Matt 1 21 as evidence for the Trinity

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 28 2006,08:02)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 26 2006,16:29)

sigh…. just because Rome believes one (or a thousand) wrong things, it does not follow that they were or are wrong on all things. So just because they have come up with the blasphemous doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix (as well as the Mass and many otrher corruptions, mainly denying the gospel of salvation by faith alone), it does not follow that they got the Trinity wrong. So simple seminarian… so basic…. look, what you clearly need is a good course in logic, because you cannot seem to post a single post without committing some simplistic error in your thinking.

Hi epistemaniac,

Those who explore the possibilities with the Trinity doctrine to teach something, will teach confusion.

E.g., Jesus is Almighty God, therefore Mary gave birth to God.
Or God died.

Even prayer becomes out of order. “Dear God Jesus, thankyou Father.”

Um this confusion is wrought by the trinity doctrine alone. That is the point. The doctrine gives more fuel to those who wish to pervert the truth. The Catholics feel that many of their teachings are truth because it agrees with the Trinity doctrine. But we know that the template by which doctrines must match up to is not the Trinity doctrine, but scripture.

When one believes a false doctrine, then they are open to other false teachings that can be tacked on. The Trinity is a false foundation by which men have wrought much work in vain.

That building will fall, because the foundation is not true.

The wages of false teaching is not just wasting your precious time, but you are also responsible to anyone you lead astray.

The Catholics may have had more time to imagine the possibilities with the Trinity doctrine to create all kinds of madness, but other denominations do the same even if they have had less time to let that madness develop. But the root is still madness all the same.

Hi t8

Those who explore the possibilities of the non-trinitarian doctrine to teach something, will teach confusion.

eg Jesus is not God but claimed to be so He was either a lunatic or a liar

even prayer gets messed up…. “dear God, in Jesus' name I think we have to go to God through you but I'd really rather not….”

um this confusion is wrought by the non-trinitarian doctrine alone. that is the point. the doctrine gives more fuel to those who wish to pervert the truth. (more Roman Catholic irrelevant red herrings….. blah blah blah….

when one believes in the non-trinitarian doctrine, they are open to other false teachings that can be tacked on. the non-trinitarian view is a false foundation by which men have wrought much work in vain.

that building will fall because the foundation is not true and because it has fallen so many times before…. the non-trinitarians continue to try and inject their secularized man-centered views, that if its something they can't fully understand it must be false, therefore elevating themselves to the place where they think they can comprehend the infinite, but they are always brought down by the truth of the whole counsel of God, and if they refuse to submit to the whole counsel of God they will find themselves judged.

the true church has always held to the doctrine of the trinity since the time of Christ, even though Rome eventually solidified into more of a political body which sought to keep itself at the center of all authority both secular and sacred, became an apostatized body…. but all this continual talk about Rome this and Rome that is BESIDE THE POINT….

1 just because Rome believes something, it does not thereby become false….

2 you have to be wise in the scriptures in order to discern where Rome sought to elevate itself and not God….

blessings

July 28, 2006 at 3:27 pm#23002

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 28 2006,15:57)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 28 2006,10:01)

Quote (Cubes @ July 28 2006,01:12)

YHWH died on the cross to satisfy YHWH?

Last I heard, he was going to scrap all of Israel and start over again with just Moses! Now he decided to have us kill him so that he can forgive us for killing him and redeeming us all back to glory? Gluey fly trap stickiness on the logic here.

in a sense, yes, for only God incarnate could satisfy the demands of a perfect sinless sacrifice… so God the Son came, lived a sinless life, went to the cross to propitiate and expiate the sins of His bride, He died and then rose again on the thrid day, showed Himself to many, and then ascended to where He was before, into heaven at God the Father's right hand, to ever intercede for the saints….

come on guys… this is basic elementary sunday school stuff….

blessings

In what “sense” did YHWH die? Was the Almighty lifeless for three days and three nights?

(By the way, did you read my post in the “Trinity” discussion thread?)

the Son, as to touching His human nature, died…. as far as His divine nature goes, it was never dead and could never die… this is why the Bible tells us that even while Christ was in the tomb, He was not dead, but was doing His father's will….

so just as the Bible says, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins, Christ died for His Bride, His flock, His people….. shedding His blood He set captives free…. and just as no mere man could satisfy the demands of a perfectly holy God, God Himself sent the Eternal Son, the Son complied and then when He ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell His people until the final day, and then into eternity…

blessings

July 28, 2006 at 3:43 pm#23003

Participant

oh… btw… no… haven't been to the Trinity thread yet….. maybe later on today, I have had many back operations and spinal and neck fusions, I am in constant pain as a result of the scar tissue on my sciatic nerve, radiating all the way down my left leg into my foot, and severe arthritis in my low back and tailbone as a result of all the operations and one seriously botched operation where someone or something was not sterile in the operating room and I nearly died from a staph infection that went into my spinal column itself as well as into my blood stream… and unfortunately there seems to be no ryhme or reason sometimes to the level of pain I am in, even within the span of a single day I can be rerstricted to bed for hours and then be able to be up for awhile with the level of concentration available to me to give a reasonable (IMHO) reason for my beliefs… or, I caqn be down for the better part of several days…. so I come and do what I can, and that is all I can do, right? anyway, its obvious no one here is going to change their views and so I have to be careful not to waste the precious time I am able to be up and around a little… at some point I will have to say….. “I have explained my beliefs, that is all I have to do, and so I am done, I am NOT obligated to change anyone's mind, I am obligated to give a reason for the hope that is within me, and before God, when I feel I have done so, my efforts will cease”….. for now I need to rest and Lord willing, I will have a look at the trinity thread later today and see if I can explain my view, as long as you remember I am not under some obligation to change your mind, we will be good to to go……

blessings

July 28, 2006 at 5:36 pm#23004

Participant

E, really sorry to hear about your troubles. May the power of the Almighty continue to shelter and heal you in Jesus name. Amen.

I also wanted to thank you for your response to me on the previous page (12), and to let you know that due to changes in my schedule, I won't be able to respond to your post till (hopefully) around the middle of next week sometime, though truth be told, I believe that what I said about “Forgiveness” is a prime example which addresses many of the points you've raised, and I can anticipate that my response to you would be much along those lines. I have not read your article in detail, just an overview. Anyway, take it easy and have a good weekend.

July 28, 2006 at 6:32 pm#23005

WhatIsTrue

Participant

epistemaniac,

I am sorry to hear about your condition. I pray that you find some relief from the pain soon.

Also, I posted my thoughts in the other thread, because it wasn't quite pertinent to this one. But, now that we have already started discussing its subject matter, I will repost it below for reasons that will soon become obvious.

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 28 2006,11:27)

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 28 2006,15:57)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 28 2006,10:01)

Quote (Cubes @ July 28 2006,01:12)

YHWH died on the cross to satisfy YHWH?

come on guys… this is basic elementary sunday school stuff….

blessings

In what “sense” did YHWH die? Was the Almighty lifeless for three days and three nights?

(By the way, did you read my post in the “Trinity” discussion thread?)

the Son, as to touching His human nature, died…. as far as His divine nature goes, it was never dead and could never die… this is why the Bible tells us that even while Christ was in the tomb, He was not dead, but was doing His father's will….

blessings

I can not believe how perfect your response has been! The phrase that I highlighted, “as to touching His human nature”, is a nearly word for word copy of the title of my essay.

Here it is again:

Quote

“As Touching His Human Nature”

To debate a Trinitarian on the nature and identity of the God of the universe is to enter into a contest with someone who will change the rules of the game to his advantage at every turn. The debate itself is nearly two thousand years old and the only decisive winner has been the Roman Catholic Church. To wit, every orthodox Christian church, to this very day, still borrows heavily from the Catholic tradition. They follow her holy days, (which themselves are relics of a pagan tradition nowhere affirmed in scripture), and they stand on her most fundamental doctrine – the doctrine whose ultimate confirmation came from the corrupted power structure of Rome.

To be certain, the doctrine of the Trinity has been refined by constant criticism and has evolved over time into a self-sustaining force with enough circumstantial logic and circular reasoning to keep some of the brightest theological minds eternally confused. There is no angle that has not been previously discussed, and no scripture left that has not been properly twisted into compliance. It is a well honed doctrinal machine that has whole libraries full of explanations awaiting its defense. But, when one looks at two crucial events in history side by side, the duplicitous nature of Trinitarian logic is made plain.

The first of these two events is creation. In this one event, we have the best of Trinitarian logic displayed in all its glory. For, in it, the Creator declares that He works alone, (Isaiah 44:24), yet, according to the doctrine, all three persons of the trinity are implicated in this act. So, here we have the Creator of the universe referring to Himself in a very singular fashion, using singular pronouns and verb tenses in a way that any plain reading of the text would indicate a single person, yet by misunderstanding or mistranslating a handful of New Testament verses, this solo act becomes a three person show to Trinitarians. Why? Because, according to Trinitarians, God is a three person being, so even if He does something alone, it can, and usually does, involve all three persons. After all, according to one Trinitarian writer, the Almighty is a “single divine essence” consisting of “three individual subsistences that we call persons”. How then could these “persons” not be entangled in each others work?

But, when we come to the crucifixion, the second of the two events, the Trinitarian logic begins to break down. The following question illustrates the problem:

Who died on the cross? Jesus only, or Jehovah?

Here, the Trinitarian faces a divine conundrum. To say that Jehovah died on the cross is to suggest that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit took part in this singular act, but to say that only Jesus died on the cross is to not only affirm his individual personhood but also to affirm him as a separate being from the Father and Holy Spirit – a being who could be killed while the other two remained alive, (thereby reducing the trinity to a “binity”, even if only for three days and three nights). One can not say that only part of Jehovah died, for, according to the doctrine, Jehovah is one “single divine essence”. It is an all or nothing prospect. Worse, to acknowledge that Jesus was separated from the other two in death, (Matthew 27:46), is to say that Jesus is a distinct being from the ever living Jehovah and therefore not Jehovah at all!

But, that is when the rules of the game must be changed by the Trinitarian. Since the normal doctrinal constructs fail miserably in this scenario, a logical escape hatch must be formulated to get the Trinitarian out of this scriptural trap. That is when the Trinitarian will utter something along the lines of the following words:

“As touching his human nature… .”

The rest of the statement is inconsequential, for by use of this phrase, the Trinitarian has managed to reconstruct Jesus into a being of two completely separable parts – one part God being, the other part human being – where the things that happen to the one half do not happen to the other. The trick here is that, though the doctrine says that Jesus is fully God an
d fully man all the time, this sleight of hand phrase gets you to focus on one half of his person to the exclusion of the other. But, again, that is not what the doctrine states. Either Jesus is fully God, all the time, from eternity to eternity, or he is not God at all. So you can not separate out his human side and say that that side of him alone died on the cross, (i.e. Jesus only died on the cross). Either the whole person of Jesus died that day, (i.e. Jehovah died on the cross), or the whole person of Jesus did not die at all. Well, at this point, the Trinitarian is likely to cry, “Mystery!”, and change the subject.

What is the last refuge of a Trinitarian? What is the subject to which he will gravitate when all else fails? Ontology, (background information)! With its origins firmly rooted in Greek philosophy – not in scripture – ontology is nothing more than a way of neatly categorizing everything that exists in the universe. The methods and the rules come from philosophers, not from the Almighty, and the application of various ontological constructs on scripture is simply confusing unless it is done selectively and circumstantially by a skilled Trinitarian.

According to the ontological constructs of a Trinitarian, God is a type of being made up of three persons. So, regardless of any evidence that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Son is still said to be God because that is the type of being that he is. For example, my child may be subordinate to me, but that does not make him any less a human being. Unfortunately, Trinitarians tie a neat little bow on the story here and present it as though they are handing you the gift of all-surpassing wisdom. After all, who can argue with this airtight circular logic? Dig a little deeper, however, and the ontological argument immediately falls to pieces.

First, recall that, according to the trinity doctrine, Jesus is both a God being and a human being. Therefore, he is not just one of three persons in one being. He is one person in two beings – a God being and a human being! The “Godhead” then becomes three persons in two beings, or, at the very least, two persons in one being and one person in two beings. But, it doesn’t end there. By far, the vast majority of Trinitarians claim that the Angel of the LORD, (who makes many appearances in the Old Testament), was Jehovah Himself, likely a “pre-incarnation” form of Jesus, and angels, by ontological construct, are a third type of being altogether. That turns the “Godhead” into three persons in three beings – God being, angel being, and human being – or two persons in one being and one person in three beings, or two persons in two beings and one person three beings, etc.! Alternatively, as with the question of the cross, Trinitarians must split Jesus down the middle again and say that the God being part of Jesus belongs to the trinity and the human being part of Jesus is a distinct and separate being of his own, leaving us with the trinity and Jesus the human being existing separately, even if cooperatively. Clearly, trying to paint a tidy little picture of Jesus, or the trinity, through ontology does not work.

So what is at the root of all this tortured logic and philosophical gymnastics? Quite simply, It is the desire of the Trinitarian to forge the three gods of his doctrine into one single god. In their attempts to elevate Jesus to the same level as the God that he serves, (Revelations 3:12), they have created an unworkable dilemma that scripture presents them at every turn. God is one, (Deuteronomy 6:4), yet the Father and Son make two, (John 8:17-18). Try as they might, they simply can not get around this divinely placed hole in their doctrine. For, when one looks to the cross and the glorious resurrection that followed, one can clearly see the work of two distinct, separable beings: one who died and rose again, and One who can never die, but grants life to all who live. Trinitarians are eternally trying to fill in the gap between these two very different beings.

Your thoughts?

For the record, what is your official answer to the following question:

Who died on the cross? Y'shua only or YHWH?

Your answer above is a bit conflicting, as at one point you say:

“…the Son, as to touching His human nature, died…”

But, later, you say:

while Christ was in the tomb, He was not dead

It does not sound like you are talking about the same singular person.

July 30, 2006 at 8:35 pm#23081

Participant

Hi WIT,
Surely you understand that the only begotten Son,
having been sent from heaven emptied of his heavenly nature coming as a vessel
then clothed in our flesh and later filled with the Spirit of his Father,
was not dead in the Spirit after physical death?
1Peter 3.18
“…having been put to death in the flesh,
but
being made alive in the spirit;
in which he went and made proclamation…”

July 30, 2006 at 9:24 pm#23087

kenrch

Participant

The Son of man was in the tomb. The Son of God was preaching to the spirits.

Mat 12:40 for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

1Pe 3:19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,

Jesus did not ascend to the father till after the three days and nights.

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.

July 30, 2006 at 9:42 pm#23089

Participant

Hi kenrch,
Yes. Scripture gives two views on all these matters. For those who only have human eyes there is the real human aspect of all these events.
But there is also the view that goes deeper than the flesh that gives an insight into the spiritual aspects of all life that is unseen on earth but is more than equally true. To just see earthly things is to rob us of more relevant heavenly truths.
Jesus astounded natural men by raising Lazarus, but it was not difficult for him to grasp as he knew the reality of the full meaning of life and death and the relative insignificance of physical life and death.

July 30, 2006 at 9:50 pm#23092

kenrch

Participant

Amen Nick!

August 1, 2006 at 3:19 am#23198

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 31 2006,02:35)

Hi Nick,

I am confused here.

Jesus was crucified, died and was buried.
At some point during the three days and before he was seen by anyone, I IMAGINE he was resurrected and descended to hell.

He had to have died by the definition that scripture considers death and applies to all, or else he could not have 1) experienced all that we do. 2) And his resurrection would be not quite that. Thus, I believe that he laid down his life, and as the scripture says, God raised him from the dead.

Spheres thinks there is another reality the dead enter into when they cease to exist here. If so, then everyone enters into that reality. But the point remains that Jesus also experienced the reality that we know as death on our behalf.

No?

August 1, 2006 at 3:35 am#23199

Participant

Quote

=epistemaniac,July 28 2006,19:03]…
hey cubes…. hope all is well with you too

3 out of 4 ehhh! wow… that is just great, and just as soon as I believe just as you do, I will finally be right in all I believe!!! yay……

1. check out some of my other posts in this thread, and please respond to all of the following, when you have answered each of these issues correctly (that is, interpret the evidence the same way I do 😉 then let me know. 😉

In the same way, all other objectors to the Trinity need to respond properly and correctly, eg in exactly the same way I do….. to all of the following evidence. This post will be long, but this information is not just a link away, and is not, so far as I know, available on the net anywhere, so while on the one hand I apologize for the length of the post, on the other, while one person will complain about the length of the post, someone else is bound to complain that there questions were not answered, so just as an old song says, you can't please everyone, so ya got to please…. not yourself…. but the Lord.

Hi E,

Sorry that my comment offended you. I didn't mean it in that way. I felt the numbering system simplifies things and identifies what we agree on and what we need to focus our discussions on, as time is scarce on everyone's part.

Secondly, it is not about what you believe and what I believe, it is about whether either of us are knowing God as he would be known and the joys that await us. You don't catch me debating w/ atheists (anymore), or those of other faiths because what would be the point unless they were seeking or curious? But I debate with you because I find I relate to what John said in one of his Epistles when he said, he writes to his audience because they know the truth [even though there was danger of them digressing]. So I debate in hope because I believe that we share the same desire to know God and worship God, and secondly, that his truth is objective and can be found by those who seek him earnestly.

Discovering him is more exciting than what I believe or do not believe. Which is why I hereby present you with the Nicodemus Challenge. I have similar ones myself concerning other aspects of scripture and am not afraid to go where the word leads. Are you?

August 1, 2006 at 4:09 am#23205

Participant

Quote

By Epistemaniac: Who did Jesus claim to be?

Claim to be Jehovah (Yahweh) Jehovah or, more properly, Yahweh is the special name given by God for Himself.

In the Hebrew Old Testament, it is written simply as four letters (YHWH) and was considered so holy that a devout Jew would not pronounce it. Those who wrote it would perform a special ceremony first. It is the name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, when God said, “I AM WHO I AM,” and the meaning of the name has to do with God’s self-existence. While other titles for God may be used of men (adonai in Gen. 18:12) or false gods (elohim in Deut. 6:14), Yahweh is only used to refer to the one true God. Nothing else was to be worshiped or served (Ex. 20:5), and His name and glory were not to be given to another. Isaiah wrote, “Thus saith [Yahweh] … I am the first, and I am the last; and beside Me there is no God” (44:6, KJV) and, “I am [Yahweh], that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, neither My praise to graven images” (42:8, KJV).

In light of this, it is no wonder that the Jews picked up stones and accused Jesus of blasphemy when He claimed to be Jehovah. Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd”
(John 10:11), but the Old Testament said, “[Yahweh] is my shepherd” (Ps. 23:1).

Hi E,

It is a matter of perspective, I believe. There's a good thread which member “Woutlaw” started recently on this topic so I won't be labor the point. But would say this: 1) We are exhorted to have the mind of Christ [be more like him]. Paul says “imitate me as I imitate Christ” or something to that effect. 3) Jesus says that the Father never leaves him alone because he does that which pleases the Father [having the mind of God as in #1]. We are to be holy because God is holy! We are to be truthful because he is true, etc So if the Father is our Shepherd and Jesus is our Good Shepherd, it is because he emulates his Father. God fearing Pastors, elders and parents would also seek to be good shepherds after the Master.

Scripture says in John 6 somewhere that those who are taught and learn of God come to Christ. God teaches. His son says I do those things which I see my Father do. His son in turn teaches us, and we teach our young and others after Christ.

Jesus says I am the bread of life by whom we may eat and live. And yet, this same Jesus tells us that he too lives by the Father.

I am the Vine, he said. He also said his Father is the Gardener. The Gardener has control over his garden. I am the Way (to where?), the Truth (to what or of what?), the Life [Second Adam]; I am the Gate [to where or whom] but he said his Father is the Gate Keeper etc.

All statements are true but one is more primary and foundational whereas the other is secondary. Moreover, many of the I AMs are expected of us too, as disciples and servants of Christ. He said, just as he has been sent by the Father, he sends us! The scriptures say that just as he was sealed by the Spirit of the Father, we are likewise sealed! etc. So perspective. If you need me to provide scriptures to this end, I'd be glad to, given some time to do so on my dial up. Gotta be patient w/ the little people…!

August 1, 2006 at 5:12 am#23215

Participant

Quote

By Epistemaniac: Jesus claimed to be the judge of all men (Matt. 25:31ff; John 5:27ff), but the Prophet Joel quotes Yahweh as saying, “For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations” (Joel 3:12). Jesus prayed, “Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was” (John 17:5, KJV). But Yahweh of the Old Testament said, “I will not give My glory to another” (Isa. 42:8).

Likewise, Jesus spoke of Himself as the “Bridegroom” (Matt. 25:1) while the Old Testament identifies Yahweh in this way (Isa. 62:5; Hosea 2:16). The risen Christ says, “I am the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17)—precisely the words used by Yahweh in Isaiah 42:8.

While the psalmist declares, “[Yahweh] is my light” (Ps. 27:1), Jesus said, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Perhaps the strongest claim Jesus made to be Yahweh is in verse 58, where He says, “Before Abraham was born, I AM.” This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around Him clearly understood His meaning and picked up stones to kill Him for blaspheming (cf. John 8:58; 10:31–33). The same claim is made in Mark 14:62 and John 18:5–6.

Overview of Jesus’ Claims
To be Yahweh—John 8:58
Equality with God—John 5:18
To be Messiah—Mark 14:61–64
Accepts worship—Matthew 28:17
Equal authority with God—Matthew 28:18
Prayer in His name—John 14:13–14

Hi E,

Jesus as Judge of the world. Did you not see where he says that it is his Father who has given him this responsibility? Also that WE shall judge even angels?
If a judge is appointed to office, does that make him equal to who appointed him? To God belongs the righteous covenants of both Moses and the Lamb of God, which is what their songs to YHWH say. Rev 15:3f.
Speaking of the glory which Jesus had with the Father BEFORE he came to earth, do you deem that glory to be identical, less or more to what Phil 2:7f speaks of? I say Jesus has more glory bestowed on him after his mission and you'd have to show me how that is false or you have to concede that his glory could not have been equal to the Father before he came in the flesh. My reason for saying this is that Paul says in Ephesians and Philippians 2 that God has HIGHLY exalted Jesus and that all creatures shall bow down to him and confess him as Lord. So great is his exaltation that he now sits at the right hand of God. If this were not so, then he received no exaltation to begin with and let every man be a liar but let God remain true!
Jesus as Bridgegroom. John is a servant of God, not the Best Man of God. In fact, I don't believe anyone has that role, except perhaps Christ to God. So yes, in his own order, Jesus is the Bridegroom of the Church. Moreover, it is his Father who prepares the wedding feast and invites the guests because his son is getting married! (Matt 22 or 23). The Father is his Father and our Father. This is what he told Mary Magdalene. Thus the Father is not our husband in that sense except in the spirit of being his and being faithfully his in the highest order.
First and the Last or Alpha and Omega. Again I see perspective. The Father being first and last speaks to one thing, and that of the Son speaks to something else. And we have others that are first and last relating to lesser degrees of order and purposes. Bathsheba was the first and last for Uriah, as per the prophecy that the prophet Nathan gave to king David regarding the rich man who took the poor man's ewe…. the widow who gave her mite gave her first and last and Jesus was well pleased with that, etc.
The Father is King of kings, followed by his son who is king of kings, and later on, a title bestowed on Nebuchadnezzar and those other kings of the Persian empire… I think at one time someone was in charge of 120 nations or something like that, ruling from the Middle East through Africa to India somewhere. Emperors. Kings of kings. While the authority structure could be said to be the same, the degrees of authority vary greatly and the Sons kingly-ness and kingdom is not as great as his Father's. He is given his own kingdom, and he promised kingdoms to his faithful overcomers. They/we in turn, could designate others to rule over as long as it meets with the approval of the Most High, according to Jesus!
Jesus IS the light of the world. We ARE to be the light of the world after Christ. We get our light from the Power, GOD Almighty, also known as the Father of lights.
Jesus did not claim to be God or equal to him. In fact, what he said was, “…I SAID, I AM THE SON OF GOD.” He was not a shouter but I could almost hear him shout that one! Ha ha! This is in John 10:35 I believe.
Jesus said something to the effect that, “if you've seen me you've seen the Father.” But he also said that NO ONE has ever seen or heard the Father's voice, so you know that is not what he intended to be understood as saying, [which is to say that he meant to say, I am God Almighty!]. Simple as that. If Jesus were the ONE Almighty God, then God has been seen and all those scriptures are not scripture at all. But the sure word is that no one has ever seen God. Meanwhile John assures us that they not only saw Jesus but touched him… you can almost visualize them rough housing on the beach, bumming around. Mary of Bethany wiped his feet with her her! That's very close and personal. Mary gave birth to him. John certainly laid his head on his chest. Men saw Jesus! GOD IS. Could not cease to be, so IF Jesus is God, then what are you saying?
I don't remember him saying he had “equal authority with God” but know that he says the Father gave him all authority [as needed for the mission and his position as Lord over all things]. But since he is subject to his Father and says he ALWAYS DOES what pleases GOD, since he said GOD's will is to be done on earth as it IS in heaven, I will not say they have equal authority, especially since his was given him. Jesus in turn has given us considerable authority and our authority does not equal his.
Jesus accepts worship. He said that he would have those of the synagogue of Satan come and worship at the feet of his faithful. Also, kings are worshiped, not as Almighty God, but as kings/queens. Jesus is king. More importantly, in Rev 5, and elsewhere in scripture, he is worshiped as the Lamb of God or Son and prophet from God. No one, with the exception of Thomas' comment, made such address to him. Thomas' comment is also to be viewed through the lens of all the disciples and followers of Jesus: none of them ever said anything like that and in fact, they were all sitting around when he only came to that realization that Jesus is yet alive. Jesus said blessed are they who believed without seeing, like the ten apostles who believed prior who were never shown to bow before Jesus and worship him as God.
Compare their attitude to that of the day when God's presence was felt at the camp of the Israelites and they begged Moses to tell him not to show up again! And remember when Moses himself had to walk around covering is glorified face? So no, I don't believe that anyone in Israel mistook Jesus for the Almighty, but rather, many did recognize him for who he truly is and gave him the honor due him though we know he is worthy and shall receive much more.
Jesus as Messiah demonstrates that he is anointed by YHWH to preach the good news of the kingdom and to set captives free. (Ps 61, Luke 4:
17f).
We pray through Jesus because he is the Way and the Gate TO the Father. Even so, I still speak with Jesus as needed.
Sorry about the long post but you asked me to address your points. Hope to continue the rest tomorrow.
Be blessed.

August 1, 2006 at 5:37 am#23217

Participant

Hi cubes,

You say
“Hi Nick,

I am confused here.

Jesus was crucified, died and was buried.
At some point during the three days and before he was seen by anyone, I IMAGINE he was resurrected and descended to hell.

No? “

Absolutely.
He fully experienced the first death.
Acts 2.22f
” 22″Men of Israel, listen to these words: (A)Jesus the Nazarene, (B)a man attested to you by God with miracles and ©wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know–

23this Man, delivered over by the (D)predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, (E)you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

24″But (F)God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it (G)was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

25″For David says of Him,
'(H)I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE;
FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN.
26'THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED;
MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE;
27BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO (I)HADES,
(J)NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.
28'YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE;
YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.'

29″Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the (K)patriarch David that he both (L)died and (M)was buried, and (N)his tomb is with us to this day.

30″And so, because he was (O)a prophet and knew that (P)GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,

31he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of [a]the Christ, that (Q)HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.

32″This Jesus ®God raised up again, to which we are all (S)witnesses.”

So here is contrasted the common fate of all men including David

Death
Corruption of the body
Confinement of the soul in Sheol and Hades.

With the different fate of Jesus

Death
Lack of bodily corruption
Lack of confimnement in Sheol and Hades

and resurrection after three days during which he was alive in the Spirit and preaching to the spirits in prison as in 1 Peter 3.

August 1, 2006 at 5:40 am#23219

Participant

Thank you, Nick. Amen.

August 1, 2006 at 12:24 pm#23236

Participant

hey guys… I have been out of the loop for some time now…. I have been hospitalized 3 times during the month of July, each time for about 4-5 days as the pain level has spiraled out of control…..

what is true….. could you provide the exact link to the post you want me to read in the Trinity thread…. I started to go backwards through the thread and I noticed numerous posts by you and am not sure exactly which one it is that you wanted me to read…

blessings

August 1, 2006 at 6:38 pm#23253

WhatIsTrue

Participant

epistemaniac,

The most relevant post to you is on page 13 of this discussion thread. It is my first post after your last post on that page.

Sorry to hear that things aren't getting much better for you.

August 1, 2006 at 7:45 pm#23257

Adam Pastor

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2006,06:37)

and resurrection after three days during which he was alive in the Spirit and preaching to the spirits in prison as in 1 Peter 3.

What? Nick are you saying that whilst Jesus laid in the tomb for 3 days; he was at the same time, during these 3 days, alive preaching to the spirits in prison?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Please clarify.

August 1, 2006 at 9:27 pm#23264