Jehovah. What they are is titles that state Jesus is the First and Last of a series just like Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter.
First and the Last when in reference to Jehovah mean he is the only God. Jesus is the only Messiah, Heir, and perhaps other titles any of which can apply as neither he or God chose to be explicit.
I can not figure out what you are talking about that involves 1 Peter 2 and Isaiah 8. Please go into more detail.
Any Scripture that speaks of the new creation is teaching you that all things are made through him by his death and resurrection. Romans 8:22 is one.
Hi Kerwin,you said:
Quote
There is no evidence First and Last or Alpha and Omega are attempts by Jesus to identify himself with Jehovah. What they are is titles that state Jesus is the First and Last of a series just like Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter.First and the Last when in reference to Jehovah mean he is the only God. Jesus is the only Messiah, Heir, and perhaps other titles any of which can apply as neither he or God chose to be explicit.
There is evidence that Jehovah alone in the OT claimed to be the 'First and the Last.' This was not a common title for random things of which there were just one of. The Jews must have known this title and that it was used for Jehovah alone. If a first century Jew heard someone take this title as their own, I would think they would consider it blasphemous. Wouldn't you agree? Jesus does not give us ANY evidence that He meant that He was the First and the Last “Messiah” in the context of Rev. 1.
You have to ask yourself what the first century Jew would think of when things were mentioned like this.
Quote I can not figure out what you are talking about that involves 1 Peter 2 and Isaiah 8. Please go into more detail. Any Scripture that speaks of the new creation is teaching you that all things are made through him by his death and resurrection. Romans 8:22 is one.
Regarding Jesus being identified as Jehovah of hosts…answer these two questions:
Who is the stone that is spoken about in 1 Peter 2:6, 7 and 8?What are the Bible passages that contain the specific scriptures which are being referenced from the OT here, do you know?
Kathi,
Jesus is the SERVANT of our ONE and ONLY Most High God.
In fact, our ONE and ONLY Most High God is also Jesus' ONE and ONLY Most High God.
Jesus isn't the Most High God, but the SON of Him. And ALL sons come into existence AFTER their fathers have already been existing for a while. If they both started existing from the same time, then the words “father” and “son” would be SENSLESS titles for them.
End of story.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 08 2013,16:04) Yes Mike. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So they must be eternal if Jesus was with God in the beginning and he is eternal. Of course such reasoning is not reasoning at all.
And perhaps the disciples were also from eternity, since Jesus said they had been with him “from the beginning”.And Satan was a murderer “from the beginning” – according to Jesus. So he must also have existed from eternity.
There are MANY “from the beginnings” in scripture.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,21:48) Ask yourself what is this verse saying that existed from the beginning. The answer is the eternal life, i.e. Jesus!
And ask YOURSELF why the Father had to GRANT Jesus to also have life in him – if he had already had eternal life from eternity.Hmmmm…………..
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2013,19:02) Kathi, Jesus is the SERVANT of our ONE and ONLY Most High God.
In fact, our ONE and ONLY Most High God is also Jesus' ONE and ONLY Most High God.
Jesus isn't the Most High God, but the SON of Him. And ALL sons come into existence AFTER their fathers have already been existing for a while. If they both started existing from the same time, then the words “father” and “son” would be SENSLESS titles for them.
End of story.
You can pretend that all fathers always existed since Jesus' father always did too if you want.You have a very irresponsible argument there implying that Jesus must not exist at some point because human sons didn't exist at some point. Look up 'only' and see if it means one of many.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2013,19:06) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 08 2013,16:04) Yes Mike. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So they must be eternal if Jesus was with God in the beginning and he is eternal. Of course such reasoning is not reasoning at all.
And perhaps the disciples were also from eternity, since Jesus said they had been with him “from the beginning”.And Satan was a murderer “from the beginning” – according to Jesus. So he must also have existed from eternity.
There are MANY “from the beginnings” in scripture.
They are missing the word 'eternal.' Jesus isn't…He is THE eternal life.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2013,19:08) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,21:48) Ask yourself what is this verse saying that existed from the beginning. The answer is the eternal life, i.e. Jesus!
And ask YOURSELF why the Father had to GRANT Jesus to also have life in him – if he had already had eternal life from eternity.Hmmmm…………..
Because He was the Son of Man and we know that His flesh existence was not from the beginning. It was His divinity that always existed eternally.God is two powers, the Father and the Son. Both are referred to as God/Lord/Jehovah. Both are given THE same honor, praise, glory and dominion, etc.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,22:43) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 08 2013,10:48) The “the” is not in the Greek text. And I only found one English Bible that ADDS it…….. the MSG Bible. Also notice that blessing, honor, glory and strength are attributed to both the “one who sits on the throne”, AND to the Lamb.
That distinguishes the Lamb as someone OTHER THAN “the one who sits on the throne”.
Wow Mike,
I would think you would have checked the Greek before you claimed that the article was not there. It most certainly is there.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/5-13.htmAlso, yes there are two who receive the SAME honor, praise, dominion, etc.
Mike,
Can you admit that the definite article is there in the Greek and that you were wrong with saying that it wasn't?
Be the man!Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 10 2013,02:12) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 08 2013,19:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,00:53) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 04 2013,15:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 05 2013,02:16) Jesus is also Lord of all and the First and the Last and Jehovah of hosts. I don't see anywhere that He was 'appointed' as Lord of all or the First and the Last or Jehovah of hosts. All things were made through Him and for Him.
LU,Jesus is the First in the Last Messiah as there is no other. He is also the Alpha and Omega Heir as their is no other.
Jesus was appointed King over heaven and earth which means he was not already King over heaven and earth.
There nowhere that Scripture states Jesus is or was Jehovah of hosts.
All thing were made through him by his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead.
Kerwin,
You are adding your own bias to these. Can you admit that?you said:
Quote Jesus is the First in the Last Messiah as there is no other. He is also the Alpha and Omega Heir as their is no other. You added the word 'Messiah' and the word 'Heir' which is NOT in the scripture. You are forcing your opinion and adding to scripture. If left alone as inspired you will see that Jesus is identifying Himself with Jehovah.
Quote Jesus was appointed King over heaven and earth which means he was not already King over heaven and earth. Jesus was born 'King of the Jews” and after His resurrection He became King of kings from my understanding and possibly alludes to His human nature.
Quote There nowhere that Scripture states Jesus is or was Jehovah of hosts. Peter identifies Jesus as Jehovah of hosts from Isa 8, in 1 Peter 2.
Quote All thing were made through him by his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. What scripture do you have for that? Here you are adding to scripture AGAIN. You must surrender your own understanding in order to be able to see more clearly, Kerwin. You are stumbling over the stone who is Jehovah of hosts/Jesus.
LU,I am putting it like it is.
There is no evidence First and Last or Alpha and Omega are attempts by Jesus to identify himself with Jehovah. What they are is titles that state Jesus is the First and Last of a series just like Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter.
First and the Last when in reference to Jehovah mean he is the only God. Jesus is the only Messiah, Heir, and perhaps other titles any of which can apply as neither he or God chose to be explicit.
I can not figure out what you are talking about that involves 1 Peter 2 and Isaiah 8. Please go into more detail.
Any Scripture that speaks of the new creation is teaching you that all things are made through him by his death and resurrection. Romans 8:22 is one.
Hi Kerwin,you said:
Quote
There is no evidence First and Last or Alpha and Omega are attempts by Jesus to identify himself with Jehovah. What they are is titles that state Jesus is the First and Last of a series just like Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter.First and the Last when in reference to Jehovah mean he is the only God. Jesus is the only Messiah, Heir, and perhaps other titles any of which can apply as neither he or God chose to be explicit.
There is evidence that Jehovah alone in the OT claimed to be the 'First and the Last.' This was not a common title for random things of which there were just one of. The Jews must have known this title and that it was used for Jehovah alone. If a first century Jew heard someone take this title as their own, I would think they would consider it blasphemous. Wouldn't you agree? Jesus does not give us ANY evidence that He meant that He was the First and the Last “Messiah” in the context of Rev. 1.
You have to ask yourself what the first century Jew would think of when things were mentioned like this.
Quote I can not figure out what you are talking about that involves 1 Peter 2 and Isaiah 8. Please go into more detail. Any Scripture that speaks of the new creation is teaching you that all things are made through him by his death and resurrection. Romans 8:22 is one.
Regarding Jesus being identified as Jehovah of hosts…answer these two questions:
Who is the stone that is spoken about in 1 Peter 2:6, 7 and 8?What are the Bible passages that contain the specific scriptures which are being referenced from the OT here, do you know?
LU,Jehovah does not actually use first and the last a title in the Old Testament, he uses it to say he is the only God. Most of the time it is used to mean entirety. I am not sure it is a title in any of the cases in Revelations but I am curious why he did not say what he is first and last of. It is certainly not time as far as God is concerned. It may have been left vague in order to cover all things God is first and last of. The same thing may have been done in Jesus' case but I lack knowledge to say so. Of course Jesus is the pioneer and finisher of the true gospel.
The rock is the Law of Mosses but it symbolized Christ. The Law is rock both physically and spiritually as it is God's word written on rock. Through Christ we have access to the new covenant that is written in heats but is still rock.
The Law is not God nor is that which it symbolizes.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,21:04) You have a very irresponsible argument there implying that Jesus must not exist at some point because human sons didn't exist at some point.
God chose to explain His relationship to Jesus as “Father/Son”. He explained it this way to HUMAN BEINGS, who would only understand a “father/son” relationship in one way, ie: the father ALWAYS exists before the son does.And I suppose you agree that all God's other SPIRIT sons were brought forth AFTER God had already existed for a while, right?
So it's not just because of “human sons” that I say this, Kathi.
So IMO, the “irresponsible argument” is YOUR out of the blue, unscriptural, and unsubstantiated claim that Jesus is the ONLY son in existence who has existed for as long as his father has.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,21:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2013,19:06) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 08 2013,16:04) Yes Mike. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So they must be eternal if Jesus was with God in the beginning and he is eternal. Of course such reasoning is not reasoning at all.
And perhaps the disciples were also from eternity, since Jesus said they had been with him “from the beginning”.And Satan was a murderer “from the beginning” – according to Jesus. So he must also have existed from eternity.
There are MANY “from the beginnings” in scripture.
They are missing the word 'eternal.' Jesus isn't…He is THE eternal life.
Yes. Like I said, Jesus has been GRANTED by his God and our God to have eternal life in him.He is now the one who will judge for his and our God who will receive eternal life, and who will not.
Btw, you do know that the word “eternal” doesn't necessarily mean “FROM eternity”, right?
After all, many of us will also be GRANTED eternal life, like Jesus was, but it doesn't mean we were “FROM eternity”, right?
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,21:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2013,19:08) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,21:48) Ask yourself what is this verse saying that existed from the beginning. The answer is the eternal life, i.e. Jesus!
And ask YOURSELF why the Father had to GRANT Jesus to also have life in him – if he had already had eternal life from eternity.Hmmmm…………..
Because He was the Son of Man and we know that His flesh existence was not from the beginning. It was His divinity that always existed eternally.
Lame and unsubstantiated.See my second to the last post.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,21:09)
Mike,
Can you admit that the definite article is there in the Greek………
This is the page I searched when I said it wasn't there. And as you can see, it isn't listed on that page.But I looked deeper, and it is indeed the definite article, which is sometimes translated in English Bibles, and sometimes not. For example, Matthew 2:3 literally says, “When THE King Herod heard this…….”. But we in English don't say “THE King Herod”. We just say “King Herod”.
And we wouldn't say, “Then THE Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness…….”, like Matthew 4:1 literally says, right?
So it is sometimes translated, and other times not. Agreed?
So I wonder why, out of the many English translations I looked at, only 3 or 4 translate it in Rev 5:13. I guess these Trinitarians haven't yet seen this “clear and obvious proof that Jesus is the Most High God”, like you have, huh?
Okay Kathi, here we go again. Remember how I always tell you that you bend over backwards to find the “gnat” that proves Jesus is God, all the while completely ignoring the “CAMEL” staring you straight in the eye and telling you he's NOT God? Well, you're doing it again.
You want to take “the glory, etc.” being attributed to the One who sits on the throne and to that One's sacrificial Lamb and Servant – and claim that it equates the two of them. You are completely overlooking the CAMEL that's telling you Jesus is the SACRIFICIAL LAMB and SERVANT OF the One who sits on the throne in heaven – and instead searching diligently for little “gnats” like the phrase “the glory”.
And what about verse 12? What does it mean that the Lamb was deemed worthy to “receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” ?
If “the power” is the same power, then who is it that GAVE that power to God? Because it is clear that Jesus RECEIVED the power, right?
If Jesus was God Almighty, would he really need to have RECEIVED any power? Or would he have already HAD all power there was to have?
There is more, but this should suffice. Plus, I'm running out of time tonight.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 10 2013,12:14) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 10 2013,02:12) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 08 2013,19:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,00:53) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 04 2013,15:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 05 2013,02:16) Jesus is also Lord of all and the First and the Last and Jehovah of hosts. I don't see anywhere that He was 'appointed' as Lord of all or the First and the Last or Jehovah of hosts. All things were made through Him and for Him.
LU,Jesus is the First in the Last Messiah as there is no other. He is also the Alpha and Omega Heir as their is no other.
Jesus was appointed King over heaven and earth which means he was not already King over heaven and earth.
There nowhere that Scripture states Jesus is or was Jehovah of hosts.
All thing were made through him by his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead.
Kerwin,
You are adding your own bias to these. Can you admit that?you said:
Quote Jesus is the First in the Last Messiah as there is no other. He is also the Alpha and Omega Heir as their is no other. You added the word 'Messiah' and the word 'Heir' which is NOT in the scripture. You are forcing your opinion and adding to scripture. If left alone as inspired you will see that Jesus is identifying Himself with Jehovah.
Quote Jesus was appointed King over heaven and earth which means he was not already King over heaven and earth. Jesus was born 'King of the Jews” and after His resurrection He became King of kings from my understanding and possibly alludes to His human nature.
Quote There nowhere that Scripture states Jesus is or was Jehovah of hosts. Peter identifies Jesus as Jehovah of hosts from Isa 8, in 1 Peter 2.
Quote All thing were made through him by his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. What scripture do you have for that? Here you are adding to scripture AGAIN. You must surrender your own understanding in order to be able to see more clearly, Kerwin. You are stumbling over the stone who is Jehovah of hosts/Jesus.
LU,I am putting it like it is.
There is no evidence First and Last or Alpha and Omega are attempts by Jesus to identify himself with Jehovah. What they are is titles that state Jesus is the First and Last of a series just like Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter.
First and the Last when in reference to Jehovah mean he is the only God. Jesus is the only Messiah, Heir, and perhaps other titles any of which can apply as neither he or God chose to be explicit.
I can not figure out what you are talking about that involves 1 Peter 2 and Isaiah 8. Please go into more detail.
Any Scripture that speaks of the new creation is teaching you that all things are made through him by his death and resurrection. Romans 8:22 is one.
Hi Kerwin,you said:
Quote
There is no evidence First and Last or Alpha and Omega are attempts by Jesus to identify himself with Jehovah. What they are is titles that state Jesus is the First and Last of a series just like Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega is the last letter.First and the Last when in reference to Jehovah mean he is the only God. Jesus is the only Messiah, Heir, and perhaps other titles any of which can apply as neither he or God chose to be explicit.
There is evidence that Jehovah alone in the OT claimed to be the 'First and the Last.' This was not a common title for random things of which there were just one of. The Jews must have known this title and that it was used for Jehovah alone. If a first century Jew heard someone take this title as their own, I would think they would consider it blasphemous. Wouldn't you agree? Jesus does not give us ANY evidence that He meant that He was the First and the Last “Messiah” in the context of Rev. 1.
You have to ask yourself what the first century Jew would think of when things were mentioned like this.
Quote I can not figure out what you are talking about that involves 1 Peter 2 and Isaiah 8. Please go into more detail. Any Scripture that speaks of the new creation is teaching you that all things are made through him by his death and resurrection. Romans 8:22 is one.
Regarding Jesus being identified as Jehovah of hosts…answer these two questions:
Who is the stone that is spoken about in 1 Peter 2:6, 7 and 8?What are the Bible passages that contain the specific scriptures which are being referenced from the OT here, do you know?
LU,Jehovah does not actually use first and the last a title in the Old Testament, he uses it to say he is the only God. Most of the time it is used to mean entirety. I am not sure it is a title in any of the cases in Revelations but I am curious why he did not say what he is first and last of. It is certainly not time as far as God is concerned. It may have been left vague in order to cover all things God is first and last of. The same thing may have been done in Jesus' case but I lack knowledge to say so. Of course Jesus is the pioneer and finisher of the true gospel.
The rock is the Law of Mosses but it symbolized Christ. The Law is rock both physically and spiritually as it is God's word written on rock. Through Christ we have access to the new covenant that is written in heats but is still rock.
The Law is not
God nor is that which it symbolizes.
Hi Kerwin,
I asked you what OT passages that 1 Peter 2 was referring to. Can you tell me? When you find them, can you show me in those contexts that the 'stone/rock' is the law?Regarding the 'first and the last' comment that Jesus made about Himself…can you admit that Jesus used a description that was known to the Jews to describe YHVH and applied it to Himself?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2013,19:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,21:04) You have a very irresponsible argument there implying that Jesus must not exist at some point because human sons didn't exist at some point.
God chose to explain His relationship to Jesus as “Father/Son”. He explained it this way to HUMAN BEINGS, who would only understand a “father/son” relationship in one way, ie: the father ALWAYS exists before the son does.And I suppose you agree that all God's other SPIRIT sons were brought forth AFTER God had already existed for a while, right?
So it's not just because of “human sons” that I say this, Kathi.
So IMO, the “irresponsible argument” is YOUR out of the blue, unscriptural, and unsubstantiated claim that Jesus is the ONLY son in existence who has existed for as long as his father has.
Really tired of this argument, Mike. Do humans understand every human father to also have a father? Yes or No? If Yes then if the Heavenly Father DOES NOT HAVE A FATHER like ALL humans do, then even within the Father/Son relationship, not all physical laws apply. You have to look at the main message and not strain at the gnats, as you say.Jesus is an only Son in a certain way (begotten-not made/created). All other spirit beings and human beings are sons in a different way (they were made/created). Obviously to be a created son, one would have to have not existed beforehand. But to be merely a begotten Son from an eternal being one cannot assume the Son didn't always exist within that eternal being from all eternity just because He is a 'son.'
The Son is identified as the wisdom of God, as God, as eternal life with God in the beginning, as Jehovah, Jehovah of hosts, Jehovah our Righteousness, etc. Was God ever without wisdom, Mike? Humans are without wisdom at some point but not God. 'Jehovah' means self-existent.
Given that the Jews had the belief in Two Powers in Heaven…one could be the eternal Father and one could be the eternal Son. They don't both have to be the eternal Father.
The mitosis cell illustration has really helped me to understand how there could be an offspring cell within the parent cell and both cells containing the same wisdom, the same power, the same attributes, and the offspring being the image of the other. If the parent cell always existed with an offspring cell within it, ready to be begotten from it, then the offspring and the parent cell BOTH always existed.
That is how I see the Father and the Son. The Father always existed with His Offspring within Him, ready to be begotten from Him. That illustration explains many things in scripture to me.
So, if your big objection to Jesus being eternal is that human sons can never have existed as long as their father, then I think you have applied human logic to heavenly realities and you have made human logic your guide and not allowed for the realities of God to exist if they can't fit into your limited logic. Who can fathom the eternalness of God…it is beyond our finite human minds.
I have at least seen in the mitosis example in nature, some evidence of an exact replica of one being inside another and then begotten from that other being. If the first cell was eternal, there is no reason to insist that the first cell did not have an offspring cell within it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2013,19:56) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,21:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2013,19:08) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,21:48) Ask yourself what is this verse saying that existed from the beginning. The answer is the eternal life, i.e. Jesus!
And ask YOURSELF why the Father had to GRANT Jesus to also have life in him – if he had already had eternal life from eternity.Hmmmm…………..
Because He was the Son of Man and we know that His flesh existence was not from the beginning. It was His divinity that always existed eternally.
Lame and unsubstantiated.See my second to the last post.
Was Jesus always alive in the flesh, Mike?
If so, then He did not become flesh.
If not, then he had to be given life in the flesh.This is not hard, Mike.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2013,20:33) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,21:09)
Mike,
Can you admit that the definite article is there in the Greek………
This is the page I searched when I said it wasn't there. And as you can see, it isn't listed on that page.But I looked deeper, and it is indeed the definite article, which is sometimes translated in English Bibles, and sometimes not. For example, Matthew 2:3 literally says, “When THE King Herod heard this…….”. But we in English don't say “THE King Herod”. We just say “King Herod”.
And we wouldn't say, “Then THE Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness…….”, like Matthew 4:1 literally says, right?
So it is sometimes translated, and other times not. Agreed?
So I wonder why, out of the many English translations I looked at, only 3 or 4 translate it in Rev 5:13. I guess these Trinitarians haven't yet seen this “clear and obvious proof that Jesus is the Most High God”, like you have, huh?
Okay Kathi, here we go again. Remember how I always tell you that you bend over backwards to find the “gnat” that proves Jesus is God, all the while completely ignoring the “CAMEL” staring you straight in the eye and telling you he's NOT God? Well, you're doing it again.
You want to take “the glory, etc.” being attributed to the One who sits on the throne and to that One's sacrificial Lamb and Servant – and claim that it equates the two of them. You are completely overlooking the CAMEL that's telling you Jesus is the SACRIFICIAL LAMB and SERVANT OF the One who sits on the throne in heaven – and instead searching diligently for little “gnats” like the phrase “the glory”.
And what about verse 12? What does it mean that the Lamb was deemed worthy to “receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” ?
If “the power” is the same power, then who is it that GAVE that power to God? Because it is clear that Jesus RECEIVED the power, right?
If Jesus was God Almighty, would he really need to have RECEIVED any power? Or would he have already HAD all power there was to have?
There is more, but this should suffice. Plus, I'm running out of time tonight.
Mike,
you said:Quote You want to take “the glory, etc.” being attributed to the One who sits on the throne and to that One's sacrificial Lamb and Servant – and claim that it equates the two of them. My claim is that this further identifies the two powers of heaven.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
