- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote So how many Gods or gods are there for you brother David;
one is almighty and other is small 'god' or mighty god. Am I correct ?Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand. It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.”
And while many have certain degrees of power, some more than others, there is only one who is above all, only one who is AL mighty. Hence, while Jesus is called a god, he is not the God of Jehovah. Rather, it is the reverse. Compared to Jesus, Jehovah is mighty and hence, God. In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.) The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans. And Jesus, of course, if these ones have power and strength, Jesus has a lot more and hence, can obviously be called a God. But this doesn't make him the Almighty God, “the” God of the Bible.
I think we often think of aHi WJ,
You ask
“So can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has that Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”Yes He is not our God or the God of himself.
The Father is his God and our God[jn20]Do you get muddled between the vessel and the Contents that give him his amazing abilities?
Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:42) Quote I have written on this topic here.
WJ, I'm confused by this. Is that your website?
Hi DavidNo!
That is the writers quote, I just included his own link to his quote.
WJ
Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40) Quote So how many Gods or gods are there for you brother David;
one is almighty and other is small 'god' or mighty god. Am I correct ?
Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand. It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.”
And while many have certain degrees of power, some more than others, there is only one who is above all, only one who is AL mighty. Hence, while Jesus is called a god, he is not the God of Jehovah. Rather, it is the reverse. Compared to Jesus, Jehovah is mighty and hence, God. In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.) The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans. And Jesus, of course, if these ones have power and strength, Jesus has a lot more and hence, can obviously be called a God. But this doesn't make him the Almighty God, “the” God of the Bible.
I think we often think of a
Hi DavidQuote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40)
Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand. It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.”Can you tell me where this definition for “theos” comes from?
Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40) In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.) The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans.
Since t8 believes the same as the JWs here then maybe you can list some scriptures to prove these statements.t8 only list John 10 which can be read as a derogatory statement about evil and wicked kings. Ambiguous.
I would like to see how you come to this opinion using scriptures.
Thanks! WJ
Hi WJ
Long post
I’ll break it into smaller chunks as time allows…Quote Really? And just how is it that two separate beings can be “Omnipotent”? Two separate beings cannot have all power. How can a “finite being” have infinite power? However one can. The point is the attribute that the Father has “omnipotence’, Yeshua also has. They are One! The question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”. You have not answered the question for Yeshua has all authority and power.
1 – I did not say 2 separate beings were omnipotent. That is the point – Jesus can hardly be called omnipotent if he needed to have all authority handed to him…
2- you begin your statement by rightly illustrating the impossibility for more than one to be truly omnipotent, then end it by saying that 2 (the Father and Yeshua) both share omnipotence. It can hardly be omnipotence if it is shared – it is co-nipotence at best (just made that word up btw ;))
3 – you can run this same simple truth over omniscience and the attribute of being eternal also.
4 – Yeshua has all authority (exuousia) why? Because it has been given to him by the Father, the like figure of which Joseph received all authority to govern Egypt on behalf of and by Pharaoh.Quote Post incarnation. Paul in Phil 2 disagrees with you and says that Yeshua who is in the “form of God” emptied himself and did recieve it again. As I understand it is is GOD who emptied Himself into Jesus to fully indwell him at Jordan.
Jesus on the other hand was willing to relinquish any position he had with GOD in the SPIRIT in order to be formed into flesh to be the tabernacle for GOD on earth.
Essentially it was a shifting of the Heavenly pattern onto the earth.
What Jesus received back was that former position with GOD, only now with the added authority of intercession between the fallen sons of Adam and his Father.
When it says he was in the ‘form of GOD’ you have to bear in mind it is not saying he IS GOD.
‘Form of’ and ‘Image of’ do not mean ‘is GOD’.Quote This is truly a fallacious argument for it does not speak to the ontological nature of Yeshua who is the Word/God.
All sons of GOD are WORD children by HIS SPIRIT. That is how we can be one as he is one with his Father. Yet I do not see that as millions of GODs, it is ONE GOD and HIS Family.
Imo 😉Hi WJ
Quote Post incarnation. Phil 2 disagrees with you. My question was… “Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”
The scriptures say… The Father loveth the Son, and “hath given all things into his hand”. John 3:35
For the Father loveth the Son, and “sheweth him all things that himself doeth”: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Jesus knowing that “the Father had given all things into his hands”, and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
In whom (Yahshua) “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”. Col 2:3
Again the question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”
You do a pretty good job of doing that for me really.
GOD GAVE all things into his hands…
GOD SHOWED him all things that HE (GOD) does.
Jesus aware that the Father had GIVEN all things into his hands (in other words handed him them to deal with on HIS behalf)
In whom (Jesus) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Whose? Wisdom and whose knowledge? GOD’s which Jesus has been given knowledge of as the previous statements clearly show…
You say that my argument that GOD cannot die is fallacious – how so? The death we are referring to here is death in the flesh. At the death of Jesus we either witness the complete separation of Jesus from his Father or his words “my God my God why have you forsaken me” are no better than a pantomime.
imoQuote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,09:24) Hi Ken
Hope you are wellQuote To see Jesus, is to see God. Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit”, and not to Jesus, further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.
To see Jesus is to see GOD. amen to that
Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit” amen to that also.
1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
and not to Jesus I agree with that also.
verse 16 reiterates the thought of John 1:18 which tells us no man has seen GOD at any time
yet the only begotten which is in the bosom of the Father has declared HIM.
further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.
How so? If they are distinct then they are not the same, if they vary in their essential and intrinsic nature, even in purpose how can they be identical in every way?
Mortal (able to taste of death) and immortal are not the same
One begotten and one eternal are not identical as to origin
If anything a distinction being made between the Father and the Son only serves to further weaken the idea of a trinity of 3 co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent, co-ominscient persons.
imo
Hi there… hope you are well too….How so? Well, I tried to explain how, now you may not agree…. but IMHO, the Bible teaches that Jesus and the Father are distinct, yet they are, in a very profound way that I freely admit I do not fully understand, they are one as well. Not just one in purpose, not one in the way that Jesus says that He and His followers are to be, for He is said to be like God in ways that are never said be the case for the ordinary believer, so trying to compare how believers are one with God the Father or with Christ Jesus with how Jesus and the Father are one, is the biggest case of comparing apples and oranges there could possibly be. So I'll never buy the comparison.
Secondly, I never said that they are identical in every way. You may disagree with me, but it is probably best not to put words in my mouth, or to erect straw men. We have enough disagreements, apparently, without creating ones that do not exist. Most obviously, if the Father is spirit, and invisible, then of course it is a no-brainer that since Jesus is both physical and spiritual, that they cannot be identical in every way.You say “Mortal (able to taste of death) and immortal are not the same”
No offense, but are you really serious? Do you think I am stupid or something? Firstly, I know what the word “mortal” means, but even if I didn't, anyone that can read could tell that “mortal” and “immortal” are not the same. Frankly, that is just a ridiculously inane (something that lacks sense or substance) thing to say.Jesus' being begotten only means that his human nature is not eternal. In any case, there is nothing logically contradictory about saying that He could have an aspect of his nature that was eternal, while also adding to this nature humanity, an aspect that came into being in time and space at a particular moment. That is what Paul says here: Philippians 2:5-8 (ESV) 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
“2:6 The main verbs are the key to the structure, and Jesus’ attitude is presented in the first. Jesus “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” Precise knowledge of why that was so remarkable comes from the phrases which modify and explain the significance of his attitude.
Two parallel statements show the exemplary nature of Jesus’ thoughts. The first is “being in very nature God,” which is compared to the second, “equality with God.” The former is normally translated by the English word “form,” which is true to the literal meaning of the Greek morphē. Commentators have debated hotly the meaning of the word “form.” Basically, the word means “form, outward appearance, shape”; but since it occurs only in 2:6 and 2:7 in the New Testament, the context must determine its precise meaning. Clearly, the “form of God” and the “form of a servant” must mean the same thing. Some take that to mean that the visible appearance of God is not a factor because he is invisible, and therefore the text calls for a nuance of the word. This meaning should not be dismissed too quickly, however. The hymn called the readers to consider the preexistent state of Jesus, when he was in the form of God. Physical eyes cannot see spiritual realities, only spiritual eyes can. Given the context, it would not be uncommon to use the term to state that he actually “appeared as God” to those who could see him. Nothing in the context requires that human eyes see the form. Similarly, the “very nature of a servant” does not require that human eyes be able to see that form, although with spiritually enlightened eyes one sees it. The question is whether he had that form. Surely the actions described of him here are appropriate to the servant role, and they appear in his death on the cross. The word “form” means an outward appearance consistent with what is true. The form perfectly expresses the inner reality.
The description “very nature of God” parallels “equality with God.” “Equality with God” is, therefore, another explanation of Jesus’ nature. The form of the expression stresses the manner of his existence since the word “equal” is actually an adverb showing how he existed. In the Greek text, the phrase is introduced with an article so that it should read “the equality with God,” referring back to something already identified as equality. Thus “form of God” and “equality with God” refer to the same state of existence, and the NIV correctly translates “in the form of God” as “in very nature God.”
Two other matters relate to Jesus’ preexistent state. The first is the meaning and force of the participle “being.” The word basically meant “to exist originally” but later was used as an intensive form which meant “really exist.” The result is that Jesus “really existed” in that form. The force of the participle (“being”) is debated as well. Most interpreters take it with a concessive force (“although being”), and that stresses the dramatic nature of Christ’s humility.
The second matter is the meaning of “something to be grasped.” Some understand the words to mean “something to hold on to,” while others take them to mean “something to rob.” Often Jesus
is contrasted with Adam, who selfishly attempted to rob God of what he had no right to possess. He wanted to be “like God.” This contrast may have been in Paul’s mind, but any suggestion that requires the sense of aspiration to “equality with God,” as though it were not Jesus’, cannot fit the passage. With this understanding, Christ would have refused to do what Adam did. He refused to grab what was not his. Two factors speak against that understanding. First, the text more naturally reads “not to be clutched.” Since he already possessed “equality with God,” Jesus had nothing to grasp. He was able to release the appearance of deity. Second, when the word “grasped/clutched” is studied with words like “consider” (hēgeomai, 2:3, 6) the “idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one’s disposal.” The passage may mean, therefore, that Christ did not think of his equality as “something to use for his own advantage.”
2:7 The hymn moves from attitude to actions. Two verbs describe successive actions as Jesus gave himself for humanity: “He made himself nothing” and “he humbled himself.” Each has a phrase modifying it. The first of Jesus’ choices was to empty himself. The NIV translation “made himself nothing” captures the spirit of the passage but overlooks many theological discussions of the past. Historically, interpreters have wondered of what did Jesus empty himself? The question shows that a theological interest predominates in the passage. Most modern interpreters, however, point out that the hymn does not speak to that point. The contrasts between “Lord” (v. 11) and “servant,” (v. 7) and “very nature of God” (v. 6) and “human likeness” (v. 7) express the emptying. Thus the emptying is that God became human, Lord became servant, and obedience took him to death. The verb “emptied” (NASB) does not require a knowledge of what was emptied (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15). Often it is translated simply “to render void, of no effect.” This passage affirms simply that Christ left his position, rank, and privilege. They were “of no effect.”
Two ideas modify the verb “made himself nothing.” They are: taking the very nature of a servant and being made in human likeness. These statements explain both how this took place and what it means. Paradoxically, being “made nothing” means adding humanity to deity rather than subtracting deity from his person.……
The description “human likeness” really stresses Jesus’ humanity. While on the surface it may seem to say that Jesus was not really man, that conclusion finds almost no support. In fact, likeness “does not suggest any degree of unreality in Christ’s humanity; the word is almost a synonym for ‘form’ (morphē) and ‘image’ (eikōn); but it leaves room for the thought that the human likeness is not the whole story.” It must be seen in light of the next statement, that he was found “in appearance as a man” (v. 8). The change from the plural (“human likeness”) to the singular (“appearance as a man”) may reinforce that conclusion. Finally, the verb “being made” (v. 7) contrasts with “being” (2:6). He existed originally in the form of God; but at a specific point, he became human.
With these words, the text praises the attitude of Jesus. The hymn was to be used in worship, and as such, it was doxological. The total impact was to move the church to appreciate and imitate Jesus’ actions. Each word contributes to the meaning. Certainly interpreters need not read more into the text than was intended, but overtones of Christology exist which cannot be dismissed. First, it affirms Jesus’ preexistence. Before he came to earth, he existed fully as God, in essence and appearance. Second, he became human. Like the movement from riches to poverty in 2 Cor 8:9, this text follows the movement from the exercise of lordship to the obedience of the servant. The hymn teaches that Jesus added servanthood to lordship as he added humanity to deity. In so doing, he elevated humanity beyond what it had known before, as Heb 2:6–8 affirms (quoting a fulfillment of Ps 8:5–6, LXX). Paul easily affirmed both the deity and humanity of Jesus by using (and not correcting) this hymn. The words convey significant theological meaning that adds reality to the impact of the worship experience. Recalling this servanthood also exhorted the believers to unity.
—New American CommentaryFinally, any distinction made between the father and the Son in no way weakens the doctrine of the Trinity, for distinctions do not exclude attributes of sameness. IOW, the fact that there are differences between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in no way detracts from their unity, they just can't be distinct from one another in every single way eg, as long as the attribute of deity joins them, then we can speak of distinctions and/or differences among the various roles of the members of the Trinity, while also asserting that it is still God to whom we refer when speaking of the Father or the Son o the Holy Spirit.
blessings,
KenHi WJ
Quote Again the question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?” The question was not what attributes Yeshua has that the Father doesn’t.
But, the Word/God came in the flesh therefore becoming God in the flesh, the “image of the invisible God”.
By that line of reasoning if Jesus has more attributes than His Father (which I do not believe he does have) then is he not greater than him? After all if he is everything the Father is plus is able to be human then is he not different and beyond HIM…
The WORD was made flesh when the Dove descended upon the Lamb, before that Jesus was the Son of GOD but did not declare his Fathers’ name. GOD was not made manifest in flesh until Jesus began his ministry which began after his baptism at Jordan (imo)WJ
Quote Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11)
Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.No, the beginning is in the mother. You use the term son as if it means he is not by nature God. If you have a son he is ontologically identical in nature as a human.
Unless I am mistaken it is the Father that has the seed that is required for a living offspring, forgive me for being not 100% clear in my statement. When I say every child has their beginning in the Father I am not speaking of the manifestation which begins when that is deposited in the mother, I am speaking of that which GOD refers to when HE says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of his great grandfather, which is an analogy of our unmanifested origins in GOD before the foundation of the worlds, when we existed only as a thought in HIS mind (imo). This is why the seed lineage of men is recorded from the father not the mother, also why the woman takes the husband’s name, for it is his line, the life of his loins that carries the name.
Jesus as the Son of GOD is a son by SPIRIT, not by any natural means – yet you are correct the character of CHRIST is as the SPIRIT of GOD. Yet even in the natural likeness which from which we draw comparison – a son may have the life and nature (through the genes) of his father, yet he is not his father.Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11) Been busy last few days…
Hi WJ
Some thoughts on some of your comments.Quote Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?
Only one?
How about a few?
Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again…
Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28)
Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again.
Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die.
Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man.
There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD.
If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die.
The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again.Quote There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God.
There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following
Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning.
Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.
“you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that.
What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son.
Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence.Quote YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior.
A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all.
How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative.
As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical
The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image.
Blessings
you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!!
;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternality is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man.A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us 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 has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.
If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,
(Romans 8:11.)
While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father.
—Calvin's Commentaries
So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD.As far as the “greater than” references go:
“JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God?
MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110).
According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature.
Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.As far as the whole Jesus had a father, Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something?
blessings,
KenQuote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,17:21) Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11) Been busy last few days…
Hi WJ
Some thoughts on some of your comments.Quote Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?
Only one?
How about a few?
Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again…
Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28)
Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again.
Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die.
Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man.
There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD.
If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die.
The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again.Quote There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God.
There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following
Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning.
Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.
“you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that.
What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son.
Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence.Quote YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior.
A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all.
How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative.
As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical
The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image.
Blessings
you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!!
;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternally is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man.A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us 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 has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.
If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,
(Romans 8:11.)
While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father.
—Calvin's Commentaries
So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD.As far as the “greater than” references go:
“JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God?
MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110).
According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature.
Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
As far as the whole Jesus had a father, Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something?blessings,
Ken
Good post, understanding the preexisting of Jesus, for me is important. However I do not believe in the trinity. The one thing that I would like to add is that when all has been accomplished by Jesus, we too will take on the name God. God will be all in all.
1 Corinth. 15:28 The Family of God. Jesus gives all back to the Father. That too shows that the Father is greater then He is. You are also asking a real stupid question about having sex with Maria. To me that was done in a very spiritual way. Also
You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. The Apostle never taught the trinity and you will not find that word in in the Bible. So are you calling Jesus a liar then when He says that ” My Father is greater then I?”Peace and Love Irene
Hi E,
Why should anyone follow your lead in studying hermeneutics
if it has led you to conclude that God is a trinity
when scripture never teaches such things?How can studying scripture find what is not written??
Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,00:34) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58) Hi t8 Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)
Is the Father the image of the invisible God?Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God?
Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!
WJ
Let's put your words to the test.
The test is scripture.1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.
So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.
Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.
Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.
But… here is the rest of the story… “The question why the Son is called “The Word” may be answered by saying that the term expresses both his nature and his office. The word is that which reveals. The Son is the εἰκών and ἀπαύγασμα of God, and therefore his word. It is his office to make God known to his creatures. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. The Son, therefore, as the revealer of God, is the Word.”Hodge, C. Systematic Theology (504). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
So according to all of Scripture, on this issue, no one has seen God, however, the Son has come as a declarer of God…. and the Son is, as the writer of Hebrews also states, the “exact representation of His nature”…. and, those who have seen Christ have seen the Father. For we have the very words of Christ Jesus Himself who said (John 14:9 ESV) Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?”
To see Jesus, is to see God. Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit”, and not to Jesus, further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.
blessings,
Ken
Hi E.You admitted that God is God the Father and that he is invisible.
That is progress.
Now read 10 of these verses at random and try and replace the word God with Trinity and watch that doctrine make a complete hash of interpreting the scriptures.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm
In other words the true God mentioned in scripture is the Father.
God is the Father and he is invisible.
The Word is Yeshua and he is visible and in body form.God is not the Trinity, he is the Father.
Also if God was the Trinity, then you can't use the word 'him' when referring to him. The trinity Doctrine requires that God is called THEM, not HIM.
Thanks for listening.
Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,00:54) Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 06 2008,22:09) Good posts brother T8,
At the same time please say that there can be no other Gods besides our Father in this whole universe. Please don't be confused with the word 'theos' which is wrongly translated for princes and judges in greek. These so called gods can not be confused with our True God Father.Thanks and peace to you
Adam
This such a great point… the Bible is so very clear… there is only 1 true God…. but as David and other JW's and other inconsistent Unitarians of various stripes admit, the bible refers to Jesus as being God, or, for the sake of argument, lets say “a god”… But… and here is the crucial point…. if there is only one true God, and Jesus is a god, then by resistless logic, by the application of the law of the excluded middle, Jesus simply HAS to be a false god!! Of course, that cannot be true! Its blasphemous to think so. Therefore, Jesus has to be, in some profound essential way, a part of the one true God's very nature, or as the ancient creed so well puts it, Jesus is:
“God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;”.
And this is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. It resolves this biblical conundrum, and without it, the Bible explicitly contradicts itself by saying that there can only be 1 true God, and that Jesus is god or a god, yet Jesus is spoken of throughout the bible in a favorable sense, as the Messiah, as the Savior, as God's Son, etc… all positive favorable descriptions…. none of which would lead us to believe that Jesus is a false god. So Jesus is the true God, and the Trinity is what best explains the full counsel of Scripture.blessings,
Ken
Hi E.Jesus is neither called a god or (the) God in John 1:1.
Both are assumptions.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,08:07) NH The confusion is in your own theology, for your theology dictates using white out on parts of the scriptures.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. Rev 22:19
WJ
Good point WJ, we shall not add or takeaway from what is written in Revelation.Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John….Please no adding or taking away, just accept it the way it is written.
Thanks.
Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,16:05) Hi WJ Quote Post incarnation. Phil 2 disagrees with you. My question was… “Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”
The scriptures say… The Father loveth the Son, and “hath given all things into his hand”. John 3:35
For the Father loveth the Son, and “sheweth him all things that himself doeth”: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Jesus knowing that “the Father had given all things into his hands”, and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
In whom (Yahshua) “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”. Col 2:3
Again the question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”
You do a pretty good job of doing that for me really.
GOD GAVE all things into his hands…
GOD SHOWED him all things that HE (GOD) does.
Jesus aware that the Father had GIVEN all things into his hands (in other words handed him them to deal with on HIS behalf)
In whom (Jesus) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Whose? Wisdom and whose knowledge? GOD’s which Jesus has been given knowledge of as the previous statements clearly show…
You say that my argument that GOD cannot die is fallacious – how so? The death we are referring to here is death in the flesh. At the death of Jesus we either witness the complete separation of Jesus from his Father or his words “my God my God why have you forsaken me” are no better than a pantomime.
imo
Have been reading your posts lately and I encourage you to continue sharing your insights.Thanks.
Quote A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us 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 has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.”Once again it is the failure to realize the GOD in Christ principle that gives rise to such arguments as this.
The simple fact is that Jesus as a man was representing two people – Himself and his Father.
Therefore sometimes it was the Father speaking and sometimes it was the son.
Remember Jesus was the temple of GOD – he was HIS body. He spoke HIS Fathers words and also (obviously) at times
his own words.
It was GOD who raised Christ from the dead as his disciples preached after receiving the Holy Spirit.
Why would the Holy Spirit contradict the words of Jesus?
There is no contradiction this was GOD speaking when Jesus said 'I will raise it up again'.imo
Quote As far as the whole Jesus had a father, Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something? Nope not a Mormon
The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock…..
That's right and these illustrations used by Jesus to show us his role – as a gateway an accessway , a portal, as the source of revelation regarding GOD (rock).
Tell me did Jesus use these metaphors constantly to refer to himself? Or did others?
Did his disciples say 'hey look here comes the door, here comes the gate' or 'hello rock'?
As you say these illustrate the role.
But when questioned as to who they thought he was (not what he represented) it was a statement of a dual revelation:
The CHRIST the Son of the Living GOD. (Father and Son)As for Jesus not being an actual Son of GOD in any sense than illustratively – sorry have to disagree on that one.
re the whole sex with Mary idea – you never heard that from me GOD does not need to resort to sexual reproduction to produce a son, how do you think the first Adam was formed?
as ever imo and most likely contrary to yours 😉
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
