- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 26 2009,13:12) Anyway, if God's name is Yahweh as you suggest, then why don't you in accord with scriptural tradition, in accord with the tradition of those who used God's name some 7000 times in scripture….why don't you use it? Were the Bible writers wrong to use it….7000 times?
Go read the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. I think you'll find it quite exhilarating.
#2. You never answered any of my questions or even hinted at answering what the post was about.
Why do you divert attention? When people do that I almost always think it's because they are wrong and don't have answers. Is this the case?You say Jesus is “God the Son.” But the Bible writers who apparently know less than many on here, did not use that expression, but rather, repeatedly said that YHWH (if you prefer) was God, and said this clearly without question 1000 times (and much less clearly thousands of other times.)
But Jesus is called the “son OF” God repeatedly, dozens of times. So why not follow the tradition of the Bible writers and call him the Son of God, as they did?
Sorry, I didn't mean to divert attention. I find your question irrelevant. You can't know by the incomplete revelation of the Scriptures we gave the world. They weren't meant to be a source book to figure everything out.
But I sure do love them, quote them, and pray them.
So is it your defense that the scriptures were not written to say that Jesus is the son of God and should really have been written God the son?Does the Pope ever say The Son of God? Do you ever say Son of God?
Jesus the is the Son of God. He died on the cross for us. He was resurrected and sent back his spirit to guide us and give us comfort. He has full authority right now over the children who he has born, the spiritual children, until the day when he relinquishes that authority back over to God. He is our Savior and our mediator before God. He is not God. He is the Son of God. He never said he was God. Ever.
If you try to make him into God you are saying he didn't come in the flesh, fully as a man, you are denying him the suffering and the temptations he had while on Earth. You are making light of the job he had to do for us. He was fully man, who is now resurrected, the begotten Son of God. On the right hand of the Father. He is our Savior.
There is no trinity or Oneness. There is Jesus, the Son of God and the Heavenly Father who is God Almighty.Quote (eveh @ Aug. 26 2009,13:44) Jesus the is the Son of God. He died on the cross for us. He was resurrected and sent back his spirit to guide us and give us comfort. He has full authority right now over the children who he has born, the spiritual children, until the day when he relinquishes that authority back over to God. He is our Savior and our mediator before God. He is not God. He is the Son of God. He never said he was God. Ever. If you try to make him into God you are saying he didn't come in the flesh, fully as a man, you are denying him the suffering and the temptations he had while on Earth. You are making light of the job he had to do for us. He was fully man, who is now resurrected, the begotten Son of God. On the right hand of the Father. He is our Savior.
There is no trinity or Oneness. There is Jesus, the Son of God and the Heavenly Father who is God Almighty.
Powerful!Quote Go read the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. I think you'll find it quite exhilarating. –CA
As far as I can tell, I quote from it more than you do.
I asked:
Quote So why not follow the tradition of the Bible writers and call him the Son of God, as they did? And you reply:
Quote I find your question irrelevant. You can't know by the incomplete revelation of the Scriptures we gave the world. They weren't meant to be a source book to figure everything out. But didn't you quote 2 Tim 3:16,17 a while back:
2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17
“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, FOR SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”If the Bible is from God, then we can learn from it. If it is not, your worship is futile.
The “beginning” means the beginning when he was resurrected not at the beginning of the world. Jesus is the firstborn of many, the beginning and he is the end for there will be no other Messiah. God has no beginning or end. Only the Son has a beginning and end. Only Jesus could die. That is the beginning of many sons, many spiritual sons of God.
Quote (david @ Aug. 26 2009,16:07) Quote Go read the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. I think you'll find it quite exhilarating. –CA
As far as I can tell, I quote from it more than you do.
I asked:
Quote So why not follow the tradition of the Bible writers and call him the Son of God, as they did? And you reply:
Quote I find your question irrelevant. You can't know by the incomplete revelation of the Scriptures we gave the world. They weren't meant to be a source book to figure everything out. But didn't you quote 2 Tim 3:16,17 a while back:
2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17
“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, FOR SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”If the Bible is from God, then we can learn from it. If it is not, your worship is futile.
Jesus left a church behind that you can learn everything you need to know for life and Godliness. Outside of that context, you just may be in danger of wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction.WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS:
You can believe the Bible “Son of God”
Or you can believe man's tradition “God the Son.”
But you will not find “God the Son” in scripture.
And, what I find more interesting is, those that speak of “God the son” very rarely imitate the Bible writers and call him “Son of God.”JN………..GOD was (IN) Jesus , JESUS was (NOT) the GOD that was (IN) HIM. Jesus said (THOU) are the (ONLY) True GOD. Get it the THOU was (NOT) Him. ONLY means (NO OTHER). GOD was (IN) Christ Jesus, SPeaking through Him, that why he said the words I am telling you are (NOT) MINE. GOD was (IN) and GOD can be (IN) us ALSO the exact same He was (IN) Jesus. remember (I) in you and YOU in ME and we IN them. ONE GOD in ALL and THROUGH ALL. JN …> it's simple come out of the False TEACHINGS of the TRINITY and it will easily fall in place. The confusion will leave you. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
Quote (david @ Aug. 26 2009,18:09) WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS: You can believe the Bible “Son of God”
Or you can believe man's tradition “God the Son.”
But you will not find “God the Son” in scripture.
And, what I find more interesting is, those that speak of “God the son” very rarely imitate the Bible writers and call him “Son of God.”
David Do you believe in Scriptures? If so then explain to me these?
Col. 1:15-17
Rev. 3:14
John 17:5
John 1:1
Yeshiva who became Jesus in the flesh did preexisted His birth as a Human. Unless you want to deny these Scriptures.
In Hebrew 1:8 God Himself calls Jesus God. If you would understand what God is, it is a Family Name or a title. We are the Son's of God, are we not? I don't understand by what you are saying, that you cannot find ” God the Son” Is that not just a matter of speaking? We do know that we have a Son of God and the Father calls Him God in Hebrew. Is there a difference? Again God the Father calls Jesus God.
IreneQuote (WorshippingJesus @ May 25 2009,15:48) Quote (Lightenup @ May 24 2009,21:55) Hi Georg,
Interesting thought but I think the angels were created, not begotten and not sharing in the nature of God, they are not the same “kind” as God. I believe they are created heavenly beings and they were created through the Son, not born of the Son. IMOKathi
Hi KathiBut you are not talking about the same kind. You are talking about a being of a different kind. One that is less in nature than the Father. A demi-god if you will.
Is there any other kind of creature that came from another kind of creature that is not equal in nature? Why an Angel could be “a god” then. But there is no other “True God”.
Scriptures call Angels “sons of God”, were they “born from the Father? Are they the same in being as the Father or Jesus?
What do these scriptures mean to you…
“WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and “THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING“,… Heb 1:3
If he is not identical to the Father in nature in every way then these scriptures are lies. Not to mention John 1:1.
Also your reference to the Father being as a mother is an allegory of the Fathers capability to be everything to us.
But that is not my point at all. I am not saying that the Father can only be a Father. God revealed himself to man as “He”, “Him”, “us”, and later Father.
My point is Jesus never referred to the Father as Mother did he?
Jesus came to reveal the Father which is the chosen gender that the Father uses to express his nature for the sake of man. Since everything is made by and for Jesus his only Son then why wouldn't the Father say he was his mother.
It’s because mothers give birth, Fathers don't!
I say again if Jesus being the most prized “Only Unique Son” of the Father was born from him he would have clearly told us so and could have said that he is the Mother of his son.
But he didn’t, did he?
As far as the scriptures referring to the Son being called the Son from the beginning is proof of nothing because if my son had preexistence and I was referring to his preexistence then I would still be calling him my son even though he didn’t become my son until the day he was born.
If he created the world I would be saying my Son created the World. This is the reference point the Apostles are speaking from. After being born from the virgin Mary.
Before that John calls him the Word, And Paul says he was in very nature God. If what you say is true then why didn’t John say “in the beginning was the Son and the Son was born of God and the Son was a god”?
Why didn’t Paul say that Jesus the Son of God took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man?
Instead he said…
“WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6
From what I am hearing around here is Jesus has more than “ONE” birth, he was born in the beginning, then born again from Mary, then born again at the Jordan, then born again in the resurrection. This is hoopla and madness in my opinion. There is no scripture that Unambiguously claims Jesus was ever born before he came in the flesh. Those who believe this would be better off being a Unitarian IMO.
Because John didn’t mention Jesus as a Son until he was made flesh agreeing with the scriptures and the Angel that declared him to be the Son of God. So now we can say the Son as well as the Word was with the Father and by him and through him all things were made that were made.
No being less than the Father in nature could be “Omnipotent” “Omnipresent” and “Omniscient”! IMO.
And no other being other than God created all things as it is written.
Blessings WJ
Scripture never, “never” called angels the Sons of God. Do you know who the Sons of God were? They are the ones who went into the children of men and they were not angels. They had offspring by these women. If they had been angels, angels are spirits. Can you see here that calling angels the Sons of God is false doctrine. Not intentional I am sure, but it is. Look up the scriptures and really read them. Think!Quote Scripture never, “never” called angels the Sons of God. Then who were the “sons of God” that shouted in applause when the earth was created?
When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause? (Job 38:7)Quote if Jesus was not God in the flesh then why does the bible say what it does in john1:1,14 At John 1:1, my Bible and 10 others do not refer to Jesus as “The” God, but “a god” or something like that.
The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article (“a”). So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (“a” or “an”) (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (And every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into early on (Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, etc) ALL had no indefinite article! Around 1500 C.E., it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article. And of course, they chose not to use it. (I wonder if the beheadings and burnings at the stake rolled through their minds as they translated this. Anyway, they had little choice on how to translate it BY THAT TIME.)
But 1300 years before, (About 200 CE) it was translated into Coptic, which does have both the indefinite article and the definite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
Their language was actually based on the Greek, using the Greek alphabet, and a couple other letters. They lived when koine Greek was actually spoken. They lived before trinity doctrine became law. And so they had both an understanding and the ability to translate it, not how the authorities demanded, but how they understood it.
When the trinity doctrine became law, it became punishable by death to suggest otherwise. Everything after that is clouded and overshadowed by that.
Anyway, Jehovah is called “god” 7000 times.
Jesus is called “god” 3-9 times
angels are called “gods” once.
human judges are called “gods” once.
Satan the devil is called a “god” once.When we understand that “god” means “powerful one,” this all makes sense. But only one is ALL powerful, “ALMIGHTY,” and that is the Father.
Quote (david @ Aug. 27 2009,09:58) Quote Scripture never, “never” called angels the Sons of God. Then who were the “sons of God” that shouted in applause when the earth was created?
When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause? (Job 38:7)
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?God never called the angels Sons of God. He called them spriits. They are messengers to you and me. They celebrate when we are saved. They minister to us but they are not flesh and blood. They are not Sons of God.
This is a deep subject on who the Sons of God were but if you want further study, try here:
http://buildonthetruefoundation.aimoo.com/The-dee….69.html
There is no Jn 38..are you sure this is what you wanted to type. Maybe you left out the chapter or meant 1 John…I need more than this.
As for the Ps you gave me, neither one speaks of the Sons of God. However, if you will click on the link I gave you in the last post, you will find out all about the Sons of God as mentioned in the book of Genesis.
Oh, I see why you think the sons of the mighty are the sons of God. You are reading from some other translation other then KJV. I only read the KJV of the Bible. And I think you meant Job 38 not Jn38. Check the link I left in my last post. It is really too deep to get into on this discussion board. I can't explain it as well as the one I learned it from. If you are not afraid of letting go of your favorite doctrine, come over and learn a little truth.
<>
King James Bible6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?
This is not talking about the Sons of God. This is talking about the mighty ones on the Earth at that time. You will notice he meantions Heaven in this first part and the second part is about the Earth.
God never called the angels his Sons. He tells you plain and so does Jesus, that angels are ministering spriits, they are spirits. I don't know how much clearer he could have made that.
Heb 1-5… And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
You see right there. He is saying he never called the angels his sons. He never called himself a Father to the angels.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
