- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2006,00:38) If you can't rebut it Is 1:18, and can only say what you have, that's fine.
He he…give me some evidence and i'll do my best. I Thess 4:16 is not evidence….Quote You're money would also be on Jesus being God Almighty. So….
Yes…and in contrast to the ludicrous WT doctrine that Jesus=MTA, there is actually substantive evidence for that….Hi Is 1.18,
I disagree.
Certainly it is not written that Jesus is Michael and as such is unlikely and unproveable.
But it is written that Jesus is the Son of God, which makes it impossible for him to be that God.And since Is 1:18 is blinded by the Jesus is God Almighty belief, it's impossible for his eyes to even contemplate those scriptures I mentioned and he can only dismiss them.
Hi David,
Give me a verse that states that Jesus and Michael are one and the same and i'll certainly consider it….There must be one….right?
Blessings
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2006,03:22) Hi Is 1.18,
I disagree.
Certainly it is not written that Jesus is Michael and as such is unlikely and unproveable.
But it is written that Jesus is the Son of God, which makes it impossible for him to be that God.
“God” and “Son of God” are antithetical?….how so?Even if it was scripturally-evidenced that Logos was begotten before His incarnation, would He be lesser in His ontology….I thought like begets like kind….How could one being beget a lesser being??
Hi Is1.18,
So again the words greater and lesser are a problem.
So can a being beget a lesser being?If a tiger begat a mouse would that suffice? I do not think so as it is all amatter of opinion. A tiger may be larger and it can catch bigger prey, but that is because it is a bigger animal and needs more food. The mouse is far more successful at breeding and spreading itself around the globe so my vote would go to the mouse.
Should we attempt to apply the same analogy to God and His Son when we know almost nothing about divine nature?
I think that is unwise don't you?
That is why we should forget theological words like ONTOLOGICAL because they are not in scripture and we should prefer to use scripture to understand scripture.
So what scriptural evidence do we have?
God has a son who is revealed in the OT as in Prov 31 and Ps 2.
Jesus came to earth and identified Himself as the Son of God and showed us God was his Father. He told us the Father was greater than himself.That is enough for me as our faith rests in him.
How about you?Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Oct. 07 2006,13:43) t8 never answered to my reply way back. O well, wherever I may Roam…
Wonder
Wanderer
Nomad
Vagabond
Call me what you will!
Sorry Casey, I have been away from the forums lately.I will look for your original question.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 07 2006,23:58) How could one being beget a lesser being??
Well for a start, one is older than the other or to put it another way, one is the source, the other the image. This is what scripture clearly teaches.Apart from that, Jesus is like God his Father. We acknowledge and teach this. He is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD
Quote (Casey S Smith 29 @ Sep. 28 2006,17:04) This is to T8…I have been searching the Net for Trinity and Deity of Christ searches and came across this the other day. I was viewing this forum and found your info (or maybe your testimony) quite interesting and related with much if not everything you had to say. Let me give you a back drop and a little of my personal testimony. I repented at 19 on April 6th, 1997. I was raised Charismatic on my dad's side and Independent (KJV Only types 
) on my mother's side. I believed in the gospel at 8 and was pretty much on fire for Jesus until 12 when I walked away due to the extreme Armineus teachings on the falling from Grace. I went all out becoming an alcoholic at 14 and getting involved with gang activities…my thought was, “If I'm going to hell then I am going there knowing why I am there and not going there in the Church!” (Though I do not believe in eternal hell now since I do not believe in the immortal spirit of a human)
Well moving on, I came back to the fold just prior to turning twenty. Since I have been serving Christ. The journey and inquiries have led me down some pretty interesting roads, discussions amongst theolgians, professors, priests, Muslim leaders, preachers-pastors, Mormons, JW's…etc, etc. Many of my friends I have now or have had do not understand my restlessness. They label me obssessive compulsive since I do not retain to one view long without questioning. I just say I am passionate for truth and do not accept doctrines and theoligal-philosphical-postmodern-presuppositions based from bias views on scripture, tradition, creeds, and opinions.
I was at The Criswell Bible College & Seminary for three semsters (sister college to Dallas Theological Semnary) and learned under great men such as Dr. Charles Ryrie (the leading disensationalist who has published the Ryrie Study Bible. I have held leading postions at Charismatic Churches, was apart of a Oneness Pentecostal group for two years, studied Roman Catholicism for five years and attended RCIA at times, discussed at length with Jehovah's Witnesses (which for the most part I do not have many problems with…I guess not I will get to my point.
The main crux of my problem has been the Trinity for some time. I have held the Oneness position staunchly at times but now question the deity of Christ altogether. Yes, I believe the fear of man is the root of that. If I deny the Trinity I go against many great men of God I have the utmost respect and admarition for. Men such as James R. White, Dr Ryrie, Tommy Nelson (my father in Christ), RC Sproul just to name a few.
I am a five point Calvanist and hold to all five tenets of that teaching. No, I did not come to that based on studying, I actually came to predestination after reading the bible cover to cover my first time; before I even knew who Calvin was. I hold to annihilationism of the wicked, and obviously that when we die, we are dead until the resurrection. I do not believe in a “rapture.” I do not believe in praying to Mary or any of the other canonized “saints” of Rome…after all, why talk to dead people who can't hear you…
My biggest issue is the Trinity though (Forgive me, I am rabbit chasing). The only “group” I know who hold to this view are JW's, The Worldwide Church of God, Universalist (http://bible-truths.com/) and Unitarians (who are just screwed up altogether). Yes, I am looking for a “group” to fellowship with. I have two kids, a girl who is 7 and a boy who is 5. We pray, I teach them and at times we go to some churches. I have perosonally visted over 50 Churches. My problem is when we came out of Rome who is without a doubt the Whore of Babylon, why did we not come ALL THE WAY OUT?!!! Luther was great but he didn't go far enough. He rebuked Rome for the papacy, indulgences and others but forgot some things…Disputation On The Power And Efficacy Of Indulgences Commonly Known As The 95 Theses
By Dr. Martin Luther
Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to penitence in one's heart; for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward penitence) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The Pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the Pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts and end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean “all” in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the Pope's indulgences;22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remiss
ion could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the Pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The Pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, Pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure if the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who _bona fide_ buys indulgence is a rare as a _bona fide_ penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means if letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental “satisfactions” decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the Pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, form as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.42. Christians should be taught that the Pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the Pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the Pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the Pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the Pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.53. Those are enemies of Christ and the Pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The Pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the Pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are note temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the Pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence;
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
73. In the same way, the Pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping eith his views to e
xcommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the Pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any Pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the Pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity;
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the Pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the Pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the Pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,-why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the Pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the Pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect penitence, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the Pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the Pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he not suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, “Peace, peace,” where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, “The cross, the cross,” where there is no cross.94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
October 31, 1517
Source: Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther: A Selection From His Writings. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961.
[/U]The above “95 Thesis” of Luther speaks for itself. Only now we need a reformed reformed thesis huh?
I guess bro I am needing some guidance. Who are you? That I don't know and likewise do not know how old you are, where you're from, how many “credentials” you have…blah, blah, blah. I really do not need to know these trivial things, I guess my questions are merely rethorical. What I do know sir is when I was reading what you said back in 2002 I was smiling. FINALLY someone who feels the way I do!!!Here is a little e-mail I sent to my wife yesterday after she talked to a Catholic Priest friend of ours:
Casey Smith wrote:
Maybe it is obssessive compulsive? I switch beliefs so quickly it is almost scary. I just don't know what to think anymore. I think this system I have gotten down will help immensly though. I need to STUDY and SEARCH (look up every verse given the defense of that position) to help me decide where I stand on the Godhead and who Jesus really is to me. Is He God? Is He One of God? Or is he merely a Son who was created in eternity past eions ago? Yes, I am wishy washy but I am passionate also.
Maybe this will help you understand. I believe almost assuredly the following premisses:Man is NOT created with and immortal Spirit but is given one when he or she is born of the Spirit. Adam and Eve lost that Spirit (they died) when they disobeyed. We cannot lose the Spirit since we have been sealed until the day of redemption. The wicked will be resurrected unto condemnation. They will weep and gnash their teeth at judgment day for their sins and for being in the presence of a Holy God they will not be able to withstand. They will be tossed into the Lake of Fire and destroyed forever. Not having an immortal Spirit they will not continue in eternity in suffering but will be annihilated forever…gone from existance.
Having said that, I do not believe we can talk or commune with the dead since the dead cannot hear. I believe that when we die we will be with Jesus not at the moment but at the resurrection. Like sleeping at night or surgery, it will be so fast it will seem as if we went straight into His presence.
I believe in the five points of Calvin, and believe in predestination.
I believe that Baptism should be done in Jesus Name for that is how the Apostles baptized and the early Church baptized for the first couple of centuries until the “Trinity” and titles of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were being emphazied.
I believe in Scripture that Christ shares the glory of God the Father and is seen to be worshipped…in some way though I do not understand this all.
I believe that the power of the Holy Spirit can enable one to do things that are not natural to humans such as healings and speaking in different languages and that in that power one is not able to stand do to the holiness that has minutely engulfed their flesh.
I believe that holidays we celebrate are not condemned by God so Christimas is ok depending on the motive. I like haunted houses because I like the adrenaline rush I get from being scared like jumping out of a plane but do not glorify monsters as such.
I believe God intends for man to enjoy a day of rest but do not see any problem in distiguishing what day be it Saturday or Monday even.
Now here is the main problem…When any of these tenets is presented in a given denomination or group I investigate as to why they do not adhere to other things I believe in and wonder if they are right and I am wrong and therefore question what my beliefs are and how I got to that belief. For instance the JW do not believe in hell nor to 7th Day Adventist or the Wo
rlwide Church of God.The Trinity is a HUGE problem and therefore is a main concern. Reitterating that the Godhead is SO important it determines much of where I will worship. It seems that most nerely none of the groups I seem to find not adhere to much of what I believe and some of what I believe can be compromised (such as what day of worship, predestination…etc,etc) others I cannot and should no longer compromise such as the immortal spirit of man being wrong. However, there are evangelicals that teach this but where they teach I do not know.
My biggest issue though is the Trinity and what Bible I should be using. That is a big deal to me. Don't ask me why but it is. It is just that when I look for God in His Word I want to be confident that what I am reading IS His Word and not question what I am reading is wrong. I am pretty sure that the manuscripts of the KJV are most likely not the best to choose from and therefore the KJV would not be my choice of a Bible. There is a plethora of Bible Translators and theologians who have credentials and degrees in this field that have concluded such and who am I to question them?
Then lastly my experience at Criswell really has caused me to question much of modern day Baptists. I know I shouldn't throw the baby out with the dirtly bath water, it just seems that my unpleasant experiences there cause me to want to not be appart of them at all.
And I believe that Rome is SO wrong on much of their teachings that I question why many denominations (her daughters) have held to her other tenets such as Baptism in the titles, The Trinity, and the immortal soul…etc,etc.
Maybe I am obssessive compulsive…I like to think I am passionate for the truth.
“Smith, Donna M.”
I spoke with Father Michael for about 15 minutes this morning. I am going to go ahead and finish the annulment because it is going to be really easy. It will only take a few months (2-5) or shorter because we weren't baptized. They pretty much just need to call Nathan and send him a form to fill out and that is about it. He recommended that even if I wasn't going to do RCIA to continue with it for closure. We had a long conversation about your “search” for the true church and correct doctrine. He said that he figured we bailed since we haven't been there. He asked if you were obsessive compulsive? Apparently he could since something visiting with you and the roller coaster that you have been on. Did you talk to him at all about your disorder? He wasn't being mean and I know emails appear to be what they aren't so don't take offense to it. I just thought it was ironic since I asked you that the other night.
Well T8, here it is man. Can you help me bro?
OK got it.Looks like quite a lot to chew over so I will reply when I have read it all.
I am at a BBQ at the moment and need to be sociable.
Will reply when I get home.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2006,05:45) Hi Is1.18,
So again the words greater and lesser are a problem.
So can a being beget a lesser being?If a tiger begat a mouse would that suffice? I do not think so as it is all amatter of opinion. A tiger may be larger and it can catch bigger prey, but that is because it is a bigger animal and needs more food. The mouse is far more successful at breeding and spreading itself around the globe so my vote would go to the mouse.
Yes, but the point is a tiger cannot beget a mouse….it can only beget another tiger….like begets like kind….God could not have possibly begotten a lesser being….simple common sense.Quote Should we attempt to apply the same analogy to God and His Son when we know almost nothing about divine nature? I think that is unwise don't you?
If it true that “we know almost nothing about divine nature” then WHY do you teach that Jesus is a lesser being in His nature than The Father??Quote That is why we should forget theological words like ONTOLOGICAL because they are not in scripture and we should prefer to use scripture to understand scripture.
“Should we attempt to apply the same analogy to God and His Son when we know almost nothing about divine nature?”Is “analogy” a biblical word?
Quote So what scriptural evidence do we have? God has a son who is revealed in the OT as in Prov 31 and Ps 2.
Does Prov 31 mention that “God has a Son”?According to Paul Psa 2:7 is a post resurrection utterance:
Acts 13:33
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'According to the writer of Hebrews the words recorded in Psa 2:7 were actually spoken to the risen Jesus by the Father, and that He was told that He would be a Father to Him and the Word shall be a Son:
Hebrews 1:5
5For to which of the angels did He ever say,”YOU ARE MY SON,TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?Why would the Son be told that He would be a Son to the Father, if He already was a Son?….makes no sense at all.
Obviously Paul and the writer of Hebrews did not understand that Psalm 2:7 as a pre-incarnation exaltation….
Quote Jesus came to earth and identified Himself as the Son of God and showed us God was his Father.
Indeed He was….but for what reason is Yahshua called the Son of God?Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.Quote He told us the Father was greater than himself.
Yes, but greater in what sense?Quote That is enough for me as our faith rests in him.
How about you?
I think it's better to have a biblical understanding of these things….Blessings
Quote Hi David,
Give me a verse that states that Jesus and Michael are one and the same and i'll certainly consider it….There must be one….right?
It's right before the verse that says: “God is a trinity.” Isn't that Hezekiah something?
Hi Is 1.18,
It is the theological so simplistic paint by numbers approach that is bizarre.Any being called a god is automatically put in a class called deities and deserves to be worshiped.
No proof is required of their being worshiped in heaven-a fact is a fact.
No scriptural basis for these or any such statements are required, logic is enough.
All such beings who are worshiped are thereby proven to be gods.There is only one God.
All other beings called by scripture 'gods' are false gods.
Any being who is worshiped is thus God.
One such exception is Jesus who is God.
Somehow he is also Son of God and a deity in his own right.
Angels are worshiped but not exceptions.
Satan is worshipped but not an exception.God was in Christ but Christ was God.
If you are getting lost are you surprised?
How on earth did you ever expect to understand God?the trinity mulberry bush
Round and round we go.Hi Is 1.18,
Of course it is Pr 30 thanks
” 4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?”Acts 13 you quote
” 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.”
and the verse does not state that raising Jesus was the fulfillment of the promised begetting of the Son does it?
And who raised Jesus as with 16 other scriptures? God did. So you cannot ignore them but must understand Jn 2.19 in that context.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2006,07:11) Hi Is 1.18,
Of course it is Pr 30 thanks
” 4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?”
This could be a reference to Jesus, or equally it could be a reference to Israel:Exodus 4:22
“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.I wouldn't be too dogmatic in asserting Proverbs 30:4 is speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus, especially with all the evidence pointing to the Sonship being a function of His earthly existence….
Quote Acts 13 you quote
” 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.”
and the verse does not state that raising Jesus was the fulfillment of the promised begetting of the Son does it?
In Paul's opinion Psa 2:7 (a verse embedded in a manifestly escatological Psalm) was a post resurrection exaltation – that is what He linked the Father's utterance with…not a patently-unscriptural pre-incarnation begettal….Quote And who raised Jesus as with 16 other scriptures? God did. So you cannot ignore them but must understand Jn 2.19 in that context.
In John 2:19 Jesus plainly claimed He would do it:John 2:18-20
18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.Earlier in John 10, Jesus is quoted as saying that He would lay it down and take it up, and that He had the authority to do this….
John 10:17-18
17 “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
18 ” No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father.”His claim was remember by others and often used against Him:
Matthew 26:61
and said, “This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'”Matthew 27:40
and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”Mark 14:58
“We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'”Mark 15:29
Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,Did Yahshua correct them by saying, “no you misunderstood me”? – No.
I choose to believe Yahshua.
Hi Is 1.18,
We know Jesus was given power to raise men from the dead and he did so.
Jn5
“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.”We also know he gave the same authority to his followers who did the same thing as Peter did with Tabitha.
Matt 10
“Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.”That did not make them God any more than it proved anything about Jesus except that all were anointed with the Spirit of God.
How do you grasp these scriptures along with the ones you have posted, some of which are quotes of Jn 2.19?
Acts 2
'But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.”
“God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”
Acts3
“When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
Acts4
“then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.Acts 5:30
The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 13:30
But God raised him from the dead,
Acts 13:34
The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: ” 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'
Acts 13:37
But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay
Romans 4:24
but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Romans 6:9
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
Romans 8:11
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Corinthians 6:14
By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.
1 Corinthians 15:4
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
1 Corinthians 15:12
[ The Resurrection of the Dead ] But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1 Corinthians 15:13
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
1 Corinthians 15:15
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
1 Corinthians 15:16
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either
1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins
1 Corinthians 15:20
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
2 Corinthians 1:9
Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead.
2 Corinthians 4:14
because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.
2 Corinthians 5:15
And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
Ephesians 1:20
which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
Ephesians 2:6
And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus
Colossians 2:12
having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath
2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,
1 Peter 1:21
Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.Since we do not build doctrine on exceptions which seems the most likely?
Did God raise Jesus or did he raise himself and it was the word of prophecy God spoke through him in Jn 2.19?Quote (t8 @ Oct. 07 2006,06:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 07 2006,23:58) How could one being beget a lesser being??
Well for a start, one is older than the other or to put it another way, one is the source, the other the image. This is what scripture clearly teaches.
How could the Father be “older” than the Son if He was in fact begotten before the advent of time itself?….
And where is this pre-incarnation begettal mentioned in scripture. I want to check it out, can you give me the verse please?
Quote Apart from that, Jesus is like God his Father.
There is none like YHWH:Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,Quote We acknowledge and teach this. He is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD
Hebrews 1:3 records that Yahshua is an exact representation of His Father's nature (Gr. hypostasis).Hypostasis – From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): – confidence, confident, person, substance. (Strong’s Concordance)
“… in Heb. 1:3, of Christ as “the very image” of God's “substance;” here the word has the meaning of the real nature of that to which reference is made in contrast to the outward manifestation (see the preceding clause); it speaks of the Divine essence of God existent and expressed in the revelation of His Son. The AV, “person” is an anachronism; the word was not so rendered till the 4th cent. Most of the earlier Eng. versions have “substance;” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
So evidently Yahshua is LIKE God – quite a lot like Him. An exact representation of His Father’s substance, to be precise. How then is it possible that His nature could be in any way inferior? It would not be exact then, would it?
Blessings
Hi Is 1.18
“How could the Father be “older” than the Son if He was in fact begotten before the advent of time itself?….”Why should time be relevant? We should not look at the petty measurements of this age but to the eternal God who begat a Son.
Psalm 2
Are there any sons who do not have an origin from a father?
How do you fit the verses in scripture that say the Son is the image of God?
He is an image which separates him from that Original as a Son.
If you agree he is the image of God then you agree he is not then that God of which he is an image?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 07 2006,06:44) According to Paul Psa 2:7 is a post resurrection utterance: Acts 13:33
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'According to the writer of Hebrews the words recorded in Psa 2:7 were actually spoken to the risen Jesus by the Father, and that He was told that He would be a Father to Him and the Word shall be a Son:
Hebrews 1:5
5For to which of the angels did He ever say,”YOU ARE MY SON,TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?Why would the Son be told that He would be a Son to the Father, if He already was a Son?….makes no sense at all.
Obviously Paul and the writer of Hebrews did not understand that Psalm 2:7 as a pre-incarnation exaltation….
Greetings Is 1.18I have been reluctant to post on this subject, however, because of the way Acts 13.33 is explained again & again, I thought I should say something.
Acts 13.33 has absolutely nothing to do with the resurrection. Verse 34 is about the resurrection, whilst verse 33 is about Christ coming into existence i.e. his birth in order to fulfil the will of GOD.
I am assuming you are quoting from the KJV. This fallacy that Acts 13.33 is speaking of the resurrection is a result of the words used by the translators. The key word being again.
Naturally, when we see the words raised again or rise up again or raise up Jesus again; we automatically assume it is talking about the resurrection especially because of the word again!
However, the Greek word for again is not in the text. This word was added by the translators in every occurrence of the phrases: raise/rise/rose … again!!
And thus this can sometimes muddle the meaning of the verses where raise/rise/rose is used.Don't get me wrong … depending on the context, the words raise/rise/rose is being used in the context of resurrection; and if memory serves me well, you can tell because in every such occurrence, the words are qualified by the phrase from the dead or some similar phrase.
Thus, if the context is not the resurrection, the word 'raise' is being used in the sense of someone coming into existence, the raising of someone into the scene of history, the begetting of someone, their entrance upon life and existence; especially to fulfill the will of GOD. For examples of this usage of 'raise' see Exo 9.16, Deut 18.15,18; Judg 2.16,18; 3.9,15, 1 Sam 2.35, 1 King 8.20, 14.14, 1 Chr 17.11, Luke 1.69, etc.
This is the case for Acts 13.33.
Paul is saying that GOD has fulfilled His promise by raising up into existence, the man Jesus of Nazareth; and Paul quotes Psalm 2.7 which speaks of the birth of the Messiah, to back his point.
Then in verse 34, Paul says as concerning that he raised him up from the dead; hence shifting the context from the birth/genesis of the Messiah to the resurrection of the Messiah, he then quotes Isa 55.3 & Psalms 16.10.So Acts 13.33 is being used exactly in the same context of Acts 13.22 when speaking of David i.e. the raising up of someone into existence, into the scene of history, to fulfill GOD's will.
Thus verse 33 is talking about 'the coming into existence of the Messiah' in fulfilment of GOD's promises. Verse 33 is not about the resurrection of the Messiah, whilst verse 34 is!Quote (F.F. Bruce @ Acts of the Apostles, Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, p. 269) God “raised up” Jesus “in the sense in which he raised up David (Acts 13:22, cp. 3:22, 7:37). The promise of Acts 13:23, the fulfillment of which is here described [v. 33], has to do with the sending of Messiah, not his resurrection which is described in verse 34″ Oh BTW,
Heb 1.5 is the same thing! The context is about the birth of the Messiah as spoken of in Psa 2.7 & 2 Sam 7.14.
You are absolutely right when you say “Obviously Paul and the writer of Hebrews did not understand that Psalm 2:7 as a pre-incarnation exaltation”
Both Paul and the writer of Hebrews understood Psalms 2.7 to be speaking of the birth of the Messiah; and as such, this was not speaking about any angelic being of GOD; it referred to no 'sons of GOD' in the context of angelic beings.
Psalms 2.7 rather referred to GOD's one & only begotten human son.A quote from another writer …
Quote The writer to the Hebrews very tellingly combines 2 Samuel 7:14 with Psalm 2:7 to show how Jesus the Son of God originated (Heb. 1:5), and Paul used Psalm 2:7 (“Today I have begotten you”) to describe Jesus’ coming on to the scene of history, i.e. being “raised up” (Acts 13:33). Acts 13:34 speaks by contrast of the resurrection of Jesus, being raised up from the dead. (Note how some translations improperly added the word “again” in verse 33.) Mercy,
which thread was it in where you were talking about Jesus having “companions” or “partners” (Heb 1:9) There was a thread where you were speaking about this. I can't find it.Hi charity,
You say
“I do not consider Michael the archangel to be God
but chosen and set over all of Mankind”Daniel 10:21
“However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.
Daniel 12:1
“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.Is he over Israel or all the sons of God under Christ and God??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
