Jesus Christ is God

This topic has 523 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by NickHassan.

Viewing 20 posts - 321 through 340 (of 524 total)

←1 2 3…161718…25 26 27 →

Author
Posts

December 23, 2006 at 7:55 pm#35094

music4two

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 23 2006,16:45)

Quote

Let's test out your theory that (Logos)”word” should be translated Jesus. In the following few verses I have replaced “Logos” with “Jesus”. Do they become clearer or more confusing?

m42

Please explain. Who was the “Word that was made flesh?”.

Jn 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the Logos but not in the sense that some are projecting. The name or person Jesus is not literally interchangable with Logos in scripture. This is not a proof text of a Triune God but rather an analogy of the purpose of God being revealed in Christ.
the Logos could be called a statement in that the logos defines God's motives and intentions. It could also be defined as the plan of God. In both respects Jesus is the rrevealing, manifestation or fullfillment of God's plan for mankind as well as God's motives and intentions. God was also certainly making a statement through Jesus
The question then becomes not who is the Logos but what is it. It is a revealing of the purpose, intention and desires of God.

I am not going to quote expert after expert but suffice it to say that Hebrew schollars almost without exception will tell you that Hebrews view God through relationship to themselves and that they personify many inanimate objects. If you have checked out the web site I suggeested you will find good evidence and description of this cultural tennant.

As I see it there ae four primary problems in what and how doctrine is being discussed on this board.

1. Motives seem to be generally mixed in the reasons why we post what we do. Are we determined to help others to become like Christ or are we determined to prove ourselves right.

2. Most on here have great difficulity seeing things from the perspective of the Hebrew writers of scripture. Since Hebrew culture is so very different from that which we live in now, we do not understand many things they wrote. It is not just a matter of language but a matter of the thought process that occurs in the Hebrew mind when certain words or activities happen. For instance when a Hebrew saw a revealing of God be it the shakina glory, the burning bush or even the devine nature exhibited in Jesus they responded in thought and deed by proclaiming and percieving it is God Himself.

3. Related to point 2 is that fact that teaching (doctrine) has to have a purpose. Hebrew people always thought in terms of function. they wrote from the same standpoint.
I have poste in the past examples of this concept. A western thinking person will describe a pencil as 12 inches long and yellow. They relate a matter or being to itself. They percieve and beileve God through intelectual proofs, creeds, and bullet lists. they believe God by being convinced in their minds.

A hebrew will describe a pencil by simply stating “I write with it”. To them it is about the function of an object not it's attributes. They see, percieve and believe God as they experiance Him in their lives. Again they are all about function.

4. I have several times in severl threads ask a simple question. How does what some are saying function to make us like Christ? for the most part these questions have been ignored or in some cases mocked. Why did Jesus teach? Why do we teach? Do we do so for the purpose of proving ourselves right? Perhaps we seek an intelectual high.
Should not the motive be to enable ourselves and others to become like Christ? To draw closer to our brother Jesus? If not then why do any of us even bother.

As to your statement that the “Word” became flesh, think of it this way. My wife and I have a purpose, intention and desire to have children. We take action to make this happen and our desires become flesh in that she becomes pregnant. My desire became flesh. You see it is again about function. It cannot be taken in western thinking process of literal proclimation. God's intention and plan has always been to grow and mature sons. Mature sons that carry his characteristics, motives and desires. Adam was the first to be given this opportunity. He failed. Jesus, the second Adam, fullfilled what God started to create in the beginning. When we see Jesus we see the character and heart of Yahweh revealed in a human being. This was God's plan from the start.

So the real and most important question must ask ourselves is this – How does what I am teaching help me to become like Christ? How does it enlarge my faith to walk with Him? How does it explain what He did in such a way that I can actually follow in his footsteps? Does it help or hinder me from becoming like Him? Does it funtion to help me fullfill my calling to be a mature son of God?

I hope you will forgive this very brief explanation. this is a much bigger subject then can be written in one post. We are delving into details of the entire plan of God. I am sure there are those on this site that will even dissagree with what i have stated is the plan of God for man.

December 23, 2006 at 8:09 pm#35096

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (music4two @ Dec. 23 2006,16:23)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Dec. 23 2006,09:09)

WP and I have come to understandings before about attitudes. I am curious about your attitude. I am troubled by your preface of a believed mistake on my part. When a person says
He He” when seeing what they percieve a mistake by others I have to wonder about their heart in the mater.
Does you obvious joy come from your perception that you
got” someone?
Does your joy come from proving yourself right?
Curous — think about it.

BTW, I didn't write “he he” because I saw your error and thought “ahhh, got you”. It was because although your post was meant to be a lesson to WorshippingJesus on sound hermaneutics it was littered with logical fallacies, spelling mistakes and false accusations.

Ironic….

December 23, 2006 at 8:15 pm#35097

NickHassan

Participant

Hi m42,
Please can you show how these uses of “WORD” by God in scripture mean something
that is planned,
a thought or a purpose of God
rather than
an EXPRESSION of that plan or purpose.

How can a plan return void to God if it has never been expressed as
WORD?

Jer 3
12Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Isaiah 55:11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it
Isaiah 45:23
23″I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
Isaiah 44:26
26Confirming the word of His servant
And performing the purpose of His messengers
It is I who says of Jerusalem, 'She shall be inhabited!'
And of the cities of Judah, 'They shall be built.'
And I will raise up her ruins again.
Isaiah 59:21
21″As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the LORD: “My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring,” says the LORD, “from now and forever.”

December 23, 2006 at 8:19 pm#35098

music4two

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Dec. 23 2006,19:43)

Quote (music4two @ Dec. 23 2006,16:23)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Dec. 23 2006,09:09)

In the majority of my post I have tried to urge board members to look at the motives and intentions of the heart of God and to ask ourselves if our motives and intentions match His in our actions and teachings.
think about it —–

Okay, i'll think about it. But I wondering why you haven't yet issued a heartfelt apology to WJ for accussing him of being “dishonest with scripture”, when he was not.

Quote (music4two @ Dec. 23 2006,04:16)

You have misquoted this vese completely. I don’t even have a rule for that one because unless this was a complete mistake I cannot concieve of anyone being that dishonest with scripture.

If you will reread my post you will see that I did allow for WJ's quote to be a mistake. I consider quoting from the KJV a mistake due all the wrong interpretation contained therein.

WJ and I have butted heads before and it is my concerted opinion that we have an understanding that we are both confident and passionate about our beliefs. This being the way we are, we sometimes overstate our case without the intention of causing harm.

If I have offended WJ then I do apologise.

December 23, 2006 at 8:31 pm#35099

music4two

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 23 2006,20:15)

Hi m42,
Please can you show how these uses of “WORD” by God in scripture mean something
that is planned,
a thought or a purpose of God
rather than
an EXPRESSION of that plan or purpose.

How can a plan return void to God if it has never been expressed as
WORD?

We were speaking specifically of the Greek word “Logos” The verses you quoted are from the OT. I do not understand? Are trying to compare Logos (Gr) to dabar (Heb)?

December 23, 2006 at 8:51 pm#35101

music4two

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Dec. 23 2006,20:09)

Quote (music4two @ Dec. 23 2006,16:23)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Dec. 23 2006,09:09)

Ironic….

Let me ask you another question. What was the purpose of pointing out spelling errors in my post? What was your motive or intention?

You spoke of logical fallacies in my post? Do you think my wrong spelling decreases my ability to see a truth in scripture? Hmmmmmm!

As to accusations. I have already covered that point.

As far as fallacies go I am in dissagreement with you on that point, so I cannot take it seriously.

In addition since ou have continued to attempt to humiliate me and have now confirmed that attitude, I have no desire to even discuss the matter with you.

think on it again — motive and intention

December 23, 2006 at 10:17 pm#35102

Is 1:18

Participant

Wasn't trying to humiliate you M42, I thought you had wronged WJ and reacted in his defense. Although I disagreed with many of your points and wanted to voice my disagreement, the percieved treatment of WJ definitely influenced the tone of my post to you. Sorry for any offense.

December 23, 2006 at 11:02 pm#35103

942767

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 23 2006,07:43)

Quote

Hi WJ:

Please tell me what is your definition of the word “worship”.

Hi 94

I thought we had already been down that road.

proskuneo,
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

But this practice was not seen among the Disciples or the Apostles to any man or being other than Jesus.

Show me an example and I will believe you.

Hi WJ:

The reason for my question is that in addition to the definitions that you give the word obeisance means obedience.
I find the following dictionary definition at dictionary.com:
“The act of obeying; dutiful or submissive behavior with respect to another person”.

This sounds like “true worship” to me, and Jesus obeyed the Father even unto death on the cross.

Jesus is worthy of all the praise, glory and honour that we can give him, and we also obey the commandments that came to us from God through him. When we obey him we are obeying God since the commandments came from God through him.

Of the Pharisees Jesus said: “These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men”. (Matt. 15:8-9)

December 23, 2006 at 11:12 pm#35104

942767

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2006,00:38)

Quote

Hi W,
Since for us there is ONE GOD then is Jesus your choice?
Should we not rather serve the One he worshipped and served as God if we follow him.
He did not worship himself did he?

Maybe Im missing something. But I dont know of a scripture that shows the Son worshipping The Father. Please show me.

Hi WJ:

My previous post was in reference to this comment.

December 23, 2006 at 11:38 pm#35107

music4two

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Dec. 23 2006,22:17)

forgiven without reservations and thank you. BTW their are reasons I make spelling errors, but I prefer to keep personal things out of the boards.

December 23, 2006 at 11:49 pm#35108

music4two

Participant

Are you a Son/Daughter or a Slave or Observer?
A son sees a father. A slave sees a master. An observer sees a point of discussion.

A slave has to be ever conscious of the fact that the master of the house is all powerful and orchestrates everything by overcoming the will of the slave by his might.

A son is more conscious of the love and nurturing of a father then of his power over him.
A son is allowed to make choices that he may learn what is good and right to do.

An observer knows about the love of a father and can debate for hours on the minute details of a father’s love, but cannot tell others how to experiance it themselves.

A slave does not learn to master his own will. His will is never exercised and matured but rather is broken by the authority of the master.

A son has his will molded by the choices he makes. It is strengthened by using it so that he may stand strong in time of testing. All the time being taught by his father in which direction to point his will. His father allows him to be taught by the law of sowing and reaping. (without allowing more then he can bear)
A son is taught through confronting issues in his life. These are both normal issues and at times issues brought about by his father to force a confrontation with other circumstances then would be normally encountered by his son. This is done solely for the purpose of perfecting and maturing his son.

An observer only watches and teaches others to do the same. Never partaking of the learning functional process and never teaching others to take part. He does not see the importance of the learning process nor can he explain it.

A slave mimics the attributes and wishes of the master out of fear. A slave is obedient out of fear of an avenging master.

A son becomes like his father from being taught by same. A son becomes like his father by learning to exercise his will guided by the wisdom taught by his father. A son becomes like his father out of love for his nature. A son obeys his father out of trust, developed by learning from the choices he has made in the past and the faithfullness of his father.

An observer can again tell you minute details about the attributes of father. He describes them from a distance, never relating them to himself but always at a psychologicly safe distance. At times the father will reveal himself to the observer, but in a short time the observer turns this into intelectual data and forgets the functional relational aspect. Far too often when the observer interacts the father it is by accident rather then by design.

A slave’s relationship with his master is based on fear of authority and punishment. He believes the master to be willing and able to bring punishment to any slave, at any time, for any reason, regardless of the slaves actions. A slave has no intimate relationship with the master. A slave does not become vulnerable and open to his master.

A son’s relationship is based on belief that the his father will correct or reward him according to his deeds and decisions. He will learn to trust that the correction or reward is appropriate for the deed. A son has intimacy and tender times with his father. A son can trust his father to be fair and therefore he becomes open and vulnerable to him.

An observer can tell you what happened in much the same way as a reporter but cannot explain the why or how of the process. He relates to the father by virtue of intelectual data and therefore his motives and heart are rarely affected.

A slave does not learn to take responsibility for his own actions because all of his actions are dictated by the master.

A son takes responsibility because he learns from his father that according to his own actions will he receive good or bad consequences.

An observer does not take responsibility for his reporting, he is only interested in telling another story.

A slave does not seek a better destiny because his destiny is completely controlled by the master.

A son seeks a better destiny by making decisions that will please his father and result in blessing from him.

An observer does not consider a better destiny because all he is reporting is a fictional story that does not function in a real world.

A slave remains childlike in that he only learns to obey to avoid punishment.

A son becomes a young man and learns to overcome through decision making, responsibility, and consequences for his actions. A son will eventually learn to be a father himself by learning the wisdom and depth of his own father.

An observer only changes in the amount of intelectual data he can absorb. None of the data serves the purpose of changing the inner motives or intentions of the heart.

A slave does not care if the master receives glory or not. Other then to avoid punishment a slave does not care if his decisions give honor, glory or reflect in any way on the master.

A son cares deeply about honoring his father before all men. A son works diligently to have the attributes of his father. A son is willing to recognize these qualities in himself, but always gives credit to his father that taught them to him. A son very much wants his father to be proud of the decisions he makes. A son wants his father to receive glory for the results of those good decisions he was taught to make by him.

An observer primarily gives lip service to honoring a father, but really seeks to exalt himself by proclaiming to the world how much data he has. He looks for the sensational to report. He seeks out minor details to discredit others. His motives are not the same as the fathers.

God chose to work within the perimeters of His creation and it is within and through His creation that He receives His greatest glory.
Does God react to the choices of his creation. You betcha!!! Just like any good father reacts to the choices (good and bad) of his children.
God’s entire plan of creation is for man to grow up, develop, and become like Him in character.

Character and maturity is a direct result of wisdom taught. Character is built by an action of the will developed by choices and learning wisdom to do what is right from the results of those choices. This is a functional teaching (doctrine) In this Jesus wsa a prfect example. An example of perfected humanity. The second Adam in all respects. That which God intended to have from the beginning.

Since the close of the apostolic period and the beginning of the influince of Greek Phylosophical thinking in the church, we have seen debate after debate. Council after council and argument after argument. Everyone was so intent on proving the Trinity and Making Jesus a God that they did not consider that Jesus is the perfect example of sonship. The plan of God for man has been lost.
The gospel of God has been relagated to groups of beliefs that deny the very heart and plan of God. One group sets rules to follow to attain the goal. Another group sets none and says do your own thing to attain the goal. When you ask these groups to describe the goal they are lost for an answer.
One group rightfully exclaims the goal is to be like Christ and at the same time believes Christ to be something we can never become. They are more interested in proving what they think Jesus is then they are showing us how to become like Him.
Some believe because they prayed the sinners prayer 40 years ago that is all that is required. Others have followed more rituals which they believe asure them their place in heaven.
Some believe that by accumulating proof text or writing creeds for their particular bent on teaching, they have fullfilled their destiny or aquired some spiritual height

Unfortunately sonship is very very rarely taught. The most important teaching of scripture and the one by which all other teachings should be measured is forgotten in a moray of philosophies and debate. Most do not want to even discuss the matter. I have often wondered w
hy. Is it that they cannot show a purpose or function for their teaching? I prefer to think it is just they need to tweek the way in which they think to looking at the function of teaching rather then looking for proof texts.

In all the data poured out about the Trinity or Jesus being God, not once has someone told me the functionality of this teaching. What does it do to help me become like Christ. Where in this doctrine do I see sonship expressed, explained or brought to conclussion? In what way is this doctrine an example for me to follow toward sonship?

The entire earth groans for the revealing of the sons of God.

December 23, 2006 at 11:58 pm#35109

NickHassan

Participant

Hi M42,
The Son of God
became like His Father
by letting His father rule within him.
The sons of God are led by the Spirit of God
The grain of wheat falls to the ground and the new life grows within.
First the shoot, then a leaf and then the fruit.
The fruit is the fruit of the Spirit of God manifesting in this vessel in which it was planted, fed , watered and allowed to control.
We must follow too and allow Christ to become us as the inner man so we can say with Paul that it is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me.
The words spoken to us are Spirit and life and the flesh contributes NOTHING.

December 24, 2006 at 1:47 am#35110

music4two

Participant

Perhaps a post with others hermaneutical principles will help to get things more clear.

Hebrew Bible – How to do a Hebraic Study
————————————————————————

————————————————————————
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
The Eight Rules of Interpretation
By: Pastor Guy Duty
(excerpted from his book God's Covenants in our Time)

“And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.” (1 Peter 1:19-20 NAS)
As mentioned above, we cannot have a “sure word” about the meaning of Scripture (or anything else) unless we have and utilize a sure method of interpreting the words.
The following “Eight Rules” are the heart or center of all grammatical interpretation. If one's interpretation rests upon the foundation of these accepted “Eight Rules”, then one may feel confident and sure regarding that interpretation which is attributed to those passages. These “Eight Rules” have been accepted and used by scholars from Socrates to the present time. These “Eight Rules” should always be used when one is ready to “rightly divide the word of Truth” found in the Holy Bible, and they are equally applicable to legal, historical, and other such documents down through the ages to our present day.
Since the Bible teaches quite plainly that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor.14:33), how is it that there can be so many disagreements today between Christians and the proliferation of so many different churches and their various theologies since almost all of them claim to use the Bible as the basis of their many doctrines. Almost inevitably one must conclude that not all of these doctrines taught in these various churches, sects, and even synagogues are correct. And since these doctrines are false, even though they claim Biblical precedent, one must conclude that these false doctrines have arisen due to the distortion of the Biblical words.
As far as Scriptural truth is concerned, these “Eight Rules” are offered so that they may assist the reader in recognizing the proper meanings and messages found in the Word of God. A Biblical scholar once said: “When two interpretations are claimed for a certain Scripture, the interpretation or construction which is most in agreement with all the facts of the case should be adopted. When all the facts of an interpretation are in agreement they sound together in harmony, like notes in a chord.
Biblical interpretation is more than knowing a set of rules, but it cannot be accomplished well without the guidance of these rules, none the less. Good interpretive skills demand that we learn the rules and then apply them when reading the Scriptures.
The Eight Rules

1) The Rule of Definition.
Define the terms or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of the word. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously and almost always abide by the plain meanings of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. For example, there are two Greek words “allos” and “heteros” that are both translated as “another” in the English scriptures. Strictly speaking however, “allos” literally means “another of the same type,” and “heteros” means “another of a different type.” (See John 14:16. Which “another” is referenced here in this verse?)
2) Rule of Usage:
Do not add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the culture and time period when the passage was written?
It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to, and for Israel. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them – just as the words of Christ must have been when speaking to his disciples. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in Jewish culture and it is important not to impose our modern customs, ideas, and usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual rendition of the passage.
3) The Rule of Context:
Avoid using words or phrases out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before the verse or verses, and the words that come after the particular verse or verses in question. Many passages will not be understood at all, or at least will be understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context.
4) The Rule of Historical Background.
Do not separate interpretation and historical investigation.
The interpreter must have some awareness of the life, society, and cultural times in which the scriptures were written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly understood or appreciated without some knowledge of the times or background in which the text was written. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in mind when he wrote the text – without adding any excess baggage or preconceived thoughts from his own society and culture to the interpretation of the text – then the true thought or meaning of the scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present.”
5) The Rule of Logic:
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason – it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said: “What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence. . . interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic. . . may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.”
6) The Rule of Precedent:
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which there is no precedent.
We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called “noble” because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true. (2 Tim. 2:15 – rightly dividing the word).
7) The Rule of Unity:
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of Faith. No one or two verses is going to be sufficient in delineating or fully explaining the doctrine. No single passage explains it fully, but the various pas
sages that does teach it must be consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture.
8) The Rule of Inference:
Base conclusions on what is already known and established or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of evidence which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion

Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements which seem to pursue those who read the Scriptures. However these eight principles are no substitute for the HolySpirit which will, if you cultivate the Spirit to guide you in the truth for which one seeks. In closing we read from King Solomon in Proverbs 1:5-6.
“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning: and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation.
The foregoing rules of interpretation are important guides that should be utilized and noted when reading or studying any document; be it a novel, a history, a law case, even any instruction booklet, let alone the various Bibles that are available to read and study.
————————————————————————
Copyright © 2006
Ancient Hebrew Research Center

Please feel free to use, copy or distribute any material on this site for non-profit educational purposes only.

December 24, 2006 at 3:34 am#35116

Cult Buster

Participant

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Deu 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Psa 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Zec 7:11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.

December 24, 2006 at 4:14 am#35124

NickHassan

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ Dec. 24 2006,03:34)

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Deu 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Psa 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Zec 7:11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.

Hi CB,
Ah ha
Ah ha
Ah ha

Do several inferences make a fact?

December 24, 2006 at 4:19 am#35128

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote

Hi WJ:

This sounds like “true worship” to me, and Jesus obeyed the Father even unto death on the cross.

Of the Pharisees Jesus said: “These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men”. (Matt. 15:8-9)

I think what you are describing sounds like Love to me.

Jn 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

It may be that you could say that Jesus had such a Love for the Father and the Father for him, that maybe this could be a form of worship.

My point is that there is no scripture anywhere that we see Jesus “proskuneo” the Father.

This type of worship in the scriptures is reserved among the followers of Christ for worshipping God only.

Love and worship seem to be two different things.

I Cor 13
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

December 24, 2006 at 4:25 am#35130

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote

Hi W,
So you believe that a KJV manuscript word that has three different greek bases
is a strong foundation for building on a theory that God is three?

Why not listen to the Master?

“God is ONE”

I am giving you the greek definitions that all the major translators used.

What do you use?

You say I am wrong but you dont show me why my interpretation is wrong.

December 24, 2006 at 5:00 am#35131

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote

If you will reread my post you will see that I did allow for WJ's quote to be a mistake. I consider quoting from the KJV a mistake due all the wrong interpretation contained therein.

If I have offended WJ then I do apologise.

M42

Opology accepted!

And I thank you Isa 1:18 for pointing out what happens here a lot. Because I use the KJV does not mean that I havent studied what I quote before I paste it. I compare the Greek and Hebrew with all of the major tranlations, as well as check commentaries and history and whatever resouce I can.

But my interpretation of the scriptures is based on Two things,

1- The Holy Spirit and prayer.

2- Looking at the text in its context and digging into the Hebrew or Greek.

All of the other things are secondary and if they contradict the above, I dont use it.

I use the KJV Because in most cases I find it reliable and I like the language, not because I think it is the best or only interpretation.

Im not even a Catholic and abhor some of their practices.

All I ask is that when you disagree, give me a reason why, not based on human logic or tradition or rumors, or the websters, etc,etc,etc.

Show me scriptural proof that what I am saying is wrong. I am sure I am not always right.

But you must know that when I make a statement on this forum, I am not just copying and pasting scriptures without prayerfully studied them, and thoroughly check them out.

I probably have more time than most here to study, other than NH who lives here.

All I want is scriptural evidence thats based on the whole of scriptures. We have the whole Bible for instruction.

December 24, 2006 at 5:31 am#35132

NickHassan

Participant

Hi W,
You still miss the obvious in your search for the obscure.
If God was a trinity and He called it a godhead then this teaching would be found in the mouth of His beloved son who came to reveal Him to men. There is a deathly silence on the matter. But you have found three greek words which are all translated as godhead and you expect this cobbled up foundation to describe the nature of our Mighty Glorious Father and God. Get real. You clearly do not know our God and Father if your think His ways are so bizarre and trivial.

December 24, 2006 at 5:37 am#35133