- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 09 2010,00:13) Quote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,06:24) However, since Jesus is not God, but is the son of God, the true description of God should be the Biunity (Father and Holy Spirit).
Hello David,
I think you have comitted a fallacy of logic here, you've created a false dichotomy. Using this logic it could also be argued that Yeshua is not “man” because he is the “Son of man”.
Hi Is,This is more like it. At least someone referring to information submitted, thanks.
Let's look at “God” and “Man” referring to “son of:”
God is a specific person. Man is a group and not an individual. Technically he would be called the “son of Mary” and obviously Jesus is not Mary. God is the supreme being from which Jesus came FROM and obviously is not God of whom we talk about especially in reference to the Trinity. Also, son of Man is a title and not the act from where he descended FROM. But at least your conjecture had a point to it.The other concept presented is that Jesus is a “SON” which means he cannot be the “parents” from whom he came, could he? Logic is thrown out by Trinitarians when addressing the procreation (creation) of Jesus. Whether he is the “firstborn” or “only begotten” the disputers refuse to address the fact that Jesus is a created being by being a SON. And being a son I accept the fact displayed in Col 1:15 that he is the “firstborn” because a little while later it says that he is BEFORE all things as well as being the firstborn of all creation. And then it says after being the first “thing” created (born) he is the “vehicle” or “medium” THRU which God uses to create everything else. (God spoke it and Jesus effected it).
Next argument I can see from all this is that Jesus, as the WORD OF GOD will now be referred to as the “physical word” that came out of God's mouth instead of the position for which this TITLE is given for or even more bizarre we will address Jesus as a sheep since he is the Lamb of God. haha
The purpose behind the debate of the words “prototokos” and “arche” evades me other than someone is trying to cause division and dissention. The concept is that Jesus IS THE BEGINNING of all things created by God and as a SON the creation occurs thru the BEGATTING process (normally). It doesn't say HOW God begat Their son, only that he IS God's only begotten son and this son is the BEGINNING OF GOD'S CREATION (Rev 3:14)
What is won by changing “begotten” to “unique”? As firstborn he is obviously “preeminent” so why try to get around the fact that Jesus is the first of all of God's creation. Once you begin changing one verse then you have to change all of the other 100 where it talks about “firstborn” too. The debatters know that at times the speaker knows that someone isn't the physical firstborn but is SUBSTITUTING the second person for the first person who holds the actual physical position to make a point (and ironically the debatter knows exactly what the point is and knows the facts; but he debates anyway to show his vast knowledge or research capability).
Also since he is the son of God he is God-natured but not God and as son of Man he is human-natured.
The author of the site (yet unknown to me) wrote the difference between these two beautifully and in quite detail so I won't repeat it, but there is a difference between a specific person (God) and a generic group (man).
DavidPS My response above is how I interpreted your response even though the quote was addressing Biunity and Trinity specifically.
If you were talking about a dichotomy between these two words… after further research I decided to drop the concept behind the word Biunity because it is promoting homosexuality in Philadelphia, PA and feel it would not be received well. However, it IS a better description of the true essence of God since Jesus is not God; and after removing Jesus from the equation of the Trinity what remains is a Biunity of Father and Holy Spirit which agrees with Gen 1:27 when God created man, male and female in the image of God.
Quote (davidbfun @ July 06 2010,05:16) By definition God has no mother or father (or genealogy), or beginning of days nor end of life; so by definition this “person” must be God. Jesus has a Father and cannot be God. But Melchizedek who has neither has the characteristics of God.
If you answered “No” then who else could this person be? Don't say Jesus, please because you see his genealogy quite clearly in the Bible (Son of God; Son of (Mary) Man)
David
Greetings David….The geneology you see in the Bible traces Jesus from the beginning in the form of the Word…The geneology in Matt.shows us the carnality of Mary through the mention of all Jesus' siblings….Melchesedik was the high priest of Salem of which Abram tithed the spoils of war to…and he was the incarnation of the God Head….consisting of the Father,the Word (by which all things were created) and the Spirit (which is the power and essense of God the eternal)…..Let us not deminish the role that Jesus is to play in Gods plan for our salvation….Jesus was God made man,as part of the plan he was to be the sacrafice ( the Lamb) for the forgivness of sin….with out his sacrafice we would not have the ability to go before the Father and beg forgivness in his name….”If you have seen me you have seen the Father””in the beginning was the Word and Word was God””and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among men”…Your observation of Melchesedik proves that God has assumed the flesh once before and continues to instill his spirit in those (fleshly men) whom he calls….To all,
The answer to this poll seemed self evident if you know what a high priest is, that Melchizedek is a high priest, and the nature of God.
Melchizedek is a high priest as that is what scripture declares and it cannot be broken.
A high priest is the major proponent of his Deity and thus not the Deity in question.
God is the deity.
So anyone that believes the nonsense that a high priest is God needs to explain why one of those three premises in wrong.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 08 2010,11:13) Quote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,06:24) However, since Jesus is not God, but is the son of God, the true description of God should be the Biunity (Father and Holy Spirit).
Hello David,
I think you have comitted a fallacy of logic here, you've created a false dichotomy. Using this logic it could also be argued that Yeshua is not “man” because he is the “Son of man”.
There is one God and many men.A Greek deity is the son of a god but that false religion is polytheistic and so that is reasonable.
The trinity theory attempts to eliminate that polytheistic problem by concluding God is one individual with three separate personalities. Mind you, that is accusing him of having a mental disease but I suppose if you view it as natural for him to have three personalities you could say it is not a defect.
The point aside the most reasonable explanation of the term Son of God I can see from a Trinitarian's point of view is that one personality is descended from the primary personality. It would thus follow that earlier personality was younger than the primary one.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (kerwin @ July 10 2010,09:42) Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 08 2010,11:13) Quote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,06:24) However, since Jesus is not God, but is the son of God, the true description of God should be the Biunity (Father and Holy Spirit).
Hello David,
I think you have comitted a fallacy of logic here, you've created a false dichotomy. Using this logic it could also be argued that Yeshua is not “man” because he is the “Son of man”.
There is one God and many men.A Greek deity is the son of a god but that false religion is polytheistic and so that is reasonable.
The trinity theory attempts to eliminate that polytheistic problem by concluding God is one individual with three separate personalities. Mind you, that is accusing him of having a mental disease but I suppose if you view it as natural for him to have three personalities you could say it is not a defect.
The point aside the most reasonable explanation of the term Son of God I can see from a Trinitarian's point of view is that one personality is descended from the primary personality. It would thus follow that earlier personality was younger than the primary one.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Hello Kerwin,So who comprises your “one” God?
David B Fun,
Since his name is God I would have to say God but I do not think that is the answer you are looking for so I will attempt to answer your intent instead.
God is the righteous one who cannot be tempted by evil and so cannot do evil.
God can do anything except evil.
God knows all things past, future, or present.
God created everything.
God is all intelligent and wise.
Jesus is God's Son because he did not sin even though tempted as each and every human being is.
The Holy Spirit is more of a mystery to me so I do not want to speak of too confidence of it. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is an individual and I know it is not God though it may be a part of him in the same way my spirit is a part of me. It is the way God directly exerts his power which is why it hovered over creation and why he used it to enact the miracle of a virgin conception in Mary's womb.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Hi Everybody,
Melchizedek means King of Righteousness.
[מלך] Mĕh-lĕk means King and [צדיק] tzĕdĕk means righteous.Heb.6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,
made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
One must ask: what does “after the order of” mean here?According to Pastor Charles Jennings Melchizedek is a King/Priest office. (Click here for more)
The Book of Jasher is mentioned only twice in The Bible; once in Joshua 10:13 and again in 2Samuel 1:18.
The Book of Jasher has Shem as Melchizedek called Adonizedek meaning Lord(Adoni) of the Righteous.Jasher 16:11-12 And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem,
went out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine,
and they remained together in the valley of Melech. And Adonizedek blessed
Abram, and Abram gave him a tenth from all that he had brought from the spoil
of his enemies, for Adonizedek was a priest before God. (Compare Gen.14:18-20)Gen.14:18-20 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:
and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said,
Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies
into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. (Compare Jasher 16:11-12)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,15:38) Hi Barley, Usually I see people denying and negating a Bible verse by stating the verse was incorrectly translated and proceed to give the Greek or Hebrew word(s) and what it should mean. This is a first whereby I've seen the entire text negated by referring authoritatively to what “others point out” as “FACT”. “Others” have said that this Melchizedek is a theophany of Jesus BEFORE he was born as a man (does this mean what others say to be “true”?) Others have said that the information wasn't given was because the records were lost. Others even say that Melchizedek didn't even really exist and that this is only an office. So, let's go with what all of the others say and eliminate Melchizedek as a person, obscure his family life, and make a ballad for him as such a good soldier for God and then shout Hallelujah “Jesus” (sarcasm intended).
The author of Hebrews was quite articulate and verbose about the many subjects that he talks about but was quite succinct in defining Melchizedek, not allowing for opinions (or speculation).
God went to great lengths to give us explicit details of Melchizedek for a reason and you've just obliterated it by alluding to concepts (and individuals) that weren't even presented (i.e. good servant). It doesn't explicitly say that his mother and father aren't important so we won't talk about them; it says that he doesn't have a mother or father and to reiterate the point it says he has no genealogy (or descent); nor does it say to idolize him. Furthermore this “man” was so great that he didn't have a beginning or end and elsewhere it says that he is a priest perpetually meaning “forever” or in perpetuity. What “man”exists in perpetuity?
There was no reference on how well he served God or how he compared to others. It gives us his name, his kingdom, that he is a priest perpetually and the above mentioned “Facts” about him.
Again since Melchizedek doesn't die as explained in Hebrews (unlike the Levites) and that there is no need for another to serve in his place, and this person lives on in perpetuity….(again) what “MAN” is living forever?
Heb 5:10 and Heb 7:17 even states that Jesus is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek. Therefore Jesus is following after a “man” who hasn't died and won't die (but has been spiritualized).
It seems that many read what is written and change it to mean whatever they want it to mean and by whatever means is available to them.
Please forgive me Barley as I believe my frustration came to a boiling point with this post. I have been reading so many things at this site that are quite disturbing such as the Greek word debate over whether Jesus was the “firstborn” or “begotten” son and how all words are not what they mean and try to back their opinion up with scripture. I am just a dumb blonde that would like to read the Bible at face value without having to doubt if anything is correct.
I picked this subject and verse because I thought it was quite clear and had a simple answer “Yes” Melchizedek is God because of the characteristics of God that were given (no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days nor end of life). Now I see that people can rationalize away anything that is written with an analogy of their own devise.
David
Before you overreact, you might want to consider Hebrews 7:4, “Now consider how great this man was,…..”According to the plain and simple English word, man, Mel was a man. That is different from the word, God. Man is man, God is God.
God's word is simple, Mel was not God, Mel was a man.
Thanks for expressing your concerns.
Quote (barley @ July 10 2010,23:01) Quote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,15:38) Hi Barley, Usually I see people denying and negating a Bible verse by stating the verse was incorrectly translated and proceed to give the Greek or Hebrew word(s) and what it should mean. This is a first whereby I've seen the entire text negated by referring authoritatively to what “others point out” as “FACT”. “Others” have said that this Melchizedek is a theophany of Jesus BEFORE he was born as a man (does this mean what others say to be “true”?) Others have said that the information wasn't given was because the records were lost. Others even say that Melchizedek didn't even really exist and that this is only an office. So, let's go with what all of the others say and eliminate Melchizedek as a person, obscure his family life, and make a ballad for him as such a good soldier for God and then shout Hallelujah “Jesus” (sarcasm intended).
The author of Hebrews was quite articulate and verbose about the many subjects that he talks about but was quite succinct in defining Melchizedek, not allowing for opinions (or speculation).
God went to great lengths to give us explicit details of Melchizedek for a reason and you've just obliterated it by alluding to concepts (and individuals) that weren't even presented (i.e. good servant). It doesn't explicitly say that his mother and father aren't important so we won't talk about them; it says that he doesn't have a mother or father and to reiterate the point it says he has no genealogy (or descent); nor does it say to idolize him. Furthermore this “man” was so great that he didn't have a beginning or end and elsewhere it says that he is a priest perpetually meaning “forever” or in perpetuity. What “man”exists in perpetuity?
There was no reference on how well he served God or how he compared to others. It gives us his name, his kingdom, that he is a priest perpetually and the above mentioned “Facts” about him.
Again since Melchizedek doesn't die as explained in Hebrews (unlike the Levites) and that there is no need for another to serve in his place, and this person lives on in perpetuity….(again) what “MAN” is living forever?
Heb 5:10 and Heb 7:17 even states that Jesus is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek. Therefore Jesus is following after a “man” who hasn't died and won't die (but has been spiritualized).
It seems that many read what is written and change it to mean whatever they want it to mean and by whatever means is available to them.
Please forgive me Barley as I believe my frustration came to a boiling point with this post. I have been reading so many things at this site that are quite disturbing such as the Greek word debate over whether Jesus was the “firstborn” or “begotten” son and how all words are not what they mean and try to back their opinion up with scripture. I am just a dumb blonde that would like to read the Bible at face value without having to doubt if anything is correct.
I picked this subject and verse because I thought it was quite clear and had a simple answer “Yes” Melchizedek is God because of the characteristics of God that were given (no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days nor end of life). Now I see that people can rationalize away anything that is written with an analogy of their own devise.
David
Before you overreact, you might want to consider Hebrews 7:4, “Now consider how great this man was,…..”According to the plain and simple English word, man, Mel was a man. That is different from the word, God. Man is man, God is God.
God's word is simple, Mel was not God, Mel was a man.
Thanks for expressing your concerns.
I love your logic. By this same logic Jesus cannot be God because the man, Jesus, is a mediator between God and man.We read that no man has seen God at any time…..
Gen 3:8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden…..hid themselves from the presence of LORD God…Is the Bible lying (God forbid) or is there differences between God (Elohim) and LORD God (YHVH Elohim)…and unfortunately in Greek there isn't the same distinction as can be seen in Hebrew…which causes much confusion and a lot of debates.
What would you say the appearance of LORD God would be? Couldn't be spirit as you can't see spirit. If He had a body, you would most likely say “man”, no?
Who sacrificed the animal to cover Adam and Eve? YHVH Elohim
Who received tithes from Cain and Abel? YHVH
Who married Adam and Eve? Unstated but they were man and wife.
Who is a perpetual priest? (Melchizedek; for all of the above because he is YHVH and God The Father as well as King and Priest).Why the double naming, YHVH Elohim (LORD God) other than to specify the male essence of Elohim versus the combined essences of Elohim?
IF Elohim consists of two essences (male and female) THEN the male essence is YHVH (God The Father) and the female essence is The Holy Spirit (noun, fem).
Trinitarians go awry when they add God's son to God's being. The son came later in time and did not always exist with God but came FROM God and therefore cannot be God in ANY form. Take away the son of God from the Godhead and you have a correct view of God.
God (Elohim) exists in two essences and created man in God's image (male and female) Gen 1:27. Men and women beget children (we copy the actions done in Heaven).
Continuing with the two essences of Elohim….if the male essence decides to make a departure from the combined being of Elohim and clothes Himself (individually) with a body and the body looked liked His son (son of God) would we not call him a man in physical description? However, the reiteration of “this man” indicates that He had a physical body and not a “spirit”.
(Jesus when he was physically apart from his parents for 3 days told them that he had to be in his Father's house; a temple and his Father is a priest….hearing our prayers)
The Bible is correct when no man has seen God (Elohim-Spirit) but men have seen YHVH Elohim, and to me this is Melchizedek. What do you call a King but LORD? Who sits on the throne but a King? Who will sit at the right hand of YHVH other than the Prince of Peace? Who is mediator between man and God but the man, Jesus, who is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek and enters into the “holy of holies” in the temple in Heaven? Who does the Father and son serve but God Most High (Elohim)?
The Father served Elohim while the son served mankind and now the son is serving Elohim as priest on behalf of mankind; and we receive our kingship and priesthood following after Jesus (according to the Order of Melchizedek)….which in reality is serving God Most High.
This is the work of God that you believe in him (JC) whom God has sent.
The scenario I described to you above comes from the Bible and makes complete sense without having to make up excuses like, “You have to accept what I say by 'faith'” or God's ways are higher than our ways and you cannot understand God,” etc.
The “Chain of Command” is clear:
Elohim: God Most High (Combined essences; M/F) =
YHVH (Male) & Holy Spirit (Female) (Individual essences)
Son of God/Man (Is NOT God)
Mankind
IF mankind wants to go to God THEN we must go thru Jesus, son of Go
d (Lamb of God = Savior).The Bible says that God created everything THRU Jesus and therefore Jesus is also our Creator as well as our Savior but not our God whom he came from.
Creation is an ACT of God and not a CHARACTERISTIC.
Adoration and worship is an ACT of man ordered by God to be given to His son because He exalted him to that position.Jesus said that all power and authority has been GIVEN to me…(If he was God THEN he would've already had ALL Power, etc and couldn't be GIVEN anything) therefore he would've had to receive this from God.
Enough to think about, no?
have a wonderful night,
DavidHi DFB,
The Spirit of God creates.[Ps104]
That Spirit inspired the prophets.[1peter1]
The Spirit of God and now the lord is the Spirit.[2Cor3]Quote (davidbfun @ July 10 2010,17:09) Quote (barley @ July 10 2010,23:01) Quote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,15:38) Hi Barley, Usually I see people denying and negating a Bible verse by stating the verse was incorrectly translated and proceed to give the Greek or Hebrew word(s) and what it should mean. This is a first whereby I've seen the entire text negated by referring authoritatively to what “others point out” as “FACT”. “Others” have said that this Melchizedek is a theophany of Jesus BEFORE he was born as a man (does this mean what others say to be “true”?) Others have said that the information wasn't given was because the records were lost. Others even say that Melchizedek didn't even really exist and that this is only an office. So, let's go with what all of the others say and eliminate Melchizedek as a person, obscure his family life, and make a ballad for him as such a good soldier for God and then shout Hallelujah “Jesus” (sarcasm intended).
The author of Hebrews was quite articulate and verbose about the many subjects that he talks about but was quite succinct in defining Melchizedek, not allowing for opinions (or speculation).
God went to great lengths to give us explicit details of Melchizedek for a reason and you've just obliterated it by alluding to concepts (and individuals) that weren't even presented (i.e. good servant). It doesn't explicitly say that his mother and father aren't important so we won't talk about them; it says that he doesn't have a mother or father and to reiterate the point it says he has no genealogy (or descent); nor does it say to idolize him. Furthermore this “man” was so great that he didn't have a beginning or end and elsewhere it says that he is a priest perpetually meaning “forever” or in perpetuity. What “man”exists in perpetuity?
There was no reference on how well he served God or how he compared to others. It gives us his name, his kingdom, that he is a priest perpetually and the above mentioned “Facts” about him.
Again since Melchizedek doesn't die as explained in Hebrews (unlike the Levites) and that there is no need for another to serve in his place, and this person lives on in perpetuity….(again) what “MAN” is living forever?
Heb 5:10 and Heb 7:17 even states that Jesus is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek. Therefore Jesus is following after a “man” who hasn't died and won't die (but has been spiritualized).
It seems that many read what is written and change it to mean whatever they want it to mean and by whatever means is available to them.
Please forgive me Barley as I believe my frustration came to a boiling point with this post. I have been reading so many things at this site that are quite disturbing such as the Greek word debate over whether Jesus was the “firstborn” or “begotten” son and how all words are not what they mean and try to back their opinion up with scripture. I am just a dumb blonde that would like to read the Bible at face value without having to doubt if anything is correct.
I picked this subject and verse because I thought it was quite clear and had a simple answer “Yes” Melchizedek is God because of the characteristics of God that were given (no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days nor end of life). Now I see that people can rationalize away anything that is written with an analogy of their own devise.
David
Before you overreact, you might want to consider Hebrews 7:4, “Now consider how great this man was,…..”According to the plain and simple English word, man, Mel was a man. That is different from the word, God. Man is man, God is God.
God's word is simple, Mel was not God, Mel was a man.
Thanks for expressing your concerns.
I love your logic. By this same logic Jesus cannot be God because the man, Jesus, is a mediator between God and man.We read that no man has seen God at any time…..
Gen 3:8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden…..hid themselves from the presence of LORD God…Is the Bible lying (God forbid) or is there differences between God (Elohim) and LORD God (YHVH Elohim)…and unfortunately in Greek there isn't the same distinction as can be seen in Hebrew…which causes much confusion and a lot of debates.
What would you say the appearance of LORD God would be? Couldn't be spirit as you can't see spirit. If He had a body, you would most likely say “man”, no?
Who sacrificed the animal to cover Adam and Eve? YHVH Elohim
Who received tithes from Cain and Abel? YHVH
Who married Adam and Eve? Unstated but they were man and wife.
Who is a perpetual priest? (Melchizedek; for all of the above because he is YHVH and God The Father as well as King and Priest).Why the double naming, YHVH Elohim (LORD God) other than to specify the male essence of Elohim versus the combined essences of Elohim?
IF Elohim consists of two essences (male and female) THEN the male essence is YHVH (God The Father) and the female essence is The Holy Spirit (noun, fem).
Trinitarians go awry when they add God's son to God's being. The son came later in time and did not always exist with God but came FROM God and therefore cannot be God in ANY form. Take away the son of God from the Godhead and you have a correct view of God.
God (Elohim) exists in two essences and created man in God's image (male and female) Gen 1:27. Men and women beget children (we copy the actions done in Heaven).
Continuing with the two essences of Elohim….if the male essence decides to make a departure from the combined being of Elohim and clothes Himself (individually) with a body and the body looked liked His son (son of God) would we not call him a man in physical description? However, the reiteration of “this man” indicates that He had a physical body and not a “spirit”.
(Jesus when he was physically apart from his parents for 3 days told them that he had to be in his Father's house; a temple and his Father is a priest….hearing our prayers)
The Bible is correct when no man has seen God (Elohim-Spirit) but men have seen YHVH Elohim, and to me this is Melchizedek. What do you call a King but LORD? Who sits on the throne but a King? Who will sit at the right hand of YHVH other than the Prince of Peace? Who is mediator between man and God but the man, Jesus, who is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek and enters into the “holy of holies” in the temple in Heaven? Who does the Father and son serve but God Most High (Elohim)?
The Father served Elohim while the son served mankind and now the son is serving Elohim as priest on behalf of mankind; and we receive our kingship and priesthood following after Jesus (according to the Order of Melchizedek)….which in reality is serving God Most High.
This is the work of God that you believe in him (JC) whom God has sent.
The scenario I described to you above comes from the Bible and makes complete sense without having to make up excuses like, “You have to accept what I say by 'faith'” or God's ways are higher than our ways and you cannot understand God,” etc.
The “Chain of Command” is clear:
Elohim: God Most High (Combine
d essences; M/F) =YHVH (Male) & Holy Spirit (Female) (Individual essences)
Son of God/Man (Is NOT God)
Mankind
IF mankind wants to go to God THEN we must go thru Jesus, son of God (Lamb of God = Savior).
The Bible says that God created everything THRU Jesus and therefore Jesus is also our Creator as well as our Savior but not our God whom he came from.
Creation is an ACT of God and not a CHARACTERISTIC.
Adoration and worship is an ACT of man ordered by God to be given to His son because He exalted him to that position.Jesus said that all power and authority has been GIVEN to me…(If he was God THEN he would've already had ALL Power, etc and couldn't be GIVEN anything) therefore he would've had to receive this from God.
Enough to think about, no?
have a wonderful night,
David
It is logical yes, that since Jesus Christ is a man, that he is not God.More importantly, though, is that the scripture says that he is a man, as distinct from God, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” I Timothy 2:5
That verse makes it clear that Christ Jesus, is a man, distinct from God.
You wrote:
Is the Bible lying (God forbid) or is there differences between God (Elohim) and LORD God (YHVH Elohim)…and unfortunately in Greek there isn't the same distinction as can be seen in Hebrew…which causes much confusion and a lot of debates.God has given Himself many names in order to help people understand who He is. Elohim carries the thought of God as creator. Jehovah carries the thought of God as ruler over His creation. El Shaddai carries the thought of the mighty one who provides abundantly for his people, (among other things) Father, the Holy Spirit, I am the Lord that heals you, I am the Lord that is your banner, etc. All of them teach us more about who God is. (And who he isn't, for instance, God,is the Lord, the Jehovah, that heals, therefore He is not the one who brings sickness upon people)
Most people in the US have several names, the first middle and last, besides nicknames, etc. All the same person, but different names are useful in different situations.
God has revealed His will to mankind in various ways at different times. Hebrews 1:1-2. Likewise, we must remember that what is spirit is spirit and what is flesh is flesh, and like wise, the flesh is unprofitable.
God has revealed himself by sending messengers, ie, angels. God used a burning bush to get Moses attention. It worked. God had the mountain with smoke and thunderings to impress upon the children of Israel His greatness. Even Moses did exceedingly fear and quake at the sight.
God has given to His men and women, the spirit upon them, in order to communicate with them. God has communicated to mankind via the prophets.
God gave the appearance of an ass talking to get one man's attention.
God does any thing and everything He can to communicate to mankind His love and goodness. He is limited by us, if we believe, the windows open, if we don't we limit God.
Adam and Eve were aware of God's presence in the garden. Of course, God is everywhere, so his personal presence is not an issue. Moses was attracted to a burning bush so that the angel of the Lord, (God sent an angel to talk with Mo) would tell Moses what God wanted said. So there was a clue to A and E, that God wanted to communicate to them while they were in the garden… What that clue was, I don't know.
God is spirit, John 4:24. There is no male or female parts to God.
We need to bring ourselves up to the level of scripture and not bring scripture down to our level..
The image of God is spirit, specifically, He is the Holy Spirit. A and E were created in God's image, not our image. Man's body was formed of the dust of the ground. God is not dust, God is spirit. Likewise man did not become a living soul until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Genesis 2:7.
We must read what the word, the logos, the scriptures teach, then we have something to work with. Believers are a three part being, see I Thessalonians 5:23. Body, soul, and spirit. It is the spirit part that God created in His own image. Spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Spirit can communicate with spirit. That is why God has given believers spirit..
God communicated to the prophets because they had the spirit upon them.
Enough.
Mel was a high priest to God. Since Mel was a man, that would work. If Mel was God, is then God his own high priest? Would God be making sacrifices to Himself? Is God guilty of self-worship? We need to stop and think about the implications of the decisions we make, we may want to change our minds.
Barley,
Once again you speak well, but once again, 9 out of 10. A full point loss because, “God is not the Holy Spirit”.The Holy Spirit is 'Of God' and 'From God'.
Maybe that's what you meant to say but nonetheless you said 'God is the Holy Spirit'.
See, Barley, left like that, you open the doorway to 'Trinitatianism'.
All is (not read in full depth) seems good.
Quote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,00:32) Barley, …”God is not the Holy Spirit”. …
Hi JustAskin,Speaking 'your' opinion doesn't make it somehow become fact? (Click Here)
Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEDJ,
Where is the “My Opinion” in what I said.
it is you who are doing the “Opinion”.
The Spirit “OF” God. Something that is “OF” something is not that thing itself.
Is the “Hair of the Dog” the Dog itself. Can the “Hair of the Dog” bark, bite, growl, procreate?
Is the Front door OF the house, the House. Is the Child of the King The King himself.
Please explain – you have me at a loss as to your logic or reasoning over this.
Quote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,10:05) EDJ, Where is the “My Opinion” in what I said.
it is you who are doing the “Opinion”.
The Spirit “OF” God. Something that is “OF” something is not that thing itself.
Is the “Hair of the Dog” the Dog itself. Can the “Hair of the Dog” bark, bite, growl, procreate?
Is the Front door OF the house, the House. Is the Child of the King The King himself.
Please explain – you have me at a loss as to your logic or reasoning over this.
Hi JustAskin,Quote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,00:32) “God is not the Holy Spirit”.
“HolySpirit is “GOD: The Father” of Jesus Christ”! (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
Bring the current discussion to the appropriate thread, and I will be glad to discourse with you!
Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » Scripture & Biblical Doctrine » HolySpirit is “GOD: The Father” of Jesus ChristEd J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,00:32) Barley,
Once again you speak well, but once again, 9 out of 10. A full point loss because, “God is not the Holy Spirit”.The Holy Spirit is 'Of God' and 'From God'.
Maybe that's what you meant to say but nonetheless you said 'God is the Holy Spirit'.
See, Barley, left like that, you open the doorway to 'Trinitatianism'.
All is (not read in full depth) seems good.
I appreciate your concerns… There is nothing in the scriptures that teach a trinity as being right doctrine. Nor is there anything in the scriptures that teaches that Jesus Christ is the God. However, God has called the prophet Moses a god, likewise others who had the authority from God to represent him. Paraphrasing, “If God calls them, by whom the word of God came, gods, are you offended that I am the son of God?” John 10:34-36One of the many names that God uses to name himself is the Holy Spirit. It serves to help describe His nature.. God is spirit, John 4:24 and God is holy. It takes no stretch of imagination or scripture to understand that God is the Holy Spirit.
This is simple logic. You are JustAskin, that is a name you chose for yourself because it describes one of your attributes. You ask. I am sure there is more to you than that. Say your occupation is a carpenter. You are a carpenter who is just askin. No stretch of logic. Let us also say you enjoy water skiing. Being a carpenter and a water skier and being JustAskin does not make you a trinity. God describes his attributes in many passages of scripture. See Psalm 18:1,2. God is a rock, a fortress, a high tower, a buckler, to name a few. Does this make God 3+4, a sevenity? No. God is not a trinity, God is not a sevenity. God is one, himself, who, let's say, is multi-talented.
God is spirit and God is holy, God is love, God is light. We are certainly not talking about four separate beings, this is four assets of one God. God is loving, lightful, holy Spirit. My English falls way short.Let us look at a few scriptures that would indicate that God considers himself as having these two qualities of holy and spirit.
Matthew 1:18 … she was found with child of Holy Spirit. Who is the father of Jesus Christ? God!
Likewise Matthew 1:20
Acts 5:3, they lied to God, Peter called them on it. How did Peter know? God told him.
Acts 7:51, they always resisted God.
Acts 8:29, God told Philip
Acts 10:19 God told Peter
Acts 13:2 God told them to separate Paul and Barnabas.
Acts 15:28, God was giving the guidance in this situation.
Acts 21:11. Thus saith God.
I am thrilled that you have recognized that God has given holy spirit, as you say, of God and from God.
I am not a Greek scholar, but evidently the word for “the” does not always appear in front of the words, pneuma and hagion. With the article the, the Holy Spirit refers to God, generally speaking. with out the article the, holy spirit refers to the gift of eternal life. God gave us of his divine nature, we are partakers of His divine nature. II Peter 1:4. How? by giving to us something that is of or from God that imparts to us His nature of being spirit and being holy, the gift of holy spirit. Acts 2:38, the gift of or from God, who is the Holy Spirit.
See also John 7:39, “(But this spake he of the spirit, which they which believe on him should receive, for the holy ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)” There is a gift which is holy spirit, which the Holy Spirit give to them which believe.
If people would recognize that God is the Holy Spirit who gives the gift of holy spirit, much confusion would be eliminated. Jesus Christ taught that, if ye fathers being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall the Father give the holy spirit to them that ask, (demand),
Was God going to give God to them that ask or does he give the gift of (which is) holy spirit, or if you prefer, the gift which is of or from the Holy Spirit? God enabled us to be partakers of two of his greatest attributes by giving the gift of holy spirit
Please give this some thought, I believe that you will find, as I have, that this subject,once understood with some depth, clearly refutes the notion of a trinity, not supports it.
This answer may have been more than you bargained for. There is much much more that can be learned on this subject.
Thanks for bringing up your concerns.
Quote (barley @ July 11 2010,12:33) One of the many names that God uses to name himself is the Holy Spirit. It serves to help describe His nature.. God is spirit, John 4:24 and God is holy. It takes no stretch of imagination or scripture to understand that God is the Holy Spirit.
That's an interesting hypothesis but I'm not sure it can be defended. I'll list a few passage that appear to challenge the notion, to show you what I mean. I have a few questions for you too, which I hope you don't mind answering…I'll start with Romans 8:9-11:
Romans 8:9-11
9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.Note the two titles “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” are used interchangeably and equated by Paul in this passage. I assume you don't hold that the Father is properly referred to as “Christ” by Paul (if you do, I'd like to hear your rationale!). Therefore if the Holy Spirit is the Father Himself why is the Spirit of Christ mentioned at all in the context of this (overtly salvic) passage? Also, how do you reconcile this passage with the clear NT teaching that only ONE spirit indwells believers (Romans 8:9 cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 2:18, Ephesians 4:4-6)?
Later in the chapter this is affirmed:
Romans 8:26-27
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.The Spirit “intercedes” on our behalf. Who does He intercede to (note: Romans 8:34 details that Yeshua intercedes for us too, so it's obviously not Him)? Wouldn't it, by default, be directed TO the Father? This conclusion seems to make sense. So to affirm that The Holy Spirit is the Father Himself you must hold that The Father (Who is Spirit) makes intercession by His Spirit TO HIMSELF…..which is the very essence of confusion is it not?. Also it's germane to point out that the Spirit does this “according to the will of God”, would this affirmation not be the redundant if the Spirit in view is the Father? Logically – how could He not do something according to HIS OWN will??
Moving onto John….
John 16:7
7″But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.Yeshua here speaking of the “helper” declared that He will send “Him”. But isn't it the Father that does the sending? Does this verse not connote a subservience on the part of the Father to the Son? If this is a reference of the Father – then to my mind this affirmation would run counter to the clearly defined line of authority from the Father to Son. This theme is revisted and amplified in vss 13 and 14:
John 16:13-14
13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.Why would the Father not speak on His own initiative? And Why would He need to “take of” Yeshua in order to disclose it to us. These are more evidences of an expressed subservience to the Son IMO. How do you explain this passage?
In Galatians 4:6, we read that the Holy Spirit indwelling believers cries out “Abba! Father!”
Galatians 4:6
6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!“Three BIG questions are raised here. Bearing in mind that only ONE spirit indwells believers (Romans 8:9 cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 2:18, Ephesians 4:4-6), why is the Father described with the phrase “Spirit of His Son“? Does this passage not describe the Father sending HIMSELF?!? And….why does the Father cry out “Abba, Father” to Himself? How absurd.
You can see how perplexing your conclusion is when scrutinised in the light of some NT teachings. Maybe you could unpack this for us Barley?
Hello again David. Hope you're well.
Quote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,23:11) Let's look at “God” and “Man” referring to “son of:”God is a specific person. Man is a group and not an individual. Technically he would be called the “son of Mary” and obviously Jesus is not Mary.
I think you contradicted yourself when you made these two statements:1. “God is a specific person.”
2. “God is the supreme being….”Which is true? Either the term “God” refers to an individual person or it denotes an ontological category (e.g. as it applies to “human being“), you can't have it both ways David. Can you clarify for me how you meant me to understand the term when you wrote “However, since Jesus is not God, but is the son of God….”? I took you to mean the former but as you yourself have unintentionally shown it properly means the later.
Quote God is the supreme being from which Jesus came FROM and obviously is not God of whom we talk about especially in reference to the Trinity. Also, son of Man is a title and not the act from where he descended FROM. But at least your conjecture had a point to it.
Can you give me an explicit statement in the Bible affirming the being “God” is unipersonal?Quote The other concept presented is that Jesus is a “SON” which means he cannot be the “parents” from whom he came, could he? Logic is thrown out by Trinitarians when addressing the procreation (creation) of Jesus. Whether he is the “firstborn” or “only begotten” the disputers refuse to address the fact that Jesus is a created being by being a SON.
You've made the assumption that Yeshua is the Son of God in only one, very specific sense. But in Jewish thinking the phrase has more than one application. For instance in Mark 3:17 James and John are called “sons of thunder”. Quite obviously this does not denote they are the progeny of an meteorological phenonemon. Similarly, in John 17:12 Judas is described as a “son of perdition”. Again no sound thinking person is going to ascribe a reproductive sense to the use of this phrase. “Son of” in both examples properly refers to the nature of those people. Yeshua existed in the “form” of God and is the exact representation of the Father's nature (hypostasis). He has a divine nature so it stands to reason that “Son of God” would be used of him to express this sentiment.Quote And being a son I accept the fact displayed in Col 1:15 that he is the “firstborn” because a little while later it says that he is BEFORE all things as well as being the firstborn of all creation. And then it says after being the first “thing” created (born) he is the “vehicle” or “medium” THRU which God uses to create everything else. (God spoke it and Jesus effected it).
If by firstborn you mean “preeminent over” then yes, I agree. Hebrews 1:3 affirms Yeshua “upholds all things by the word of His power”. If He has the power to uphold (sustain) all of creation He most assuredly has the power to bring it into existence.Quote Next argument I can see from all this is that Jesus, as the WORD OF GOD will now be referred to as the “physical word” that came out of God's mouth instead of the position for which this TITLE is given for or even more bizarre we will address Jesus as a sheep since he is the Lamb of God. haha
I'm not sure the word logos, as it's applied to Yeshua by John denotes speech at all. The Greek word “rhema” (also translated as word) is a better word choice if “utterance” is the intended meaning. I think it's more likely a borrowed concept from Greek philosophy. The Greeks understand logos to mean the impersonal, rational, ordering principle of the universe (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9048773). To them the logos made sense of the order they saw in the universe. John, however, appears to modify its connotation (especially in John 1:1).Although it likely retained some of the Greek’s inherent meaning, it also conveyed something very personal in nature.Quote The purpose behind the debate of the words “prototokos” and “arche” evades me other than someone is trying to cause division and dissention.
I think in the case of “prototokos” it's a debate worth having. It's a key plank in the Yeshua is eternal vs. temporal argument.Quote The concept is that Jesus IS THE BEGINNING of all things created by God and as a SON the creation occurs thru the BEGATTING process (normally).
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you pressing the Watchtower argument that the logos was the first creature made by God? There is not a single verse in the scripture to substantiate this, just a few verse used out of context. Moreover, where in the Bible is the term begotten (or a variation thereof) applied to Yeshua in a preincarnation context? I don't think it's ever used that way.Quote It doesn't say HOW God begat Their son, only that he IS God's only begotten son and this son is the BEGINNING OF GOD'S CREATION (Rev 3:14)
I understand Monogenes to refer to uniqueness, when it's applied to Yeshua it properly mean He is one of a kind. Arche in Revelation, I think, refers to primacy, priority of rank.Quote What is won by changing “begotten” to “unique”?
You've invoked a false dilemma here. Has monogenes been “changed” to unique? No. That's the definition of the word.Definition
single of its kind, only
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/monogenes.htmlQuote As firstborn he is obviously “preeminent” so why try to get around the fact that Jesus is the first of all of God's creation.
If by this you mean Yeshua was the first creation of God – you've made an unsubstantiated assertion. The Arians here are continually asked to provide the requisite proof for this doctrine a
nd I am yet to see any.Quote Once you begin changing one verse then you have to change all of the other 100 where it talks about “firstborn” too.
Firstly, a small correction – monogenes is used only 9 times in the New Testament. It occurs 5 times in the Greek Old Testament (septuagint). Secondly, I haven't changed a verse.Quote The debatters know that at times the speaker knows that someone isn't the physical firstborn but is SUBSTITUTING the second person for the first person who holds the actual physical position to make a point (and ironically the debatter knows exactly what the point is and knows the facts; but he debates anyway to show his vast knowledge or research capability).
I can't make sense of this David. Can you clarify?Quote Also since he is the son of God he is God-natured but not God and as son of Man he is human-natured.
On what basis do you dichotomise nature and identity? To assert that one being confers nature to another via reproductive generation (which is implied in your statements) is to uphold equivalency in ontology, not disparity. One being cannot legitimately “beget” a lesser being (i.e. a clone), can it? As the biblical principal ‘like begets like kind’ dictates if The Father generated the Son in a procreative act they (the begettor and begetton) would be identical in their nature, therefore they would belong in the same metaphysical class of being (“God”). A human cannot legitimately beget another being that is less than human, right? So on what basis does this same biblical principal not apply to God? The rationale is inconsistent and confusing to me.Quote The author of the site (yet unknown to me) wrote the difference between these two beautifully and in quite detail so I won't repeat it, but there is a difference between a specific person (God) and a generic group (man).
David
He he, your appeal to the author of this site's writings is not going to persuade me of anything. I agree with almost none of his christology. Actually I critiqued the acticle I think you're citing here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….75;st=0Quote PS My response above is how I interpreted your response even though the quote was addressing Biunity and Trinity specifically. If you were talking about a dichotomy between these two words… after further research I decided to drop the concept behind the word Biunity because it is promoting homosexuality in Philadelphia, PA and feel it would not be received well. However, it IS a better description of the true essence of God since Jesus is not God; and after removing Jesus from the equation of the Trinity what remains is a Biunity of Father and Holy Spirit which agrees with Gen 1:27 when God created man, male and female in the image of God.
I meant that your usage of the title son of God presupposed a reproductive meaning and its application to Yeshua implied He was inferior in His ontology relative to the Father. As I mentioned above I don't think this position holds up to scrutiny and I see no reason to understand the terms “God” and “Son of God” as being anthithetical at all.Blessings
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
