- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ April 11 2011,06:01) Jesus is THE gate.
Jesus is THE vine.
Jesus is THE shepherd.And I can prove it with scripture
even
Jesus is the Angel of GodDon't miss the message here.
Does Jesus have a gate nature?
Does Jesus have the nature of a vine?
Does Jesus have the nature of an angel?
or
Does Jesus have the nature of a God?Whichever it is, then He is that by nature and then you know what He is, all else is what comes from being what He is by nature. Jesus has the same nature as our Heavenly Father…He is God because He is the Son of God which implies that the one He is Son of, is God also, but as the Father and not the Son.
Is Jesus the Son of God because He is a shepherd or is He a shepherd because He is the Son of God?
Is Jesus the Son of God because He is perfect or is He perfect because He is the Son of God?
Is Jesus the Son of God because He has the nature of an angel?
Or is He a messenger of God because He is God as the Son?Think about it!
Kathi
LU.There is a difference between being God the Son and the son of God.
God the son implies that God is made up of some, including the son.
The son of God implies that he is a son, and his Father is God.
The latter is what scripture repeats over and over.
The former is not taught outside of the Trinity Doctrine that I can see.Take your examples.
Jesus is the Angel of God.
Now construct it as you have in the Jesus and God example.
So it becomes Jesus is God the Angel.
Or try Jesus is God the Christ.
You don't see such language from what I can see.Mike,
Lets take a different approach, apparently I'm to simple to keep up.I don't believe in skirting issues, I try to answer questions honestly while listening and evaluating what the other side says, I have a proven history of conceding and changing my opinion if the evidence supports it.
If I believe a discussion has degraded into “quarreling about words” (which I will not participate in) I will let you know and you can give me as many tiles as you feel necessary.
Please post your questions (one at a time) in Bold, and if there are any parameters expected in the response spell them out for me and we'll see if I can get you your answer.
Wm
Hi Wm,
“You welcomed me as if I were a King of Israel, as if I were Solomon himself”.
1. Wm, do you STILL think that the second mention indicates that Solomon was of a “higher status” than “a King of Israel”?
2. Do you think it indicates that Solomon himself was NOT also a King of Israel?
mike
Quote LU. There is a difference between being God the Son and the son of God.
God the son implies that God is made up of some, including the son.
The son of God implies that he is a son, and his Father is God.
The latter is what scripture repeats over and over.
The former is not taught outside of the Trinity Doctrine that I can see.Take your examples.
Jesus is the Angel of God.
Now construct it as you have in the Jesus and God example.
So it becomes Jesus is God the Angel.
Or try Jesus is God the Christ.
You don't see such language from what I can see.t8,
Well, you are not giving a common comparison between:
the Son of God and God the Son
and
the Angel of God and God the Angel.
Because the word son is a relational word whereas angel is not. Also, I believe that the word Son implies a common nature to the Father. No where do we read that angels have the same nature as the Father or Son but we do read that the Father and the Son have the same nature.Quote God the son implies that God is made up of some, including the son. Well, at least it implies that God is made up of another…a son, therefore the other one would be assumed as 'father.' You couldn't have a son without having a father and visa versa. The two persons depend on each other to be who they are. In other words, the idea of Father, implies an offspring and in this case…a son. The mention of a son, implies a parent-a father.
I don't think you can say God the Father and assume an angel as His offspring to qualify Him as the God the Father because like doesn't beget unlike. God begets God both eternal, one unbegotten the other begotten before the ages. One offspring being within the Father's being, from eternity and then before creation, that offspring is begotten/comes out. The offspring that was eternally within, comes out. And there you have a literal Son of God with the eternal nature of God without being the Father.
I was reading the definition of consubstantiality and I agree with this and how the three are OF one, not three IN one, or the three ARE one. One little word 'of' changes from what I agree with and believe is Biblical, to IN or ARE which I do not understand to be Biblical. Here is the definition:
Consubstantiality is a term used in Latin Christian christology, coined by Tertullian in Against Hermogenes 44, used to translate the Greek term homoousios. “Consubstantiality” describes the relationship among the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are “of one being” in that the Son is “generated” (“born” or “begotten”) “before all ages” or “eternally” of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally “proceeds.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality
Well, I sorta believe that but I would tweek the wording a bit regarding the Holy Spirit and my version would be like this but still fit the idea of consubstantiality:
Consubstantiality is a term used in Latin Christian christology, coined by Tertullian in Against Hermogenes 44, used to translate the Greek term homoousios. “Consubstantiality” describes the relationship among the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God are “of one being-the Father's” in that the Son is “generated” (“born” or “begotten”) “before all ages” or “during eternity” of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally “proceeds.”
I believe this to be very possible and Biblical and not confusing.
What do you think?
Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2011,11:08) Hi Wm, “You welcomed me as if I were a King of Israel, as if I were Solomon himself”.
1. Wm, do you STILL think that the second mention indicates that Solomon was of a “higher status” than “a King of Israel”?
2. Do you think it indicates that Solomon himself was NOT also a King of Israel?
mike
Mike,
1-Yes2-No
Although I do understand what your saying now I do not agree.
Galatians 4:13 On the contrary, you know that it was on account of a bodily ailment that preached the Gospel to you the first time.14 And [yet] although my physical condition was [such] a trial to you, you did not regard it with contempt, or scorn and loathe and reject me; but you received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus [Himself]!
My turn:
1-What did they receive Paul as an angel or a messenger?Kathi,
A 'Son of God' as used in Scriotures, is anyone who does the will of God.
So all the following are Sons of God:
1) All Angels (Spirits) in Heaven
2) All of Mankind who hear and follow the word of God
3) Jesus Christ and the Saints of the first resurrectionThe latter group (3) are or will be EVERLASTING SONS OF GOD.
The former other two are subject to sin.
Angels, being Spirits, once fallen in sin, are destroyed. They are not redeemable Sons of God.Kathi, these different 'Sonships' must be taken in proper context and not read with an emotional and romantic view.
The Scriptures, of which this whole issue is concerning, defines a 'Son of God' thus:
Romans 8:14, 'For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are SONS OF GOD'Kathi, will you dispute with the definition given by the very book from which the issue is taken? Then you are writing your own version of that book and therefore your views cannot be credited. It is pointless to argue with you because you can then change any point of view at any time.
Only when there is a fixed and common base with fixed and common information, can matters of difference of understanding be disputed.IF the phrase “Son of God” is not literal, than the Jews wouldnt have said that Jesus blasphemed and would have never Crucified him. Yet Christians were never called sons of God until after Jesus Resurrection. That should tell you something.
SF,
Because the Jews did not know the truth.This is the error that Trinitarians make in claiming that 'Jesus IS God because the Jews thought so'!
Do Trinitarians ever acknowledge the words of the accused?
He, Jesus, replied, 'What of it that I call myself SON OF GOD; did not God himself call them 'Gods' of whom the word of God came'…'if I do the works of the father then though you do not believe me then believe the works [that I do] so that you may know that the father is in me, and I am in him'
This means: Jesus does the will of God the Father… Therefore he is a Son of God the Father!
And, anyone else who does the will of God the Father – IS a Son of God the Father.
In the time of Jesus, Jesus himself was the ONLY ONE who fully did the will of God the Father (In the flesh).
Istari,
The only begotten Son of God has a distinction beyond all other sons of God. They can't all be the only begotten son, only one can, otherwise you have rewritten the definition of 'only'. That distinction implies a common nature with the Father. The Bible tells us that He is the exact representation of the nature of God. Heb. 1.Quote (Istari @ April 12 2011,02:58) SF,
Because the Jews did not know the truth.This is the error that Trinitarians make in claiming that 'Jesus IS God because the Jews thought so'!
Do Trinitarians ever acknowledge the words of the accused?
He, Jesus, replied, 'What of it that I call myself SON OF GOD; did not God himself call them 'Gods' of whom the word of God came'…'if I do the works of the father then though you do not believe me then believe the works [that I do] so that you may know that the father is in me, and I am in him'
This means: Jesus does the will of God the Father… Therefore he is a Son of God the Father!
And, anyone else who does the will of God the Father – IS a Son of God the Father.
In the time of Jesus, Jesus himself was the ONLY ONE who fully did the will of God the Father (In the flesh).
Well JA,
thats exactly what I wanted to talk about in the other thread.
because this is a AntiTrinitarian Error that cliams that “Jesus is not God because he says Humans are gods too”The Knowledge of the accused is based on the interpretation of why they crucified Jesus. In other words, They asked him “Are you the Son of God” and Jesus replied “Yes” knowing that they will infact kill him for answering that way.
So Jesus interpretation of “son of God” is the same as the Jews. So therefore You cant say that they didnt know the truth, they simply didnt LIVE the truth. They denied it.Jesus was quoting psalms which stated that these “gods” will die like men. so obvisouly they were not gods, and Jesus pointed out that if you believe in scrpiture, and that scripture is sacredly bound, than how is it that you cant believe in the scriptures that speak about Jesus since the OT (which the OT is the only scriptures that existed at that at that time).
Where Jesus also says “they search the scriptures for eternal life, when the scriptures actually talk about me (Jesus).”
So if you CANT believe in the SCriptures, that Talk about me (Jesus) being one with God, about me (Jesus) coming from God, that I am God, than Believe in my works, which make it obvious that i am in the FAther, and the FAther is in Me (Jesus).
Get it?
Quote And, anyone else who does the will of God the Father – IS a Son of God the Father.
But the bible also says we have the Spirit of Christ??? and we are conformed to HIS IMAGE. soo how is that so?
are we now SONS of the SON?Quote In the time of Jesus, Jesus himself was the ONLY ONE who fully did the will of God the Father (In the flesh).
Awww thats good, so are you stating that there was no other sons of God until Jesus came?Quote (seekingtruth @ April 10 2011,22:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2011,11:08) Hi Wm, “You welcomed me as if I were a King of Israel, as if I were Solomon himself”.
1. Wm, do you STILL think that the second mention indicates that Solomon was of a “higher status” than “a King of Israel”?
2. Do you think it indicates that Solomon himself was NOT also a King of Israel?
mike
Mike,
1-Yes2-No
Hi Wm,I just don't get it, man.
Your “NO” indicates that Solomon WAS “a King of Israel”. So in what way does your “YES” indicate that Solomon was of “higer status” than “a King of Israel”? I mean, was he also a “god” or something?We may never see eye to eye on this, but IMO, the second mention only singles out a particular member of the first group mentioned. And the one singled out is usually a well known member of the group mentioned, but he is not singled out because he's NOT a member of the group mentioned. That would be silly. It would be like:
You welcomed me as if I were a Nascar driver, as if I were Albert Einstein himself.”
See? That's just silly because the one singled out has nothing at all to the group mentioned previously.
Compare that with:You welcomed me as if I were a Nascar driver, as if I were Jeff Gordon himself.”
That's better. The one singled out is a well known member OF the group that is mentioned previously. Just as Bill Gates is a member OF the group of “billionaires”, and Solomon is a member OF the group of “Kings of Israel” and Jesus is a member OF the group of “angels of God/messengers of God”.
That's the only way the “second mention emphasis” would even work. If the one singled out is not a member OF the group previously mentioned…………..well, see my Albert Einstein analogy, and notice how much sense it made.
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 10 2011,22:56) My turn:
1-What did they receive Paul as an angel or a messenger?
They received him as “aggelos”, which means:1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God
If Jesus fits any or all of the definition above, then Jesus is “aggelos”. It doesn't really matter which English word we choose to use, for there was only one Greek word for both “messenger” and “angel”. Jesus fits the definition of this word, and therefore IS “aggelos”.
Thanks for the chat Wm.
peace,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ April 11 2011,13:06) William, Rephrase your Question because Mike only defines “Angel” as Messenger.
Hi D,For “aggelos”, the AKJV has “angel” 179 times and “messenger” 7 times. There is no other English word they use for “aggelos”.
And like I said, it is ONE Greek word that English translators render as either “messenger” or “angel”. The translations vary from Bible to Bible, and there is no set “rule” that dictates when to use “messenger” or when to use “angel”. In fact, they could use “angel” every single time if they wanted.
Did you read the definition I posted for Wm? Do you see the “one who is sent” definition? Was Jesus “sent”? Then he is “aggelos”.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2011,04:54) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 11 2011,13:06) William, Rephrase your Question because Mike only defines “Angel” as Messenger.
Hi D,For “aggelos”, the AKJV has “angel” 179 times and “messenger” 7 times. There is no other English word they use for “aggelos”.
And like I said, it is ONE Greek word that English translators render as either “messenger” or “angel”. The translations vary from Bible to Bible, and there is no set “rule” that dictates when to use “messenger” or when to use “angel”. In fact, they could use “angel” every single time if they wanted.
Did you read the definition I posted for Wm? Do you see the “one who is sent” definition? Was Jesus “sent”? Then he is “aggelos”.
mike
Thats not my point.My point is how does William define Angel.
So he needs to define his interpretation of Angel so that he can have a better answer for you.Thats your problem mike, there is a biblical interpretation and there is the status quo of interpretation of english words that have preconcieved beliefs.
learn to tell the difference.
obvisouly his question has more to it.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 11 2011,17:22) So if you CANT believe in the SCriptures, that Talk about me (Jesus) being one with God, about me (Jesus) coming from God, that I am God, than Believe in my works, which make it obvious that i am in the FAther, and the FAther is in Me (Jesus).
Hey Dennison,What scripture did “that I am God” come from?
And another thing:
John 8:41
You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”Now if these Jews also claim God Himself as their Father, what set them off about Jesus? What was it about Jesus' claim that was different from their own? It was that Jesus said he was “THE Son of God”, not “a son of God”. In what way was Jesus THE Son of God while on earth, Istari? You can't claim he was the only one on earth at that time that did the will of God, because John the Baptist also did. So did the Apostles, sans Judas. And many disciples. Yet Peter received a revelation from God that Jesus was THE Son of the Living God. Why “THE” and not “A”?
Anomaly?
mike
Mike you wrote:
Quote You welcomed me as if I were a Nascar driver, as if I were Albert Einstein himself.” See? That's just silly because the one singled out has nothing at all to the group mentioned previously.
At least we agree that the items need to follow the same theme which brings me to the point I was building towards, Paul tells us himself that they received him as a messenger which is why he referenced higher levels of messengers; the messengers of God (angels), and God's greatest messenger, His Son Jesus Christ. So unless Paul was an angel the translation for “aggelos” in this case should have been messenger.My opinion – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 12 2011,06:00) Mike you wrote: Quote You welcomed me as if I were a Nascar driver, as if I were Albert Einstein himself.” See? That's just silly because the one singled out has nothing at all to the group mentioned previously.
At least we agree that the items need to follow the same theme which brings me to the point I was building towards, Paul tells us himself that they received him as a messenger which is why he referenced higher levels of messengers; the messengers of God (angels), and God's greatest messenger, His Son Jesus Christ. So unless Paul was an angel the translation for “aggelos” in this case should have been messenger.My opinion – Wm
Exactlyyyyyyy Good post.thats my same point, but in better words
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 11 2011,19:00) At least we agree that the items need to follow the same theme which brings me to the point I was building towards, Paul tells us himself that they received him as a messenger which is why he referenced higher levels of messengers; the messengers of God (angels), and God's greatest messenger, His Son Jesus Christ. So unless Paul was an angel the translation for “aggelos” in this case should have been messenger. My opinion – Wm
Hi Wm,That's fine with me. But just remember it is the same Greek word that we in English translate as either “angel” or “messenger”. And the English translators usually use “messenger” for a human aggelos, and “angel” for a spirit being aggelos. Which is also fine with me.
And if Paul was saying he was welcomed as a human aggelos, as if he was the (prior) human aggelos Jesus, then I'm okay with that if you are.
But don't forget that Jesus is now a spirit being and still an aggelos of his God. So while Jesus once was a human aggelos, or “messenger of God”, he is now a spirit aggelos, or “angel of God”.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2011,05:16) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 11 2011,17:22) So if you CANT believe in the SCriptures, that Talk about me (Jesus) being one with God, about me (Jesus) coming from God, that I am God, than Believe in my works, which make it obvious that i am in the FAther, and the FAther is in Me (Jesus).
Hey Dennison,What scripture did “that I am God” come from?
And another thing:
John 8:41
You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”Now if these Jews also claim God Himself as their Father, what set them off about Jesus? What was it about Jesus' claim that was different from their own? It was that Jesus said he was “THE Son of God”, not “a son of God”. In what way was Jesus THE Son of God while on earth, Istari? You can't claim he was the only one on earth at that time that did the will of God, because John the Baptist also did. So did the Apostles, sans Judas. And many disciples. Yet Peter received a revelation from God that Jesus was THE Son of the Living God. Why “THE” and not “A”?
Anomaly?
mike
Mike,
My soap box towards JA was a mix of a bunch of scriptures to express my belief.
Since he did the same, i just responded back with the same respect for the sake of understanding and clarifications.John 8:19Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
:39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
:42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.lol so now its about “the” that one word that bothered them?
Context mike context.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,00:31) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 31 2011,22:24) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,21:12) Hi All, Mikeboll64 (Mikey old person) believes Jesus is god the Angel, however he does not believe in the Trinity Doctrine. This is because he believes Jesus to be an Angel.
I was hoping he could show some scriptural support of this theory, one scripture at a time, so we could come to understand why he believes this way, and either support or refute his understanding with scriptures.
peace and love,
Dennison
Dwhat scripture would support that idea ??
Pierre
Hi PeirreIt comes right out of “Watchtower” the heretical publication of the JWs.
WJ
Mike,
Are you a JW or used to be a JW?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
