- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
EP……..I like your explanations on some things, but this TRINITY thing is definitely wrong brother. I would ask if you would reconsider that position with no outside scholarship other then the scriptures themselves, and not adding extra meanings to what is written, like John 1:1 and so forth. And in the light that Jesus said “FOR THOU ARE THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD”, Consider (EVERY) WORD in that STATEMENT AS TRUE. Also consider that in the original Greek nearly everywhere GOD appears there is the DEFINITE ARTICLE (THE) before it. Why did the translators eliminate the definite article that the Greek nearly always uses, was it to hide the fact that the definite article (THE) means (ONLY ONE GOD) and they didn't not want people to think that so they removed it. Who gave the translators the right to remove or change meanings by using upper and lower case changes to the text or installing commas in sentences to change meanings, to try to force the text to back up their TRINITARIAN teachings. Your a smart man think about what i have ask you and search it out.
peace to you and yours…………………….gene
Quote Apparently you haven’t heard of the “Grandville Sharp” rule? From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1 NET
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
Source
This rule is also found in the following scripture…
as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13Obviously, I have heard of “sharp's rule.” I made a post on it a month ago.
Anyway, for the flip side, I'm going to quote an article that discusses this:
● Why do some Bible versions render Titus 2:13 as if it were referring only to one person, Jesus, calling him God and Savior?
In the New World Translation Titus 2:13 reads: “While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”
However, many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation.
A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.”
Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’
Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars.
For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules.
A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, . . . ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek.
In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.
Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams.
–w 81, 4/1, page 31For people wanting a quick look at sharps “rule” start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_SharpQuote What meaning? Your meaning or Watchtowers? Can you show me where the definition of “theos” is “a mighty one”. Surely God is mighty, but that is not the definition of “theos”. You say Jehovah is the “almighty”, so does that mean that every time you see the word “theos” referring to the Father it means “almighty one” but when the word “theos” is referring to the son it only means “mighty one”? What authority do you have to define “theos” as such? Idols are considered “gods” by men , but does that mean they are “mighty”? Is this Watchtowers definition for the word “el”, “elohiym” or “theos”, because it sure is not the scriptural definition of the words.
Well, WJ, you have yet to enlighten us as to the actual meaning of the word “god.” What is it? Do tell.
Remember, your definition should make sense for all the 6000 times that word is used in the Bible–not just the ones where it refers to the Creator.
Quote What authority do you have to define “theos” as such? Idols are considered “gods” by men , but does that mean they are “mighty”?
Once again, obviously they are not really mighty, for they are “false” gods, remember.They are viewed as gods, but are really nothing. They are viewed as powerful ones, but really, have no power.
PSALM 115:4-8
“Their idols are silver and gold, The work of the hands of earthling man. A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes they have, but they cannot see; Ears they have, but they cannot hear. A nose they have, but they cannot smell. Hands are theirs, but they cannot feel. Feet are theirs, but they cannot walk; They utter no sound with their throat. Those making them will become just like them, All those who are trusting in them.”So they are powerless. Yet, they are viewed as having power, by those who foolishly put their trust in them.
So, here, in this case, the definition of “god” (mighty/strong/powerful one) fits.
They are viewed as mighty ones, but are not.This definition also works with the angels, who have more glory than humans, as the Bible says. The Bible says Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, so again, angels being called “gods” is a relative term–they are mighty ones, compared to humans.
Similarly, with the judges of Israel, they were mighty ones/powerful ones compared to the other Israelites, for much power rested with them.
Again, this definition fits.
Satan is called a god, the god of this world. (2 cor 4:4) Indeed, he is the mighty one of this world, being called the ruler of the world, misleading the entire inhabited earth. “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” Of course, anything he has, is only because Jehovah allows it. All this authority and the glory of the kingdoms he rules, has been delivered to him. (Luke 4:6)
Satan is a powerful one (a god.)
But, he is nothing in power compared to the Creator, the only true mighty one, the only almighty one.
wj, can you find a definition that actually works in all instances?
If your definition of “god” is “the creator” or “the father” you will quickly find it doesn't work in thousands of places.
Hi David
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,17:34) Obviously, I have heard of “sharp's rule.” I made a post on it a month ago. Anyway, for the flip side, I'm going to quote an article that discusses this:
Of course their will be controversy over 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 and the Grandville Sharp rule by anti-Trinitarians who like yourself are just trying to muddy the waters or create a smoke screen to distract from the fact that….“Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled“. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
Also, your article deals strictly with Titus 2:13 and not 2 Peter 1:1.
In your post the following quote was made emphasis mine…
Quote In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.”
I suppose he hasn’t read the context of Titus 2:13, because if he had he would plainly see that it is clearly Jesus that Paul is speaking of…while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:13, 14
What is our blessed hope? It is the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ our Great God and Savior.
DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ANYWHERE THAT THE FATHER IS COMMING AGAIN?
Strange David, on the one hand you and Watchtower are trying to make the argument that Jesus is “a god (theos)” and yet now you are tying to make the case that the word “God (theos) in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 is not referring to Jesus?
What gives?
That is what politicians do.Again David the fact remains….“Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled“. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
But who knows maybe you can find a scripture that doesn’t follow Sharp’s rule? I doubt it though. It will probably be like you not being able to find one scripture that ascribes the word, “el” elohyim” or “theos” in all 66 books of the Bible to any being with divine qualities other than the Father and Jesus.
WJ
HI wJ,
Very clever and pretty pictures.
However it would be better if you could align your teachings with those of Jesus Christ.He never taught of any trinity and never said he was God and yet he is our teacher.
You even claim to worship himQuote I suppose he hasn’t read the context of Titus 2:13, because if he had he would plainly see that it is clearly Jesus that Paul is speaking of… while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:13, 14
What is our blessed hope? It is the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ our Great God and Savior.
DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ANYWHERE THAT THE FATHER IS COMMING AGAIN?
REVELATION 1:8
“The Lord God says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the One who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty!’” (The New American Bible)“The Lord God”
“the one who is and who was and WHO IS TO COME”
“The Almighty.”First, this is referring to the Father:
Evidence:
“ALMIGHTY”:
Shaddai (Heb. “Almighty”) and Pantokrator (Gk. “Almighty”) are repeatedly used with reference to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex 6:3; 2 Cor 6:18; Rev 19:6, Rev 4:8, etc) Neither of these expressions are ever applied to “Jesus” or “Christ.” Yet, the word “almighty” is applied to Jehovah 42 other times, from the very first occurrence of that word to the very last occurrence:
GENESIS 17:1
“When Abram got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to Abram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. . . ..”
REVELATION 21:22 (King James Version)
“And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty AND Lamb ARE the temple of it.” (It’s clear in this verse that the Lamb, [Jesus] is distinguished and separate from the “Almighty” here. Both of them “are” spoken of. It does not say that the Almighty and Jesus “is,” but uses the plural: “are.”)
Since “Jehovah” is specifically and without question called “God” a thousand times in scripture, and many more without the actual use of his name, the “burden of proof” clearly rests on anyone who wants to prove that the words “God Almighty” refers to anyone but Jehovah.“LORD GOD”:
The words “Lord God” never occur with reference to “Jesus,” although it does occur about 80 times with reference to Jesus’ Father, Jehovah. In all instances where the phrase occurs in the Greek scriptures, it is in reference to Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. (Luke 1:32; 1 Peter 3:10-15; Revelation 11:17,19; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 21:11; 22:6)
The phrase “the Lord God” was used as a Greek substitute for the expression “Jehovah God”, that appears many times in the Old Testament. The expression “Lord God” occurs in many Bibles roughly 80 times. It never occurs with reference to the name “Jesus.” In fact, in the original languages, the expression found about 80 times is “Jehovah God.” The substitution of the word “Lord” and the removal of God’s name has confused many as to who this one is.
Likewise, with the phrases “the Lord our God” and “the Lord your God”: These phrases are always used in reference to Yahweh, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. — Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20); Matthew 22:37 (Deuteronomy 6:5); Mark 12:29 (Deuteronomy 6:4); etc.
Since the words “Lord God” are definitely used with reference to Jehovah many times and nowhere specifically clearly used with reference to “Jesus,” the burden of proof rests on those who wish to prove that this scripture refers to anyone other than Jehovah.“THE ONE WHO IS AND WHO WAS AND WHO IS TO COME”
As well, this verse (1:8) is speaking of “the One who is and who was and who is to come.” Just a couple verses before, at Revelation 1:5, we see greetings are given from the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” “and from Jesus Christ.” (NIV)
In verse 5 it’s obvious that the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come” is not Jesus Christ, because greetings are given from him “AND from Jesus Christ. So, when the phrase “the one who is and who was and who is to come” occurs 3 verses later, it would seem that this again establishes that we are speaking of someone other than Jesus. Or at the very least, it’s not at all clear that it’s speaking of Jesus.
Moreover, in the very next verse, the apostle John, says: “I . . . came to be in the isle that is called Patmos for speaking about God and bearing witness to Jesus.” (Rev. 1:9) So John understood God to be separate and distinct from Jesus.
Also, compare Revelation 4:8 where it says: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” (NIV) We notice the phrase “holy, holy, holy” occurs only one other time in the Bible at Isaiah 6:3, and there it is referring to “Jehovah.” (Compare Rev 11:17)Secondly, we note that the Father is said to be coming.
As well, this verse (1:8) is speaking of “the One who is and who was and who is to come.” Just a couple verses before, at Revelation 1:4,5, we see greetings are given from the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” “and from Jesus Christ.” (NIV)
In verse 5 it’s obvious that the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come” is not Jesus Christ, because greetings are given from him “AND from Jesus Christ. So, when the phrase “the one who is and who was and who is to come” occurs 3 verses later, it would seem that this again establishes that we are speaking of someone other than Jesus. Or at the very least, it’s not at all clear that it’s speaking of Jesus.
Also, compare Revelation 4:8 where it says: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” (NIV) We notice the phrase “holy, holy, holy” occurs only one other time in the Bible at Isaiah 6:3, and there it is referring to “Jehovah.” (Compare Rev 11:17)
You ask if the Bible teaches anywhere that the Father is coming. But, your Bible doesn't say “coming” in that verse, it says “appearing.” Mine says “manifestation of.”
There is a difference between these things and coming.1934 “of the great God and of our The Riverside New
Savior Christ Jesus” Testament,Boston and
New York.1935 “of the great God and of our A New Translation of the
Saviour Christ Jesus” Bible, by James Moffatt, New
York and London.1950 “of the great God and of our New World Translation of
Savior Christ Jesus” the Christian Greek
Scriptures, Brooklyn.1957 “of the great God and of our La Sainte Bible, by Louis
Savior Jesus Christ” Segond, Paris.1970 “of the great God and of our The New American Bible,
Savior Christ Jesus” New York and London.1972 “of the great God and of The New Testament in
Christ Jesus our saviour” Modern English, by
J. B. Phillips, New York.Tit 2:13—Gr., τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ
(tou me·ga′lou The·ou′ kai so·te′ros he·mon′ Khri·stou′ I·e·sou′)In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοῦ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article.
A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is possible in κοινή [koi·ne′] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found: “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so·te′ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he·mon′] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he do′xa tou me·ga′lou The·ou′ kai so·te′ros he·mon′], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The·os′], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka·ta′ ten kha′rin tou The·ou′ he·mon′ kai ky·ri′ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.
–NWT, index 6EQuote Again David the fact remains….”Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled”. Repeating something does not make it a fact, does it? I'm not sure how it's proven to be a fact when so many disagree with it. Of course, the trinitarians will say it's a fact, just like evolutionists will say evolution is a fact. Wishing it does not make it so.
Quote But who knows maybe you can find a scripture that doesn’t follow Sharp’s rule? I doubt it though. It will probably be like you not being able to find one scripture that ascribes the word, “el” elohyim” or “theos” in all 66 books of the Bible to any being with divine qualities other than the Father and Jesus. What does having “divine qualities” have to do with it? The angels, who are called “gods” in scripture have godlike qualities.
2 PETER 1:4
“Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.”
If those who become spirits in heaven will be said to share in “divine nature” then I assume they will have “divine qualities” as you say.
There is human fleshly nature and there is “divine nature” which those with spirit bodies have.It seems to me the angels who are called “gods” would have divine nature.
Of course, saying they have “divine nature” doesn't make them God anymore than saying they are “gods” as the Bible does.Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Quote What meaning? Your meaning or Watchtowers? Can you show me where the definition of “theos” is “a mighty one”. Surely God is mighty, but that is not the definition of “theos”. You say Jehovah is the “almighty”, so does that mean that every time you see the word “theos” referring to the Father it means “almighty one” but when the word “theos” is referring to the son it only means “mighty one”? What authority do you have to define “theos” as such? Idols are considered “gods” by men , but does that mean they are “mighty”? Is this Watchtowers definition for the word “el”, “elohiym” or “theos”, because it sure is not the scriptural definition of the words.
Well, WJ, you have yet to enlighten us as to the actual meaning of the word “god.” What is it? Do tell.
Remember, your definition should make sense for all the 6000 times that word is used in the Bible–not just the ones where it refers to the Creator.
Quote What authority do you have to define “theos” as such? Idols are considered “gods” by men , but does that mean they are “mighty”?
Once again, obviously they are not really mighty, for they are “false” gods, remember.They are viewed as gods, but are really nothing. They are viewed as powerful ones, but really, have no power.
PSALM 115:4-8
“Their idols are silver and gold, The work of the hands of earthling man. A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes they have, but they cannot see; Ears they have, but they cannot hear. A nose they have, but they cannot smell. Hands are theirs, but they cannot feel. Feet are theirs, but they cannot walk; They utter no sound with their throat. Those making them will become just like them, All those who are trusting in them.”So they are powerless. Yet, they are viewed as having power, by those who foolishly put their trust in them.
So, here, in this case, the definition of “god” (mighty/strong/powerful one) fits.
They are viewed as mighty ones, but are not.This definition also works with the angels, who have more glory than humans, as the Bible says. The Bible says Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, so again, angels being called “gods” is a relative term–they are mighty ones, compared to humans.
Similarly, with the judges of Israel, they were mighty ones/powerful ones compared to the other Israelites, for much power rested with them.
Again, this definition fits.
Satan is called a god, the god of this world. (2 cor 4:4) Indeed, he is the mighty one of this world, being called the ruler of the world, misleading the entire inhabited earth. “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” Of course, anything he has, is only because Jehovah allows it. All this authority and the glory of the kingdoms he rules, has been delivered to him. (Luke 4:6)
Satan is a powerful one (a god.)
But, he is nothing in power compared to the Creator, the only true mighty one, the only almighty one.
wj, can you find a definition that actually works in all instances?
If your definition of “god” is “the creator” or “the father” you will quickly find it doesn't work in thousands of places.
WJ, I think you missed this post. I'm wondering what your response would be to my question.http://reslight.net/2pet1-1.html
Many argue that in 2 Peter 1:1, “God” can be viewed as a proper name, and that “Savior Jesus Christ” can also viewed as a proper name, which would call for an exception to Sharp's general rule, and mean that two different persons are being spoken of.
Another exception to Sharp's rule is that provided by evidence and context. We therefore note a tradition found in the New Testament letters that show that it was usual to start their greetings by references both the Father and his Son. This gives another reason to believe that, if Peter did actual use the word “God” here, rather “the Lord” (Syriac), then it should be viewed as applied to the God and Father of Jesus, not to Jesus.
Further evidence can be seen in the context, where Peter makes references to “God” as the Father, and distinguishes “God” from Jesus (1 Peter 1:2,3,21; 2:5; 3:18,21; 4:10; 2 Peter 1:17); thus it is highly unlikely that Peter meant anything different in 2 Peter 1:1. Even in the following verse Peter distinguishes between God and Jesus, thus the context does indicate two persons are being referred to. (2 Peter 1:2) This is the basis for some translations that render this in such a way so as to show a distinction between “God” and “Our Savior, Jesus Christ”.
Below are some other renderings of the phrase from 2 Peter 1:1, in which a distinction is indicated between God and Jesus:
the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ — Third Millenium Bible translation
of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ — New Revised Standard Version, margin
through the righteousness of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah — The Complete Jewish Bible translation
through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ — Webster's Bible Translation
righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. — Weymouth New Testament
the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ — New International Verson
our God and the savior Jesus Christ — New American Bible translation, margin
the righteousness of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ: — Concordant Literal New Testament
thro' the veracity of our God, and of Jesus Christ. — Daniel Mace New Testament (1729)
the righteousness of our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ — Literal Translation of the HOLY BIBLE, by Jay P. Green, Sr.
the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ — Simple English Bible translation
share the faith that God in his justice has equally allotted to us; as well as that of our Saviour Jesus Christ. — 21st Century NTOf course, if the Syriac manuscript is correct, the word “God” does not even appear in 2 Peter 1:1.
At any rate, one can see that it is very questionable that Peter is referring to Jesus as THEOS. Of course, Jesus is our THEOS, our might, in the power and authority given to him by God, but this usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is God, thus there is nothing in 2 Peter 1:1 that says that Jesus is God Almighty. Definitely, there is surely nothing there that gives any idea that Jesus is a person of God, or that there are three persons in God.
Hi David
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 14 2008,08:30)
What meaning? Your meaning or Watchtowers? Can you show me where the definition of “theos” is “a mighty one”. Surely God is mighty, but that is not the definition of “theos”. You say Jehovah is the “almighty”, so does that mean that every time you see the word “theos” referring to the Father it means “almighty one” but when the word “theos” is referring to the son it only means “mighty one”? What authority do you have to define “theos” as such? Idols are considered “gods” by men , but does that mean they are “mighty”?Is this Watchtowers definition for the word “el”, “elohiym” or “theos”, because it sure is not the scriptural definition of the words.
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Well, WJ, you have yet to enlighten us as to the actual meaning of the word “god.” What is it? Do tell.
It sure isn’t what you and watchtower try to portray i.e., “Mighty One” or “Strong One” or “Powerful One.” That would mean that anyone or anything that is a “Mighty One” or a “Strong One” or a “Powerful One.” can be considered “a god”.The Biblical definition is “One True God”, all others are “so-called gods” or “false”
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:10
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Remember, your definition should make sense for all the 6000 times that word is used in the Bible–not just the ones where it refers to the Creator.
Exactly David, and out of those 6000 times that the words “el” “eloyhim” or “theos” is mentioned there should be at least one time where the words are ascribed to a being by God or a man of God with divine qualities like an Angel of God or a man of God, but all you can cite is Moses who was seen by Pharoah as “a god” who worshipped many gods.But as your post has shown you have not presented “one scripture” that supports there are other gods but only that there are false gods which are not gods at all.
Remember David the Bible clearly tells us…
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that “there is no God but one”. For even if there are “so called gods”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords.. 1 Cor 8:4, 5
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:10
So David your argument that there are “other gods”, as if to say somehow Jesus fits as “a God” is not against me, but against scripture. The translators of the NWT must not have read Isa 43:19 or 1 Cor 8:4,5 before they translated John 1:1c as “a God”. Your own Bible contradicts itself.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 14 2008,08:30) What authority do you have to define “theos” as such? Idols are considered “gods” by men , but does that mean they are “mighty”? Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Once again, obviously they are not really mighty, for they are “false” gods, remember. They are viewed as gods, but are really nothing. They are viewed as powerful ones, but really, have no power.
PSALM 115:4-8
“Their idols are silver and gold, The work of the hands of earthling man. A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes they have, but they cannot see; Ears they have, but they cannot hear. A nose they have, but they cannot smell. Hands are theirs, but they cannot feel. Feet are theirs, but they cannot walk; They utter no sound with their throat. Those making them will become just like them, All those who are trusting in them.”So they are powerless. Yet, they are viewed as having power, by those who foolishly put their trust in them.
So, here, in this case, the definition of “god” (mighty/strong/powerful one) fits.
They are viewed as mighty ones, but are not.
That is exactly what I have been saying David. They are not gods at all, but “so-called gods”. Now the question is what do you do with Jesus who is called God (theos) by the Father and the Apostles, who obviously is not a false God (theos) and who obviously is Almighty for he has all authority and power? All other so-called gods are not gods at all, yet you have the Father and the Apostles calling Jesus God!Did the Apostles not know the scriptures? Did the Father inspire the scriptures….
See now that I, even I, am he, and “there is no god with me”: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. Deut 32:39
And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold,”now I know that there is no God in all the earth”, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. 2 Kings 5:15
And he said, LORD God of Israel, “there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath”, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart: 1 Kings 8:23
And said, O LORD God of Israel, “there is no God like thee in the heaven”, nor in the earth; which keepest covenant, and shewest mercy unto thy servants, that walk before thee with all their hearts: 2 Chron 6:14
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God”. Isa 44:6
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19)
This definition also works with the angels, who have more glory than humans, as the Bible says. The Bible says Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, so again, angels being called “gods” is a relative term–they are mighty ones, compared to humans.
This is where your argument is fallacious because you have not presented one scripture that ascribes the word “el” “eloyhim” or “theos” to an Angel of God anyw
here.All you have is “the god of this world, satan” which is ambiguous as to his nature being that of an angel. But even so he is still not a god “theos” at all to a Monotheistic believer. In fact satan is usurping authority and is nothing but a “false god” an enemy of God, as the scriptures teach.
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Similarly, with the judges of Israel, they were mighty ones/powerful ones compared to the other Israelites, for much power rested with them. Again, this definition fits.
What definition? That they are “gods” or “mighty ones” but they are not really “gods” or mighty ones at all?Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19)
Satan is called a god, the god of this world. (2 Cor 4:4) Indeed, he is the mighty one of this world, being called the ruler of the world, misleading the entire inhabited earth. “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” Of course, anything he has, is only because Jehovah allows it. All this authority and the glory of the kingdoms he rules, has been delivered to him. (Luke 4:6)
Again, “so-called god”, “false god”, “enemy of god”! Paul calls him the “god of this world” because “he is god to all those minds he has blinded”. Paul is not contradicting his own words or Yahweh’s which read…So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that “there is no God but one”. For even if there are “so called gods”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords.. 1 Cor 8:4, 5
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:10
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19)
Satan is a powerful one (a god.)
To who David? To the Father, to Jesus, to the believer? Would you argue that satan is an “Angel of God”, or that he has divine attributes of God, or divine qualities of God?Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19)
But, he is nothing in power compared to the Creator, the only true mighty one, the only almighty one.
Agreed! And he is nothing to a believer but as an enemy, a roaring lion with no teeth. So he is not a god at all.Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19)
wj, can you find a definition that actually works in all instances?If your definition of “god” is “the creator” or “the father” you will quickly find it doesn't work in thousands of places.
I have David. In every instance the words “el” “eloyhim” or “theos” (god) refers to “The True God” or “a so-called god” or false god”.So now what do you do with John 1:1?
WJ
Hi DK
Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) http://reslight.net/2pet1-1.html Many argue that in 2 Peter 1:1, “God” can be viewed as a proper name, and that “Savior Jesus Christ” can also viewed as a proper name, which would call for an exception to Sharp's general rule, and mean that two different persons are being spoken of.
The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.Its pretty obvious that God and Savior are titles and not names.
WJ
Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) At any rate, one can see that it is very questionable that Peter is referring to Jesus as THEOS. Of course, Jesus is our THEOS, our might, in the power and authority given to him by God, but this usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is God, thus there is nothing in 2 Peter 1:1 that says that Jesus is God Almighty. Definitely, there is surely nothing there that gives any idea that Jesus is a person of God, or that there are three persons in God.
Hi DKI can tell you are a JW, for your definition of “theos” is obviously the same as watchtowers also!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 21 2008,03:23) Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) At any rate, one can see that it is very questionable that Peter is referring to Jesus as THEOS. Of course, Jesus is our THEOS, our might, in the power and authority given to him by God, but this usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is God, thus there is nothing in 2 Peter 1:1 that says that Jesus is God Almighty. Definitely, there is surely nothing there that gives any idea that Jesus is a person of God, or that there are three persons in God.
Hi DKI can tell you are a JW, for your definition of “theos” is obviously the same as watchtowers also!
WJ
…WJI was just posting an interesting article that rebutted your posr post on Sharp's article…I did not claim the thoughts as my own..i.e. why I quoted the source
As for being a JW….Not anymore….but the JW's definition of theos..is no more wrong than yours…
Simply put..I think the trinity is a false doctrine invented by Constantine and his cronies…which has roots in babylonian polytheistic pagan worship.
Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,04:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 21 2008,03:23) Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) At any rate, one can see that it is very questionable that Peter is referring to Jesus as THEOS. Of course, Jesus is our THEOS, our might, in the power and authority given to him by God, but this usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is God, thus there is nothing in 2 Peter 1:1 that says that Jesus is God Almighty. Definitely, there is surely nothing there that gives any idea that Jesus is a person of God, or that there are three persons in God.
Hi DKI can tell you are a JW, for your definition of “theos” is obviously the same as watchtowers also!
WJ
…WJI was just posting an interesting article that rebutted your posr post on Sharp's article…I did not claim the thoughts as my own..i.e. why I quoted the source
As for being a JW….Not anymore….but the JW's definition of theos..is no more wrong than yours…
Simply put..I think the trinity is a false doctrine invented by Constantine and his cronies…which has roots in babylonian polytheistic pagan worship.
Hi DK
Hi DK
Interesting that you would mention.. “babylonian polytheistic pagan worship”.
It is the “Trinitarian” that believes there is “Only One True God”.
You say…
Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) Jesus is our THEOS, (god) our might, in the power and authority given to him by God…
But then you say…Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) but this usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is God, (theos)…
Maybe you can jump in here and show us where “theos” is interpreted in some other way than “God” or “god”. If Jesus is “a god” and not “the God” then you believe in Polytheism like the JWs.As far as “cronies”… well usually someone who has no scriptural grounds to stand on resort to name calling and condemnation.
Very weak!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 21 2008,05:35) Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,04:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 21 2008,03:23) Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) At any rate, one can see that it is very questionable that Peter is referring to Jesus as THEOS. Of course, Jesus is our THEOS, our might, in the power and authority given to him by God, but this usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is God, thus there is nothing in 2 Peter 1:1 that says that Jesus is God Almighty. Definitely, there is surely nothing there that gives any idea that Jesus is a person of God, or that there are three persons in God.
Hi DKI can tell you are a JW, for your definition of “theos” is obviously the same as watchtowers also!
WJ
…WJI was just posting an interesting article that rebutted your posr post on Sharp's article…I did not claim the thoughts as my own..i.e. why I quoted the source
As for being a JW….Not anymore….but the JW's definition of theos..is no more wrong than yours…
Simply put..I think the trinity is a false doctrine invented by Constantine and his cronies…which has roots in babylonian polytheistic pagan worship.
Hi DK
Hi DK
Interesting that you would mention.. “babylonian polytheistic pagan worship”.
It is the “Trinitarian” that believes there is “Only One True God”.
You say…
Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) Jesus is our THEOS, (god) our might, in the power and authority given to him by God…
But then you say…Quote (dirtyknections @ Nov. 21 2008,01:30) but this usage of THEOS does not mean that Jesus is God, (theos)…
Maybe you can jump in here and show us where “theos” is interpreted in some other way than “God” or “god”. If Jesus is “a god” and not “the God” then you believe in Polytheism like the JWs.As far as “cronies”… well usually someone who has no scriptural grounds to stand on resort to name calling and condemnation.
Very weak!
WJ
WJ…sorry bro..I wasn't calling you a cronie I was referring to those priests who along with constantine “created” the “central doctrine of christian faith” aka the trinity..
Sorry for the misunderstanding
I think you are a great asset to this board..WJ..I just think you are wrong about this trinity thing..thats all…
I have posted many times on this subject..so I won't rehash..I just think that scripture at 2 peter…is wrongly translated…I think the syriac translation in the most likely..
Remember Sharp..was a trinitarian…so you have to keep that in mind when you look at his application of his “rules”
Quote you have yet to enlighten us as to the actual meaning of the word “god.” What is it? Do tell. –david
WJ's response:
The Biblical definition is “One True God”
SERIOUSLY?
The Biblical definition of “God” is “One True God.” That's the meaning of the word “god”? Really WJ?
You're starting to seem to me like those people that say God's name is God.So, if I were to insert the phrase “one true God” into all the places where that word “god” appears, it would make sense?
NOPE!
WJ, Gene has tried to earlier explain that the word “god” means “power.” Well, when applied to a being, it means “powerful one.”
You're belief that the definition of “god” is “true God” is a little revealing.WJ, I'm not asking for what God means in the Bible, or the different ways it is used. I'm asking you for the meaning of that word, which you seem unable to provide.
Quote Agreed! And he is nothing to a believer but as an enemy, a roaring lion with no teeth. So he is not a god at all.
And yet, the inspired Bible writer wrote that he was a god, the god (mighty one) of this world. (2 Cor 4:4) The Bible backs this up in many places showing the influence and control and power he has over the people of the world. So when the Bible says that he is the “god of this world” it is correct. He actually is.Daniel B. Wallace says about Sharp:
“His strong belief in Christ’s deity led him to study the Scriptures in the original in order to defend more ably that precious truth … As he studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.”
“The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-Kai'-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983), p. 61Say what you like about sharps ideas, WJ, but although there has been 200 years of people who have the same agenda as he had before he began his studies, the following cannot be ignored:
“Sharp's purpose for his study was to prove that Jesus is God, and the manner in which he narrows the rules and exceptions as applied to the NT Greek seems to narrow these rules to the purpose he sought.”
http://reslight.net/2pet1-1.htmlHi All,
Here are few new thoughts on Jn 1:1;LOGOS:
THE BEGINNING
OF
THE CREATION OF GODTHE WORD & JESUS:
I pray that you may have the revelation on the difference between JESUS and THE WORD. Many Bible scholars would have us believe that THE WORD was Jesus in the beginning and He became flesh nearly two millenniums ago. But by saying that THE WORD was Jesus, they are telling us that in eternity past (or in the period of “the beginning” in John 1:1) there were two Gods – God the Father and God the Son. Look at this verse:
“…there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.” (Isa.45:21)
If the LOGOS was another GOD, then this statement is false. The LOGOS was but the WORD BODY that God spoke through to bring forth creation and to His chosen people, Israel. It stood between the invisible and the visible realms like a mediator. “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is ONE” (Gal.3:20). As the LOGOS, so is the Lord Jesus Christ Who mediates between God and man in the new covenant of His Blood (cf. 1 Tim.2:5).
THE WORD was not Jesus. THE WORD was God. However, Jesus was THE WORD of God made manifest in the flesh. Jesus was not with God in the beginning; THE WORD (that was to be made manifest in the Man Jesus) was. And THE WORD was the 'Monogene' (SEED) which came forth from God to express ITSELF. THE WORD had a beginning but since IT came forth from the Eternal Spirit, THE WORD was and is eternal (because THE WORD was God), but the Man Jesus, Who was begotten and created, was not eternal. THE WORD was the Full Prefiguration of Christ who came forth from the MIND of God to express Deity, the Eternal Godhead. In that beginning, Deity comprised of the Invisible Almighty Spirit and His Visible Word Body (Grk: LOGOS) and not the Father and the Son.
The beloved Apostle John had an undeniably clear revelation of the WORD (LOGOS) of life that he wrote thus:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)” (1 Jhn.1:1-2)Notice that he called the LOGOS “life” and “eternal life” that was with the FATHER in the beginning, sort of rephrasing the statement he used in the prologue of his gospel – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. He said that this ETERNAL LIFE was manifested to the saints who had heard IT, seen IT, looked upon IT and even handled IT. ETERNAL LIFE is none other than YAHWEH taking form in the LOGOS. And the LOGOS of eternal life was later manifested in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Hence, THE SPIRIT OF GOD (THE FATHER) and THE LOGOS (of ETERNAL LIFE) are not two but ONE.
Unless we have the revelation, we will think that THE WORD (LOGOS) was Jesus, the Son of God, in the beginning. But Jesus Who was to be God's WORD (tabernacled and manifested) in flesh (about 2000 years ago) was expressed right there in that LOGOS. Because of the attribute of Fatherhood in God, there had to be a Son. And the LOGOS of God came forth with that Sonship spirit to express the Son of God Who was yet to come. (Remember a son is a carrier and a builder of the family name.) Hence, the “Sonship spirit” of Jesus was an intrinsic part of the LOGOS which came forth from God to express God's attributes. Jesus, Who was the Monogene (Seed, 'Son') of God, was being expressed in and through that WORD body. He was the very Spirit and Soul of God, so to speak. The LOGOS which was later to be tabernacled in Jesus, the Son of God, was the 'SON', figuratively speaking. And according to God's Sovereign Will, God glorified Him, the Son of God, in His WORD (Jhn.17:5). Then God crucified and slayed Him as a Lamb before the foundation of the world (Rev.13:8). Elohim purposed His WORD after the counsel of His Own Will (Eph.1:11), and spoke of non-existent things as if they (already) existed (Rom.4:17). As the redeemed of God, we were even chosen and purified in Christ before the world was founded as God saw us in love (Eph.1:4). We were a part (“sonship”) of that WORD because we are a part of the Body of Christ. We are “seeds” produced by the “Monogene” (Seed) which was expressed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament according to the Master Plan of God. Because we have the sonship spirit we could be born flesh (human beings) and be born again as sons and daughters of God. “That which is born of flesh is flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (Jhn.3:6). Moreover, we have also been glorified as it was established in the Mind and Word of God (Rom.8:29-30). Yes, by the foreknowledge of God, He had thus predestinated and foreordained His Redemption Plan such that even the names of His sons and daughters were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world (Rev.13:8).
Adam, who was first created a spirit, was not yet a son of God. He could not be called a son of God until he was given a body of flesh – born into this world. In that spirit form, he only possessed the attribute of sonship. Some Bible believers believe that, like Adam, all human beings (or just the true sons and daughters of God) were created, and existed, as spirits before they were born. A favourite scriptural verse in support of this idea is Job 38:4-7: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding…When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Do they mean to say that the spirits of all the other human beings (or all the “sons of God”) were already created together with the spirit of Adam before the earth was founded? Also, before the earth was laid, was the spirit of Eve existing among all the female spirits or was she a part of the spirit of Adam?
All the “sons of God” (which include “daughters”) were existing only in the omnipotent Mind of God. They were a part of the LOGOS, as “seeds” (sons of God) to be brought forth by the SEED (SON of God) when He came to lay down His Life on earth (Jhn.12:24). As “seeds” within the SEED (e.g. mangoes (seeds) which would be produced by ONE MANGO SEED through time), they did not literally exist as spirit beings. The “sons of God” were intrinsic in the LOGOS.
We know that God is a Creator, but He cannot be Creator if creation exists only in His Mind. He has to create and make manifest His creation before He is called Creator. We know that He is a Saviour, but if there is no literal sinners for Him to save, then He cannot be called Saviour.
The Father-son relationship between God and Adam had to be expressed and manifested. Adam was the beginning of mankind (Hebrew: âdâm). Though he was first created a spirit (male and female), he was unlike the LOGOS which was the WORD BODY of God. He came from God being created by the WORD Himself. Adam was just a part of the Word body. The sonship attribute of Adam was in the spirit of Adam but it had to be visibly manifested as a person (human being) before it can truly be called a son of God. Adam had to have a corporeal body from the dust of the earth. [What is a person? See section under “PERSON AND PERSONALITY”.] After forming a body of dust, God then took the spirit of Adam and breathed it into the body of dust, and Adam became a living soul, a person (human being) with the life and vitality of his Maker (Gen.1:27). He was to express the Life of God in him. (The living soul is the manifestation of the spirit.) Even though Adam was a son of God, the knowledge of Father-son relationship was unrevealed in the Old Testament. God’s relationship with Adam and the children of Israel was a Master-servant relationship. The revelation of Father-son relationship came only after Jesus was sent as the Son of God to b
e the propitiation of our sins (1 Jhn.4:10).The spirit-mind of Adam was an expression from the Spirit of the Almighty God, and thus it was part of the image of God. The (sonship) spirit of Adam was both male and female. And as long as Adam was in that form he could never be manifested as a son of God. It was manifested only after Adam became a person, a man. Then from his side, was the feminine part taken out to form a woman. Likewise when the WORD was made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ, we see the expression of both male and female. Christ was the “male” (Bridegroom) and the Church the “female” (Bride) which was taken and formed from His side at Calvary.
Angels have no sonship spirit though they were created in God's image (spirit in form) and likeness (visible feature). They cannot be born human. They cannot be persons. They are not persons even though they may appear (en morphe) as men. They cannot be sons of God. They were simply created and ordained to be ministering spirits.
God is a SPIRIT, that's what He is. Though the WORD is God yet not all of God is the WORD. Theologically, we could say that the SPIRIT of Elohim is the greater part and His WORD the lesser part (for the latter proceeds from the former). It is this lesser part that is the visible side of God (called the WORD) which became a man. Hence, the WORD is the Lord of Heaven (1 Cor.15:47; Jhn.3:13). And the WORD was manifested in the Person of Jesus Christ.
The Thought and Expression of God – THE WORD – went forth from Him in a Spirit-Body as THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD (THE BEGINNER or AUTHOR OF THE CREATION OF GOD), THE FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE, THE FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN. By and through this WORD were all creations of God brought forth into existence.
“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And he is before all things, and in him all things consist” (Col.1:16-17 NKJ version).
“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things [by Jesus Christ:]” (Eph.3:9 [bracketed text are not in original]).
The Word of God came through this WORD BODY. God spoke through Him and said, “Let there be light” and there was light; “Let there be fishes” and there were fishes. He was the Spokesman of God. And it was through this WORD (or SPIRIT) BODY that the Spirit of God 'en morphe' Himself and became VISIBLE unto His servants the prophets. We call such a manifestation THEOPHANY.
NO SEED, NO LIFE:
When you get an apple seed to work, by planting it, it will bring forth a shoot, then leaves, stalks, branches, and so on. Then the flowers appear and fade. The pistils enlarge to become apples which contain the same type of seed which was originally planted. The seed, the beginning of the product, through its different manifestations in various stages would in the final stage emerge as seed itself. So, we understand that THE LOGOS as THE SEED of God, which came forth as The Beginning of the Creation of God, was manifested unto the Patriarchs and Prophets at different times and in divers manners, and (“in these last days” – Heb.1:2) revealed unto us as The Only Begotten Son (Monogene – Seed) of The Father. The complete LOGOS of God was in the Son of God. Therefore Jesus was THE WORD (LOGOS) of God. He was the revelation of God to mankind (cf. 1 Pet.23-25).
As THE LOGOS was THE SEED (Monogene) of God which God had brought forth out of His own bosom to express His attribute of Fatherhood, it could not be anything less than the 'SON' of the 'FATHER', THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD, THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, THE FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE, THE FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN – Elohim producing Himself a Family. This is that “Mystery of Godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of the angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in the glory” which was purposed in the Mind of the Almighty before anything ever existed, and brought forth to pass in Christ Jesus our Lord. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was come in the flesh. He was THE WORD of God manifested in human flesh. In all things, He was the pre-eminence.
Now, since “the Word was with God,…” (Jhn.1:1), IT therefore dwelled with the Almighty Spirit in the Light (Pillar of Fire) that was unapproachable (cf. 1 Tim.6:16). IT dwelled in the bosom (heart) of God. God, as 'Father', cradled the Word, His Seed, His 'Son'. The spirit of SONSHIP (Jesus, the Son of God) was in the WORD. Jesus was that 'Son of God' expressed in that WORD Body. That's why Jesus, the Son of God, was the WORD of Life – both in Creation and Redemption (Jhn.1:4; 1 Jhn.1:1). As the Messiah (Saviour) must be human, the WORD must put on human flesh. To do that, God had to bring about a new creation for the dwelling place of the WORD – “…a body hast thou prepared me” (Heb.10:5b). Yes, a body of flesh (not the body of a baby) was prepared for the WORD of God to be manifested. It was a body untouched by human genetic. That body was the body of Jesus. And God was with Him preparing Him for the WORD to indwell Him when He came of age (Lk.1:80; 2:40,52; Jhn.1:14). [Note: The gospel of Luke deals with Jesus as Son of Man, His Humanity and the gospel of John deals with Jesus as the Son of God, His Divinity and Godhood.]
When the baby Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God breathed into Him the spirit of Sonship (that was expressed in the Spirit Body of the WORD). The newborn baby Jesus became a living soul and grew up to express the Life of God. From thence there was no longer any manifestation of the Spirit (Word) Body. Theophany ceased but the WORD was still with God. Though Jesus was sinless and had a divine nature, just as Adam had before his fall, Jesus was not Deity (God). Until He was 'adopted' (cf. Gal.4:5), He could not be anointed. Until He was anointed (at His Water Baptism), He could not be the fullness of the Word. And until He was indwelled by the Word, He could not be Deity, He could not be God incarnate.
“For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell.” (Col.1:19)
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col.2:9)
Hence, Jesus is not in the Godhead (Deity) but the Godhead (Deity) is in Jesus.
May God bless you
AdamAdam……………I agree, God was (IN) Christ reconciling the world unto (HIMSELF)>Jesus even said the words i am telling you are (NOT) mine, so if they weren't His, how could he be them then. It was the ONLY TRUE GOD (IN) Christ expressing HIMSELF (THROUGH) HIM. But that never made Jesus GOD HIMSELF> Again you have proved the TRINITY the LIE IT IS.
love and peace to you and yours Adam…………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
