Mikeboll64 vs. the thinker (Kangaroo Jack)

[KangarooJack]

thethinker said:

Quote

Paul had just said that Christ existed “in the FORM of God.” This means that he was God.

 

Mike replied:

Quote

It most certainly does not!

It most certainly does say that Jesus was God:

VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY:

Quote

The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, form of a servant.' It is UNIVERSALLY admitted that the two phrases are antithetical, and that the word 'form' must therefore have the SAME SENSE in both. p. 124

A. T. ROBERTSON:

Quote

Being (uparcwn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of uparcw. In the form of God (en morph qeou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ…. The form of a servant (morphn doulou). He took the characteristic attributes (morphn as in verse Revelation 6 ) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity. In the likeness of men (en omoiwmati anqrwpwn). It was a likeness, but a real likeness (Kennedy), no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between uparcwn (eternal existence in the morph of God) and genomeno (second aorist middle participle of ginomai, becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity).

http://www.biblestudytools.com/comment….-6.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/comment….-7.html

Are you going to go against all scholarship Mike? And if so then show your Greek credentials. You said that you are here to learn. How can this be true if you go against all the Greek scholars?

“FORM” OF GOD = TRUE GOD
“FORM” OF SERVANT = TRUE MAN

What about this do you not understand dude?

Mike:

Quote

If Christ was indeed God, why didn't Paul say, “Christ existed as God…but then lowered himself?”

What! That is EXACTLY what Paul said! He said that Christ existed in the form of God but then “made Himself nothing”.

Mike:

Quote

Do you see that the Son is one person, who will be made subject to God, another separate person.  I know you believe that your Godhead is 3 separate persons, but does it sound like equality when one is made subject to the other?

I thought you have been folowing the threads here. WJ and I have answered this a zillion times! Was Christ subject when Paul wrote those words? Answer: NO! He said that the Son “WILL BE” subject. And did Paul say that the Father will force the Son to deliever up the kingdom and become subject? Answer: No! The Son was to WILLINGLY subject Himself again like He did in the beginning.

Mike:

Quote

“an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.”  Hmmm…NO God but ONE.  But who is that ONE God?

God is a PLURAL one. We have been over this already. See my previous comments to you on the “US” in Genesis 1:26. Note also that the same word “one” is used in Ephesians 2 where it says that the TWO (Jew and Gentile) are made into “ONE new man” (Ephesians 2:16). Paul said also that we are MANY but ONE body (1 Corinthians 12).

Thethinker said:

Quote

The Bible does not say that everything comes from the Father.  Show from the Bible that EVERYTHING comes from the Father.

Mike replied:

Quote

“from whom ALL things came”  Good enough?

First, you totally ignored Matthew 11:27 which I gave you. It says that the Son reveals the Father to men. So the knowledge of the Father comes from Jesus!

Second, the expression “from whom are all things” in reference to the Father is speaking specifically about meats offered unto idols. Paul was defending the freedom of the Christian to eat meats offered unto idols because “all things” (foods) come from the Father. Then he says that not all Christians have this knowledge and that to them the meats cannot be eaten. So to some Christians not all foods come from the Father.

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with salvation in particular. Keep it in context!

The scriptures are CLEAR that Jesus Christ is the source of eternal salvation:

9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him Heb. 5:9

Jesus Christ gives eternal life:

27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. John 10:27-28

Jesus Christ reveals the Father to men:

27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Matthew 11:27

Try again Mike.

thethinker said:

Quote

It says that His Father's comand was that He lay down His life of His own.

Mike replied:

Quote

I already explained this but you put a funny graphic after my explanation.

You “explained” it alright. You explained it AWAY.
Jesus CLEARLY said that the Father wanted an obedience that was not forced. He said, “My Father loves Me because I lay down My life of Myself.” Jesus did not have to die for us if He did not want to. He CLEARLY said that if He had asked the Father to deliver Him that He would have sent twelve legions of angels. This means that Jesus VOLUNTARILY obeyed and did the Father's will.

What about this do you not understand?

Mike:

Quote

Do you even hear what you're saying?  You said in essence, “The Father COMMANDED Jesus to do something and Jesus voluntarily OBEYED.”  Who commands Jehovah to do anything?  Who does Jehovah obey – even voluntarily?

Yes that's what I said and I mean it. The Son obeyed on the ideal level which is based SOLELY in love. Again, the Father would have sent Him twelve legions of angels to deliver Him if He had chosen not to do His Father's will. If Jesus would have chosen His own will the Father would have delivered and not punished Him. What does this tell you?

You do not know the Father and the Son do you? You view their relationship on the human level.

Mike:

Quote

Nobody, including Jesus MUST obey Jehovah.  It is a choice.

Except if Jesus would have chosen His own will the Father would have rescued Him. But if I choose my own will I suffer consequences.

Mike:

Quote

And the Genesis “us” is in line with the rest of the Scriptures that say that everything came from God through Jesus.  It doesn't say how – God and Jesus could have deliberated for a billion years before creating the first angel.  They could have took turns picking shapes and colors of their creations.  God could have just said, “Son, I give you the power and authority – create what you wish.”  But if by reading, “Let us make man in our image.”, you think that Jesus must have been God, then wouldn't man be God too?  And if man is made in their image and is not God, why would Jesus have to be God because he shares his “image” with God?

Your whole statement is nonsense! God said, “let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.” The it says, So God created man in HIS own image. Therefore, man was created in the image of the PLURAL God!

Mike:

Quote

I'll put it in another way, just so you can't pretend you don't know what I'm asking.  Jesus is like a “filter”.  We can't directly talk to God anymore, so we “filter” our prayers and pettitions through Jesus, who then passes them on to God.

Praying “through” Jesus was not the ONLY way. Stephen did not “filter” His prayer through Jesus. He prayed TO JESUS HIMSELF and asked Him to forgive those who stoned him (Acts 7). The apostle John said that if we believe in the name of the Son of God we may pray directly to Him

13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him. 1 John 5:13-15

The apostle John CLEARLY said that if we believe in the name of the Son of God that we should have the confidence to pray to Him. John said that if we pray according to His will that He will give us what we ask.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Jesus is not the God of Israel or his own God.
Since he is the one we follow nothing else matters.
The rest is irrelevant theological and philosphical theory

[942767]

Hi thethinker:

You quote the following apparently from A. T. Robertson that he says:

Quote

In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him.

He may be an excellent scholar, but I don't believe that he can support this statement with scripture.
This is purely supposition.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Let's get something straight.  “Who, being in the form of God” doesn't anywhere say “Jesus was God.”

You said:

Quote

It most certainly does say that Jesus was God:

I think your statement would have been more accurate if you said, “I understand it to mean that Jesus was God.”  Now I could probably go to non-trinity wells of information and find scholars to say the exact opposite of what your scholars say.  But then you would find scholars to say my scholars don't know what they're talking about and so on and so on.

So I will try to defend my beliefs with Scripture and the common sense God gave me.   Because after all, none of our scholars were there when Paul lived and none of them can say for sure exactly what Paul meant.  I will, however, say to your scholar's findings:  So what?  They say:

1.  

Quote

Christ possessed the attributes of God

Hebrews 1 says:

Quote

3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being,

And Colossians 1 says:

Quote

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Both of those Scriptures imply exactly what you scholars said.  But neither of those Scriptures mean that Jesus is God Almighty or even equal with Him.  In fact, Colossians says Jesus was the firstborn of all creation.  Was Jehovah born or created?  No.  And John calls him the Only Begotten God.  Jehovah God Almighty has no beginning and no end.  He wasn't begotten by anyone.   Jesus had a beginning and an end.

2.

Quote

Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ….

Again, so what?  I'm not saying Jesus isn't a god.  Paul calls him one.  So does John.  Jehovah himself foretold through Isaiah 700 years before Christ's earthly appearance that he would be called “Mighty God”.  But NOWHERE in Scripture does ANYONE say that Jesus is Almighty God or even equal to Him.  Thinker, when you find the scholar that “proves” that Paul was clearly saying Jesus was God Almighty or even equal to Him, then I will either disagree and defend; or accept.  So far, Vine's just confirms what Scripture already tells us.

You said:

Quote

I thought you have been folowing the threads here. WJ and I have answered this a zillion times!

I've only known about this site for like a month or two, man.  Chill!

You said:

Quote

Was Christ subject when Paul wrote those words? Answer: NO! He said that the Son “WILL BE” subject. And did Paul say that the Father will force the Son to deliever up the kingdom and become subject? Answer: No! The Son was to WILLINGLY subject Himself again like He did in the beginning.

The NIV says the Son will “be made” subject:

Quote

28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

The NWT, however, puts it your way:

Quote

28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

But in either translation, it's clear that it was God who subjected all things to Jesus.  Can you imagine God Almighty needing someone else to subject things to him?

You said:

Quote

God is a PLURAL one. We have been over this already. See my previous comments to you on the “US” in Genesis 1:26. Note also that the same word “one” is used in Ephesians 2 where it says that the TWO (Jew and Gentile) are made into “ONE new man” (Ephesians 2:16). Paul said also that we are MANY but ONE body (1 Corinthians 12).

Well then it is most fortunate for us that Paul actually told us who the ONLY God was, and who the ONLY Lord was.  The ONLY God is the Father, period.  Not a plurality of the Father and Son – the Son is holding down a different position – Lord.  Besides, if your “plural one” explantion was true, AND what Paul said about the ONLY God being the Father was true, that would mean the Father consisted of the Father and Son.  That would mean the Father/Son became flesh.  The Father/Son died.  The Father/Son prayed to the Father/Son while on earth/heaven.  Confusing!  I'll stick with what Paul said, thanks.  

You said:

Quote

Second, the expression “from whom are all things” in reference to the Father is speaking specifically about meats offered unto idols. Paul was defending the freedom of the Christian to eat meats offered unto idols because “all things” (foods) come from the Father. Then he says that not all Christians have this knowledge and that to them the meats cannot be eaten. So to some Christians not all foods come from the Father.

        Thinker, you've got me ROLLING!   Let's take a look at it all, so we make sure I am reading it in context:

Quote

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I was going to change the “for whom we live” to “for whom we eat” as a joke, but my prompter wouldn't do it.  Anyway, I think that word “live” rules out your opinion that Paul is only talking about food.  

You said:

Quote

First, you totally ignored Matthew 11:27 which I gave you. It says that the Son reveals the Father to men. So the knowledge of the Father comes from Jesus!

Thinker, you can add the “this command I recieved from my Father” to the end of any of the verses you quoted and it would fit in with the rest of Scripture.  You say Jesus is the source of eternal salvation, but what is Jesus' source?  Your precious Matthew 11:27 tells us.  “All things have been committed to me by the Father“.  The Father is the source's source.

Quote

John 5:19 NIV Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Thinker, yes Jesus is a god, yes he has the qualities of his Father, who made him.  But you have to look past Jesus to the ultimate source of anything Jesus can do.  We need food to live because God set it up that way.  We need Jesus for eternal salvation because God set it up that way.

You said:

Quote

If Jesus would have chosen His own will the Father would have delivered and not punished Him. What does this tell you?

I don't think I've read that in the Scriptures.  Could it be conjecture?  Get back to me on this, please.

You said:

Quote

Your whole statement is nonsense! God said, “let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.” The it says, So God created man in HIS own image. Therefore, man was created in the image of the PLURAL God!

God said, “Hey, Jesus!  I've been creating all these things through you and I think we should create man in our image and likeness.”  Jesus said, “You mean make them heavenly spirit persons like us?”  God said, “No, but we'll let them have some qualities that we posess like love, an advanced intellect, a sense of humor, etc.”  Jesus said, “Sounds good!”  Then God proceeded to create man in His image – the same image he shared with Jesus and angels.  Come on, Thinker.  You and I have the same “form” and “image”, but are we the same person?  Are we exactly equal in terms of power, intelligence and all other qualities?

You said:

Quote

Praying “through” Jesus was not the ONLY way. Stephen did not “filter” His prayer through Jesus. He prayed TO JESUS HIMSELF and asked Him to forgive those who stoned him (Acts 7).

Look in your Greek Interlinear, Thinker.  In mine the word translated as “prayer” literally means “called out”.  I checked some other “prayers” in the NT and they all have the same Greek word, which is different that the one used here.  I'm not an expert on the Greek language, but to me it looks like literally translated, it says:

Quote

54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56″Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”    57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.    59While they were stoning him, Stephen called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

I am glad you brought up Stephen, though.  Look at verses 55 and 56.  Let's place every person of your trinity.

1.  Holy Spirit – nowhere to be seen, but was flowing through Stephen.

2.  God – He was in heaven but Stephen couldn't see Him.  No man can see God.  Stephen did, however see the “glory of God”.  Probably exactly what God showed Moses.

3.  Jesus – He was also in heaven and Stephen COULD actually see him (because he is not God).  He was at the right hand of God, just like the Scriptures said he would be.  The same Scriptures that tell us there is only one God, Jehovah, who has one begotten Son, Jesus.

But back to your point… Was Stephen praying to Jesus when he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”?  It seems to me that he was seeing Jesus a stones throw away and was “calling out” (or up) to him.  The other instance gives no good evidence of whether Stephen was asking Jesus to forgive them or asking Jehovah to forgive them.  Either way, it isn't anywhere close to evidence that Jesus is God Almighty, is it?

You said:

Quote

The apostle John CLEARLY said that if we believe in the name of the Son of God that we should have the confidence to pray to Him. John said that if we pray according to His will that He will give us what we ask.

First of all, John NEVER said “pray to”.  He said ask.  And you didn't need to quote 1 John for that, Jesus said it himself in John 14:13 and 14.  As far as prayer, Jesus himself taught us how to do it:

Quote

Matthew 6:6 NIV But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

Quote

Matthew 6:9 NIV “This, then, is how you should pray: ” 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name…”

Quote

Luke 6:12 NIV One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God.

Jesus prayed a lot in the Scriptures, always to his Father, God.  And even if someone prayed to Jesus, you have to consider two things:

1.  Is that what they were taught by The Law and the Prophets or Jesus?  You have to remember, these were imperfect men, like us.  John tried to worship an angel not once, but twice.  John, who had first hand knowledge from Jesus and was filled with the Holy Spirit.

2.  Does an imperfect man praying to Jesus automatically mean that Jesus is God Almighty?

peace and love,
mike

[Admin]

Moved to the Debates forum.

[KangarooJack]

Mike,

First, please ask your anti-trinitarian fellows to stop butting in this thread. WJ does not trespass does he?

Mikeboll said:

Quote

Let's get something straight.  “Who, being in the form of God” doesn't anywhere say “Jesus was God.”

Mike,

Let's get something straight, “Who took the form of a servant” does not anywhere say that Jesus was a servant. Can you see the problem with your reasoning? If “form of God” does not mean that Jesus was God, then “form of a servant” does not mean that Jesus was a servant.

Mike:

Quote

Now I could probably go to non-trinity wells of information and find scholars to say the exact opposite of what your scholars say.

I am waiting!

Mike:

Quote

Hebrews 1 says: 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, And Colossians 1 says: 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Both of those Scriptures imply exactly what you scholars said.  But neither of those Scriptures mean that Jesus is God Almighty or even equal with Him.

The expression “radiance of the Father's glory” means that He emanates from the very being of the Father which means that He is God like the Father. The Father Himself said so in verse 8:

But to the Son He says:

     “ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
     A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

If the expression “radiance of His glory” meant that Jesus was not God, then why does the Father Himself in verse 8 call His Son “God?”

The expression “firstborn” of all creation means that He is Supreme Head of the people of God which is the church. The word “firstborn” referred to His position as the head of the Church:

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

The word “firstborn” in Hebrew culture was a word which indicated one's title as SUPREME head. The word had nothing to do with Christ's origin or supposed beginning.Keep it in its cultural context please!

Mike:

Quote

Again, so what?  I'm not saying Jesus isn't a god.  Paul calls him one.  So does John.  Jehovah himself foretold through Isaiah 700 years before Christ's earthly appearance that he would be called “Mighty God”.  But NOWHERE in Scripture does ANYONE say that Jesus is Almighty God or even equal to Him.

Nonsense! First, there are no other “gods.” Second, the Hebrew English Interlinear translates the word “gibbor” as “masterful.” It means, “the masterful God.” It refers to His creative acts. The next statement puts Jesus on a par with the Father by calling Him “the everlasting Father.”

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf

Why do you cite only a part of the statement?

Mike:

Quote

But in either translation, it's clear that it was God who subjected all things to Jesus.

This is not the whole truth! Verses 24-25 say that Jesus Himself subjects all things to Himself and to God:

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

Mike:

Quote

Well then it is most fortunate for us that Paul actually told us who the ONLY God was, and who the ONLY Lord was.

Yet Paul said also that Christ is God and the Father is Lord. If the expression “only God” excludes Christ, then the expression “only Lord” excludes the Father. Be consistent! Furthermore, you said that Christ is “a god.” This is pure polytheism. Right?

Mike:

Quote

Besides, if your “plural one” explantion was true, AND what Paul said about the ONLY God being the Father was true, that would mean the Father consisted of the Father and Son.  That would mean the Father/Son became flesh.  The Father/Son died.  The Father/Son prayed to the Father/Son while on earth/heaven.  Confusing!  I'll stick with what Paul said, thanks.

It is indeed confusing the way you paint it. The Father was IN the Son and the Son was IN the Father. Two yet one!

Your “heavenly beings” explanation does not work at all. God said, “let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.” We are not made in the image of any “heavenly beings” besides Elohim (elohim =  plural God).

Mike:

Quote

I was going to change the “for whom we live” to “for whom we eat” as a joke, but my prompter wouldn't do it.  Anyway, I think that word “live” rules out your opinion that Paul is only talking about food.

Now this is funny. Paul starts out saying, “Now concerning things offered unto idols….”  He explicitly said that he was speaking about “things offered unto idols,” that is, FOODS!

And the word “live” is not in the Greek text. It is italicized in our Bibles which means that the translators put it there. Even so it does not matter for the point is that we live for Him and not for false gods. So we may eat foods offered to false gods.

The expression “all things” is CLEARLY a reference to “foods” and not to the things pertaining to salvation. Again, Paul said, “Now concerning the things offered unto idols….” Therefore, in its context Paul simply said that all foods come from God. So we may eat and
not worry if it was offered to an idol. The “things” that pertain to salvation are not the issue at all.

I gave you CLEAR statements from the scripture which indicate that Christ Himself is the SOURCE of salvation.

and, once made perfect, he became the SOURCE of eternal salvation for all who obey him Hebrews 5:9 NIV

Mike:

Quote

Thinker, you can add the “this command I recieved from my Father” to the end of any of the verses you quoted and it would fit in with the rest of Scripture.

So you want me to add to scripture?

Mike:

Quote

You say Jesus is the source of eternal salvation, but what is Jesus' source?

Jesus has no “source.” John 1:3 says that without Him not one thing came into being that Has come into being.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

2this one was in the beginning with God;

3all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. Young's Literal Translation

Mike:

Quote

Thinker, yes Jesus is a god, yes he has the qualities of his Father, who made him.

So Jesus is “a god?” You're a polytheist for sure! John 1:3 says that without Jesus “not one thing was made that was made.” Therefore, Jesus was not made. What part of the statement “not one thing” was made without Him do you not comprehend?

Mike:

Quote

Your precious Matthew 11:27 tells us.  “All things have been committed to me by the Father”.  The Father is the source's source.

What a gross twisting of the scripture!

Mike:

Quote

God said, “Hey, Jesus!  I've been creating all these things through you and I think we should create man in our image and likeness.”  Jesus said, “You mean make them heavenly spirit persons like us?”  God said, “No, but we'll let them have some qualities that we posess like love, an advanced intellect, a sense of humor, etc.”  Jesus said, “Sounds good!”  Then God proceeded to create man in His image – the same image he shared with Jesus and angels.  Come on, Thinker.  You and I have the same “form” and “image”, but are we the same person?  Are we exactly equal in terms of power, intelligence and all other qualities?

It simply says, “Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness.” This is good enough for me!

Mike:

Quote

Look in your Greek Interlinear, Thinker.  In mine the word translated as “prayer” literally means “called out”.  I checked some other “prayers” in the NT and they all have the same Greek word, which is different that the one used here.  I'm not an expert on the Greek language, but to me it looks like literally translated, it says:

You're just playing a word game. Stephen did not “call out” to the Father in Jesus' name. He called out directly to Jesus and asked Him (Jesus) to forgive those who stoned him.

Praying to the Father in Jesus' name was not the only way men coud pray or petition God or “callout” to God. Men may pray to Jesus directly.

Mike:

Quote

But back to your point… Was Stephen praying to Jesus when he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”?  It seems to me that he was seeing Jesus a stones throw away and was “calling out” (or up) to him.  The other instance gives no good evidence of whether Stephen was asking Jesus to forgive them or asking Jehovah to forgive them.  Either way, it isn't anywhere close to evidence that Jesus is God Almighty, is it?

Then Stephen was not a very good Jew was he? For the Jew believed that only God can forgive sins. The narrative CLEARLY says that Stephen “called out” to Jesus and asked Him to forgive those who stoned him. Therefore, praying to the Father in Jesus' name is not the only way.

Mike:

Quote

First of all, John NEVER said “pray to”.  He said ask.

More word games. John said that if we ask anything according to the Son's will He hears us. John said that if He hears us then we have the things we asked of Him. If this is not prayer, then what is it?

Again, the Apostles NEVER required only one way to pray. You have given it away that you are a Polytheist.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
If you want a debate go to the debate section.

It is you who offer at least two equal gods.

There is no teaching in scripture about a trinity.

So why do you teach a false god?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 10 2010,07:56)

Hi TT, If you want a debate go to the debate section. It is you who offer at least two equal gods. There is no teaching in scripture about a trinity. So why do you teach a false god?

Nick,

We are in the “Debates” section. You are trespassing!

btw, The Bible teaches that Christ is God. (John 1:1-3). He said also “I and My Father are one.” There is not more than one God as Mike is saying.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

ATTENTION ANTI-TRINITARIANS: What part of Mike's request do you not understand? Please note his request I highlighted below:

“Hi All,

It is frustrating to me when I ask a question to TT or WJ, and by the time I get back online there are many new pages in that topic and everyone's thoughts get blended together.  That has the undesired effect of giving TT and WJ the option to only answer the questions they choose.  All I want is truth.  I am not a Bible scholar.  My theocratic knowledge is based only on this:  I have read the NWT word for word once, I have read the NIV word for word once, and I am in Psalms right now in the CEV.  I plan to keep reading different translations until the day I die, God willing.

I have never read anything in the Bible that leads me to believe in a trinity, but I have to acknowledge that many, many people do believe in one.  And I even admit that some of TT and WJ's points seem to make sense, on the surface.  I can understand how ideas taught from a young age can remain with a person throughout their life, but I can't seem to get closure on any of my questions.

So please respect my wishes to not post here unless you're thethinker.“

peace and love to all of you,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Let me say bravo!  This is the kind of debate I was hoping for – one based on Scripture.  You've done well at defending your beliefs.

You said:

Quote

Let's get something straight, “Who took the form of a servant” does not anywhere say that Jesus was a servant. Can you see the problem with your reasoning? If “form of God” does not mean that Jesus was God, then “form of a servant” does not mean that Jesus was a servant.

You are correct in some of your statement, but I think you miss the point.  Jesus, a heavenly spirit person, was “in the form of God”, a DIFFERENT heavenly spirit person.  He took the “form of a servant, being made in human likeness.”  By the time of Jesus' ministry , John the Baptist was another servant in human likeness.  Was Jesus, who was “in the form of a servant and made in human likeness”, in fact John, who also was “in the form of a servant and made in human likeness”?  No, Jesus wasn't John, but a DIFFERENT being of flesh and bone.  So, when Jesus was “in the form of God”, was Jesus God?  No, Jesus wasn't God Almighty, but a DIFFERENT being of spirit.

You said:

Quote

The expression “radiance of the Father's glory” means that He emanates from the very being of the Father which means that He is God like the Father.

Doesn't it make sense that Jehovah's first and greatest creation would radiate His glory?

You quoted part of Hebrews 1:8.  Let's look at it in context:

Quote

8But about the Son he says,   “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,      and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.    9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;      therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions      by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

Yes, Jehovah calls Jesus a god.  But even as Jesus is called a god, it is made clear that it is Jesus' God who has set him above his companions.  Please remember that it is translators who print some “gods” with small “g's” and others with capital “g's”.  Just like the translators of the Bible you often quote capitalizes the “h” in “him” and “he” when it refers to Jesus.  That being said, let's delve into my polytheism.

You said:

Quote

Nonsense! First, there are no other “gods.”

Is that what the Scriptures teach?  Not at all.  The first commandment makes clear that Jehovah acknowledges the existence of other “gods”.

Quote

Exodus 20:3 NIV “You shall have no other gods before me.

And there are many more referrences to other gods.

Quote

Deuteronomy 4:7 NIV What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?

Quote

Jeremiah 7:9 NIV ” 'Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known,

Quote

Jeremiah 43:12 NIV I will set fire to the temples of the gods of Egypt; I will burn their temples and take their gods captive.

Quote

2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,

Quote

John 10:34-35 NIV 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[Psalm 82:6]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—

Quote

Judges 13:21-22 NIV 21 When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.    22 “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”

The CEV translates the last part of Judges 13:22 as, “We have seen an angel.”  Then it adds a footnote that says, “The Hebrew text has “god”, which can be used of God or of other supernatural beings”

That's a lot of Spirit inspired people calling beings other than Jehovah “god”.  So, do you still contend that there is only one god?  There is, however only one God Almighty.  Jesus says it is the Father, the One he is praying to here:

Quote

John 17:3 NIV Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Paul says it is the Father.

Quote

1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live;

And look what else Paul says:

Quote

1 Timothy 2:5 NIV For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

You see?  Jesus is not the only true God, even though he can be considered a god.  Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

You said:

Quote

The expression “firstborn” of all creation means that He is Supreme Head of the people of God which is the church. The word “firstborn” referred to His position as the head of the Church:

I don't agree.  Let's r
ead it in context.

Quote

Col 1:15-18 NIV 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Do you see the “and” at the beginning of 18?  That's the part you're talking about.  Everything said before the “and” is not talking about his position as head of the church.  P.S.  Do you think all the “things” in these verses are also talking about food?

You said:

Quote

The word “firstborn” in Hebrew culture was a word which indicated one's title as SUPREME head. The word had nothing to do with Christ's origin or supposed beginning.Keep it in its cultural context please!

So when someone inherited the “rights of the firstborn”, isn't it because they were BORN FIRST?  Was not the first one brought into existence by their father the one that inherited the “rights of the firstborn”?

You said:

Quote

The next statement puts Jesus on a par with the Father by calling Him “the everlasting Father.” Why do you cite only a part of the statement?

I only cited the part that was relevant to our debate at the time.  Now the “everlasting father” part has become relevant. (Please don't be angry that I'm not citing the prince of peace or wonderful counselor part right now, okay.)  The “everlasting father” part doesn't put Jesus on a par with the Father as you say.  You're just trying to say “equal” with other words.  It either means he ACTUALLY IS THE FATHER, or it means that, due to the fact that all things came from God through Jesus, we can consider him a father, too.  If it means the former, then it doesn't work for the trinity either, does it?  And don't give me the line about “the Father is IN the Son”.  Look at this:

Quote

John 17:21 NIV that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Will that make us God Almighty, too?  So, I would guess that it means the latter, wouldn't you?

You said of 1 Cor 15:

Quote

This is not the whole truth! Verses 24-25 say that Jesus Himself subjects all things to Himself and to God:

Really?  The NIV doesn't say that:

Quote

24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

You do know the bold “he” is God, right?  He is the one that said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”  Just because your translation likes to capitalize the “he” for Jesus, it doesn't make Jesus God.  It actually just makes things confusing.

You said:

Quote

Yet Paul said also that Christ is God and the Father is Lord. If the expression “only God” excludes Christ, then the expression “only Lord” excludes excludes the Father. Be consistent!

      Just when we started to make headway!
I can't believe you have me wasting time on this, but here goes.  Paul was saying that even though others have lots of lords and gods, we only have one God and one Lord.  He didn't mean that Jesus couldn't be called a god – he called him “Our great god and savior”.  And he didn't mean that Jehovah couldn't be called a lord.  He was making it clear for future Trinitarians that there is one true God, Jehovah, who is above our Lord and King, Jesus.  But feel free to call the person you rent from landlord, even if he isn't Jesus.  I don't think that's what Paul had in mind, do you?

You said:

Quote

It (the plural God thing) is indeed confusing the way you paint it. The Father was IN the Son and the Son was IN the Father. Two yet one!

I already answered the “Father IN the Son” thing with John 17:21.  You said “two yet one!  Where is the third?
Does the Bible specifically say God was talking only to Jesus when he said “Let us make them…”?  COULD IT POSSIBLY be that He spoke to Jesus AND the angels?  “In our image” doesn't mean we are exactly like God.  It means he gave us some attributes that God had.  And those attributes are the same ones Jesus and the angels have.  Love, intelligence, curiosity, laughter (I assume), etc.  Why do you insist that “in our image” HAS TO MEAN Jesus was God Almighty?

Let's say you are right and the Jehovah/Jesus God created us in “their” image.  Since it is not now the Jehovah/Jesus/All of Mankind God, we have to assume that “in our image” doesn't mean we are EXACTLY like God.

Now, let's say that I am right.  Jehovah said to Jesus, “Let us make them in our image.”  It still doesn't mean we are EXACTLY like them.  So if we share an “image” with God and Jesus and are not EXACTLY like them, then why would Jesus, who shares an “image” with God have to be EXACTLY like God?

You said about “for whom we live”:

Quote

And the word “live” is not in the Greek text .

Read the Greek Interlinear, tell me how else you would word it.

You said:

Quote

I gave you CLEAR statements from the scripture which indicate that Christ Himself is the SOURCE of salvation.

Let's read it in context:

Quote

7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

The first part I made bold is off topic, but backs up a point I made earlier in this debate.  The second bold is the main information that you take away from all this.  The third bold is the explanation.  Jesus became the source of eternal salvation much like the Levite priests were the source of God's instructions to the Israelites.  God DESIGNATED Jesus to his position to do a service for Him, just like He designated the high priest to his position to do a service for Him.  And although the priests were “the source” of God's info to His people, and “the source” of God's forgiveness of sins through  the sacrifices they made in behalf of the people, we know that God alone was the ultimate source.  Same applies to eternal salvation – God alone is the ultimate source, Jesus is the high priest.

You said:

Quote

Jesus has no “source.” John 1:3 says that without Him not one thing came into being that Has come into being.

John 1:3 says, “THROUGH him all things were made”.  Exactly what Paul tells us when he says that all things came FROM God, THROUGH Jesus.  John also says that Jesus is “the only begotten god”.  I'll ask again – WAS JEHOVAH BEGOTTEN?

You said:

Quote

You're just playing a word game. Stephen did not “call out” to the Father in Jesus' name. He called out directly to Jesus and asked Him (Jesus) to forgive those who stoned him.

Seeing Jesus he “called out” to him, not prayed to him.  And the “don't hold it against them” could have been to God or Jesus, it is not clear.  Stephen already knew that God had granted Jesus the right to forgive sins, so it doesn't make a point one way or the other.  Did you figure out why Stephen could see Jesus but only the glory of God?

You said:

Quote

More word games. John said that if we ask anything according to the Son's will He hears us. John said that if He hears us then we have the things we asked of Him.  If this is not prayer, then what is it?

This from the same guy who just said:

Quote

If the expression “only God” excludes Christ, then the expression “only Lord” excludes excludes the Father. Be consistent!

If I “call out” to you, is it a prayer?

You said:

Quote

Again, the Apostles NEVER required one way to pray.

Jesus told us how and to whom we are to pray.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

Let me say bravo!  This is the kind of debate I was hoping for – one based on Scripture.  You've done well at defending your beliefs.

Thank you!

Mike said:

Quote

You are correct in some of your statement, but I think you miss the point.  Jesus, a heavenly spirit person, was “in the form of God”, a DIFFERENT heavenly spirit person.  He took the “form of a servant, being made in human likeness.”  By the time of Jesus' ministry , John the Baptist was another servant in human likeness.  Was Jesus, who was “in the form of a servant and made in human likeness”, in fact John, who also was “in the form of a servant and made in human likeness”?  No, Jesus wasn't John, but a DIFFERENT being of flesh and bone.  So, when Jesus was “in the form of God”, was Jesus God?

The “form” of God consists of THREE distinct persons just as the “form” of man consists of MANY persons. Just as each person who shares in man's “form” possesses man's essential attributes and nature, so each person who shares in God's “form” possesses God's essential attributes and nature.

Mike:

Quote

Doesn't it make sense that Jehovah's first and greatest creation would radiate His glory?

First, the scripture does not say that Jesus was created. He is said to be “first-BORN” and never “first-created.” Second, the sun's beams radiate from the core of the sun and are not a separate creation from the sun. Sunbeams are the sun ITSELF touching us. Jesus was God HIMSELF touching us.

Mike:

Quote

Yes, Jehovah calls Jesus a god.

Nope! The Father called Jesus “hotheos” (the God):

8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος2 ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

Mike:

Quote

The first commandment makes clear that Jehovah acknowledges the existence of other “gods”.

Jehovah acknowledged no other gods to the people of God. The first commandment also says, “You shall have no other gods besides Me.”

Mike:

Quote

So, do you still contend that there is only one god?

There is only one God TO the people of God:

Mike:

Quote

Paul says it is the Father.

Paul said also that Jesus Christ is our God:

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Titus 2:13

Mike:

Quote

And look what else Paul says:   1 Timothy 2:5 NIV For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Hebrews 8:6-10 says that Christ is both the Mediator and God Himself:

Quote

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.   7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He (Jesus) says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Please note that the Mediator is the person speaking and saying, “I will make a new covenant” and “I will be their God.”

You are probably thinking, “How can Jesus be both the Mediator and God at the same time?” Answer: In Hebrew culture mediation occurred by representation from both parties. Jacob and Laban had a dispute and it was mediated by the brothers of both men. So Jesus had to be God to represent God and also be man to represent us. Again, it is Christ the Mediator who is speaking in Hebrews 8 saying, “I will be their God.”

Mike:

Quote

Everything said before the “and” is not talking about his position as head of the church.

Before the “and” it says that Jesus is “before” all things. See Strong's # 4253. According to Strong “before” means “superior” or “above.” So the words before and after the “and” (“above” and “supreme”) are an exposition of the word “firstborn.”

Mike:

Quote

Jesus is not the only true God, even though he can be considered a god.

The apostle John said that Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life:

20And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20

Mike:

Quote

Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

In Heb
rew culture mediation occurred by the kin of both parties. See the dispute between Jacob and Laban in Genesis 31. Jesus was God's “kin” which means that He was God. He is also our “kin” which means that He is man like us.

It is as the “KIN” of both parties that Jesus Christ is the Mediator between both parties.

Mike:

Quote

So when someone inherited the “rights of the firstborn”, isn't it because they were BORN FIRST?

Not necessarily. Jacob inherited the rights of the firstborn but he was the second born. Therefore, the title “firstborn” in reference to Jacob referred only to his office. Jacob was a type of Christ in that his title as “firstborn” was not a reference to his origin but rather his office.

Mike:

Quote

The “everlasting father” part doesn't put Jesus on a par with the Father as you say.  You're just trying to say “equal” with other words.  It either means he ACTUALLY IS THE FATHER, or it means that, due to the fact that all things came from God through Jesus, we can consider him a father, too.

Double talk and confusion!

Mike:

Quote

And don't give me the line about “the Father is IN the Son”.  Look at this:   John 17:21 NIV “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.' Will that make us God Almighty, too?  So, I would guess that it means the latter, wouldn't you?

Yawn. You are confusing unity of purpose with unity of essence. Christ's prayer for them was that they would be unified in purpose just as the Father and the Son were unified in purpose. See verse 11.

Jesus was one with His Father both in purpose and in essence. We may be one with the Father and the Son in purpose only.

Mike:

Quote

You do know the bold “he” is God, right?  He is the one that said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”  Just because your translation likes to capitalize the “he” for Jesus, it doesn't make Jesus God.  It actually just makes things confusing.

No! The bold “he” is the Son. For HE must reign until HE has put all things under HIS feet.” The personal pronouns before and after the bold “he” clearly refer to Jesus Christ. So the bold “he” in the middle is also Jesus Christ. You can't just wave your magic wand and say “abra cadabra” and make the bold “he” to be God. Note that it says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Who destroys death? Answer: Jesus Christ:

but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10

and,

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, Hebrews 2:14

Christ Himself destroys His last enemy which is death by destroying His arch enemy which is the devil.

The new testament explains the old. God brings all things under Christ's subjection THROUGH Christ's own accomplishments. Look at the last verse:

But thanks be to God who gives us the victory THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord.”

This means that God gives us the victory through THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Mike:

Quote

Jesus became the source of eternal salvation much like the Levite priests were the source of God's instructions to the Israelites.  God DESIGNATED Jesus to his position to do a service for Him, just like He designated the high priest to his position to do a service for Him.  And although the priests were “the source” of God's info to His people, and “the source” of God's forgiveness of sins through  the sacrifices they made in behalf of the people, we know that God alone was the ultimate source.

This is sheer nonsense! First, Hebrews says that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins (10:11). Second, the Levitical priesthood was abolished because it was totally useless (7:18 NIV). Third, the priests were not an  “[intermediate] source” of anything. So your analogy fails to show that Christ was an [intermediate] source. Fourth, Christ became a high priest by the call of God. This does not make God the “ultimate source” and Christ the mere “intermediate source.”

The word “source” means , “That which from any act, movement or effect proceeds”.

The Father's call to Christ does not make Him the “ultimate” source. It is the OBEDIENT ACT of Christ that is the source. There are no “ultimate” and “intermediate” sources in reference to eternal salvation. There is just ONE source which is Jesus Christ.

The scripture in Hebrews does not distinguish between an ultimate and an intermediate source. It simply says without any special pleading that Jesus Christ is THE source of eternal salvation!

Mike:

Quote

I can't believe you have me wasting time on this, but here goes.  Paul was saying that even though others have lots of lords and gods, we only have one God and one Lord.  He didn't mean that Jesus couldn't be called a god – he called him “Our great god and savior”.  And he didn't mean that Jehovah couldn't be called a lord.  He was making it clear for future Trinitarians that there is one true God, Jehovah, who is above our Lord and King, Jesus.  But feel free to call the person you rent from landlord, even if he isn't Jesus.  I don't think that's what Paul had in mind, do you?

Just answer plainly! Paul said that “TO US” there is only one Lord which is Jesus Christ. Do you interpret in such a way as to exclude the Father from being Lord? And if you allow the Father to be Lord with Christ, then you may allow Christ to be God with the Father. You don't need a degree in rocket science man!

Mike:

Quote

If I “call out” to you, is it a prayer?

What made it a prayer is that it was a petition.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Bravo again!  We are slowly completing the circling and getting down to the heart of some of our disagreements.  I believe that “in the heart” is where we will find truth.

You said:

Quote

Just as each person who shares in man's “form” possesses man's essential attributes and nature, so each person who shares in God's “form” possesses God's essential attributes and nature.

This is a definition of the word “image” from Dictionary.com:

Quote

5.form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image.

Do you see that “form” is part of the definition of “image” because their meaning is so similar?  So if Jesus being in the form of God ABSOLUTELY HAS TO make him God, then man being created in God's image would ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO make us God.  But if being created in God's image means we have some of His qualities, then the same COULD apply to Jesus.  Are you true enough to yourself to admit it is POSSIBLE that it doesn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO mean that Jesus is God Almighty?

You said:

Quote

First, the scripture does not say that Jesus was created. He is said to be “first-BORN” and never “first-created.” Second, the sun's beams radiate from the core of the sun and are not a separate creation from the sun. Sunbeams are the sun ITSELF touching us. Jesus was God HIMSELF touching us.

First,what does the Scripture say Jesus was the “first-born” of?  CREATION.  That means he is in fact a part of creation.  Second, the universe is filled with all kinds of God's creations that radiate His glory, including the sun and the Son.  Besides, if the sun itself was “touching us” as you say, wouldn't we be hot?  It's like 10,000 degrees.

You said:

Quote

Nope! The Father called Jesus “hotheos” (the God):

Look at how the NWT translates Heb 1:8;

Quote

8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever,

And if you look in your interlinear, you can see it could be translated either way.

You said:

Quote

Jehovah acknowledged no other gods to the people of God. The first commandment also says, “You shall have no ther gods besides Me.”

Sounds like He was acknowledging there WERE other “gods”, so He made it clear that He was the only one His people were suppose to worship. (3rd commandment)

You said:

Quote

There is only one God TO the people of God:

There is only one God we worship.  The one that all things come from.  But Satan, the god of this age, just doesn't disappear by us insisting there is only one god, period.

You said:

Quote

Paul said also that Jesus Christ is our God: “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” Titus 2:13

Let me requote from yesterday:

Quote

The CEV translates the last part of Judges 13:22 as, “We have seen an angel.”  Then it adds a footnote that says, “The Hebrew text has “god”, which can be used of God or of other supernatural beings”

Are we to assume that when Paul called Satan a god, it means that Satan is the Almighty?  No.  So why should we assume as much when he refers to Jesus as a god?  Besides, the word “great” and “mighty” are synonyms, so that is just Jehovah's prophecy through Isaiah being fulfilled.  (He will be called Mighty God.)  Manoah didn't see God as he claimed, but a servant of him.  Jesus is not God as you claim, but a servant of him.  But in both OT and NT times, the word god was used for God and other supernatural beings.

You said:

Quote

Hebrews 8:6-10 says that Christ is both the Mediator and God Himself: Quote   6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.   7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He (Jesus) says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Please note that the Mediator is the person speaking and saying, “I will make a new covenant” and “I will be their God.”

You are mistaken, my friend.  Hebrews 8:8-10 is taken almost word for word from Jeremiah 31:31-34;

Quote

31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,       “when I will make a new covenant       with the house of Israel       and with the house of Judah.    32 It will not be like the covenant       I made with their forefathers       when I took them by the hand       to lead them out of Egypt,       because they broke my covenant,       though I was a husband to them,”       declares the LORD.    33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel       after that time,” declares the LORD.       “I will put my law in their minds       and write it on their hearts.       I will be their God,       and they will be my people.

Do you see LORD?  That
stands for JHWH, or Jehovah.  Jesus wasn't in the picture yet when Jehovah said those words through Jeremiah.  This new covenant has not yet begun, for the things prophesied have not yet happened.  And because we can no longer associate directly with Jehovah, Jesus will be the mediator of JEHOVAH'S new covenant with us.

You said:

Quote

You are probably thinking, “How can Jesus be both the Mediator and God at the same time?” Answer: In Hebrew culture mediation occurred by representation from both parties. Jacob and Laban had a dispute and it was mediated by the brothers of both men. So Jesus had to be God to represent God and also be man to represent us. Again, it is Christ the Mediator who is speaking in Hebrews 8 saying, “I will be their God.”

The term “mediator”, by it's very definition can not be one of the parties negotiating.  Neither Jacob nor Laban were the mediator.

You said:

Quote

Before the “and” it says that Jesus is “before” all things. See Strong's # 4253. According to Strong “before” means “superior” or “above.” So the words before and after the “and” (“above” and “supreme”) are an exposition of the word “firstborn.”

If you take the “before all things” literally, Jesus must be “superior” to and “above” Jehovah.  Is he?  

You said:

Quote

The apostle John said that Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life: 20And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20

John said that Jesus gave us understanding of someone who is TRUE so that we may know him who is TRUE; and we are in him who is TRUE, also in this TRUE one's Son Jesus Christ.  I wonder who this TRUE one is that John keeps talking about.  Oh, he is the TRUE God and eternal life.

We said:

Quote

Mike:   So when someone inherited the “rights of the firstborn”, isn't it because they were BORN FIRST? Thinker: Not necessarily. Jacob inherited the rights of the firstborn but he was the second born. Therefore, the title “firstborn” in reference to Jacob referred only to his office. Jacob was a type of Christ in that his title as “firstborn” was not a reference to his origin but rather his office.

I NEW you would bring up Jacob.  I should have nipped it in the bud.  So, outside of the case of Jacob and any other freak instances of a firstborn selling his rights for a meal or whatever, when someone inherited the “rights of the firstborn”, isn't it because they were BORN FIRST?

You said:

Quote

Double talk and confusion!

Answer the question, Thinker.  In fact, answer all the questions I put forth.  That's only fair, I've answered all of yours.  I will number some questions you haven't answered at the end of this post.

You said:

Quote

Yawn.  You are confusing unity of purpose with unity of essence. Christ's prayer for them was that they would be unified in purpose just as the Father and the Son were unified in purpose. See verse 11.

I quoted John 17:21;

Quote

21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

You say John 17:11 holds the key;

Quote

11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

Hmmmm….I don't see any explanation of purpose vs. essence, do you?

You said:

Quote

No! First, the bold “he” is the Son. For HE must reign until HE has put all things under HIS feet.” The the personal pronouns before and after the bold “he” clearly refer to Jesus Christ. So the bold “he” in the middle is alo Jesus Christ. You can't just wave your magic wand and say “abra cadabra” and make the bold “he” to be God.

Let's look at it again:

Quote

25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

Now let's look at Psalm 110:1

Quote

[ Of David. A psalm. ] The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

And Psalm 8:5-6 says:

Quote

5 You made him a little lower than God       and crowned him with glory and honor.    6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;       you put everything under his feet:

And Hebrews 10:12-13 says:

Quote

12But when this priest (Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,

The “he” that put Jesus' enemies under his feet is most definitely his God, Jehovah.

You said:

Quote

This is sheer nonsense! First, Hebrews says that the blood of bulls and goa ts could never take away sins (10:11).

Knock and it will be opened:

Quote

Leviticus 4:35 NIV In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

You said:

Quote

Second, the Levitical priesthood was abolished because it was totally useless (7:18 NIV).

Hebrews 7:19 explains why Paul at that time considered it “useless” from then on:

Quote

19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

You said:

Quote

Third, the priests were not an  “[intermediate] source” of anything.

Ask and you shall receive:
1 Samuel 22:10 is one of the many times in the Bible that priests have received and passed on instructions from God, making them the “source” of God's instructions to His people.

Quote

10 Ahimelech inquired of the LORD for him; he also gave him provisions and the sword of Goliath the Philistine.”

You said:

Quote

Fourth, Christ became a high priest by the call of God. This does not make God the “ultimate source” and Christ the mere “intermediate source.”

I'm not sure what you're saying, but God is the ultimate source of everything.  Aaron also became a priest by God's calling.

You said:

Quote

God's call may have been the first act and Christ's the second act. But it is all the acts combined which constitute the “source of eternal salvation.” There is no “ultimate” and “intermediate” source in reference to eternal salvation. There is just one combined source.

Good!  Then when I preach the gospel to my neighbor, and he becomes a believer, I will be a “source of eternal salvation” that equals God and Jesus combined.  

You said:

Quote

Just answer plainly! Paul said that “TO US” there is only one Lord which is Jesus Christ. Do you interpret in such a way as to exclude the Father from being Lord? And if you allow the Father to be Lord with Christ, then you may allow Christ to be God with the Father. You don't need a degree in rocket science man!

Quit with this already!  You don't even know what point you're trying to make.  Jesus is our lord.  Jehovah is our lord.  And after the end of this age, we might even call King David our lord.  But Jehovah is God Almighty, Jesus isn't.

I said:

Quote

Mike:   If I “call out” to you, is it a prayer? You said: What made it a prayer is that it was a petition.

Thinker, if I “call out” to you with a petition, is it a prayer?

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

1.  Why can Stephen see Jesus but only the glory of God?

2.  Knowing that a mediator cannot be either of the parties he mediates between, can Jesus be the mediator between God Almighty and mankind, and at the same time be God Almighty?

3.  Was Jehovah begotten?

4.  Does “in the form of” or “in the image of” ABSOLUTELY mean “exactly the same as”?

5.  Does “everlasting father” mean Jesus is the Father God, or that he can be considered a father because of his part in creation?

That's enough for now.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike: I won't be posting tomorrow. I will be spending the day with my daughter.

Mike said:

Quote

Do you see that “form” is part of the definition of “image” because their meaning is so similar?  So if Jesus being in the form of God ABSOLUTELY HAS TO make him God, then man being created in God's image would ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO make us God.

Mike,

The scripture employs two words for our English word “image.” In Hebrews 1:3 the Son is called the “exact image.” The word “image” is the Greek “charakter.” So Christ is the exact “charakter” of God. The word “image” in reference to man is the word “icon” which means a “faint copy” (see Strong's# 1504).

Christ is the exact charakter of the Father while we are merely faint copies. As the exact charakter of God Jesus was God made visible in human form.

You keep dodging the fact that the expression “form of a servant” is the antithesis of the expression “form of God.”

Form of a servant = servant
Form of God = God

Mike:

Quote

First,what does the Scripture say Jesus was the “first-born” of?  CREATION.  That means he is in fact a part of creation.

First, the expression “firstborn of all creation is misleading. It would be better read, “firstborn of every creature. The Greek “every creature” is “pasa ktisis” and it ALWAYS refers to mankind. In verse 23 it says that the gospel was preached to “every creature” (all mankind). The Greek is “pasa ktisis” here also. Christ is the firstborn of all humanity. We know that this cannot mean that Jesus was the first man. Paul said that he was the “second man (Adam). Therefore, the term “firstborn” simply refers to His position as the supreme head of all humanity, His church specifically.

Second, I gave you the literal reading of John 1:3 and you have yet to reply. It says that without Him “not one thing came into being that has come into being.” NOT ONE THING! This absolutely rules out your theory that Jesus was the “first created being.” Without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being!

Mike:

Quote

Look at how the NWT translates Heb 1:8; 8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever,

The NWT has no contextual basis. The whole context is about the glorification of the Son and the NWT “translation” introduces an interruption in the whole thought.

You have made a shift to cover yourself. Previously you said, “Yes Jehovah calls Jesus a god.” You acknowledged that the word “theos” applied to the Son. But when I show you that the Father did not call the Son “a god” but rather “hotheos” (the God) you do a flip flop and apply the word “theos” to the Father.

Flip flop flip flop

Mike:

Quote

And if you look in your interlinear, you can see it could be translated either way.

My Interlinear reads, “Your throne O God is forever and ever.”

Mike:

Quote

Are we to assume that when Paul called Satan a god, it means that Satan is the Almighty?  No.  So why should we assume as much when he refers to Jesus as a god?

Oh please!

Mike:

Quote

You are mistaken, my friend.  Hebrews 8:8-10 is taken almost word for word from Jeremiah 31:31-34;

Yes it is a word for word quote. But verse 6-8 tell us that it was Jesus speaking in Jeremiah. Note the bold “HE” used three times:

6 But now HE has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as HE is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, HE says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

It was Jesus who said in Jeremiah, “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel.”

Look at 9:16-17:

16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living

The one who makes the will (covenant) is the same one who dies. Did the Father die? No!

It was Jesus who made the covenant with the house of Israel for the one who makes the covenant dies to put the will into effect.

Go back to chapter 8 where the one who made the covenant said, “I will be their God.”

Mike:

Quote

term “mediator”, by it's very definition can not be one of the parties negotiating.  Neither Jacob nor Laban were the mediator.

You either failed to comprehend what I said or you are being evasive. I said that the mediation occurred by the “kin from both parties.” I gave the example of the dispute between Jacob and Laban. They had kin from each party do the mediation. So each party had representation. As God Jesus represented God and as man He represented man. Jesus was both God's and man's “kin.” Therefore, both God and man had representation.

Mike:

Quote

If you take the “before all things” literally, Jesus must be “superior” to and “above” Jehovah.  Is he?

 

Mike:

Quote

John said that Jesus gave us understanding of someone who is TRUE so that we may know him who is TRUE; and we are in him who is TRUE, also in this TRUE one's Son Jesus Christ.

You are violating all the rules of grammar.

Mike:

Quote

wonder who this TRUE one is that John keeps talking about. Oh, he is the TRUE God and eternal life.

No need to wonder. John tells us in the verse who he is speaking about:

…and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

It says that He (Jesus Christ) is the true God and eternal life

The “true God” is also the “eternal life.” John had previously said that Jesus is the “eternal life”

the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—

The “eternal life” was not the Father but was WITH the Father.

Mike:

Quote

I NEW you would bring up Jacob.  I should have nipped it in the bud.  So, outside of the case of Jacob and any other freak instances of a firstborn selling his rights for a meal or whatever, when someone inherited the “rights of the firstborn”, isn't it because they were BORN FIRST?

You just let your second opportunity to “nip it in the bud” fly out the window. Isaac was also the “firstborn” and “only begotten son” even though in reality he was neither. Isaac had required the name “firstborn” and “only begotten son” when Sarah kicked his older brother Ishmael out of the covenant.

Are you beginning to see the pattern here? Isaac was the “firstborn” though not literally. Jesus is the “firstborn” in the same way. Isaac acquired the office as Abraham's “only begotten son” though he had an older brother who was also Abraham's son. Jesus is officially God's “only begotten Son.”

Isaac's title as the “firstborn” and “only begotten son” was exactly that: a title. Jesus is also God's “firstborn” and “only begotten” officially. His titles have absolutely nothing to do with His supposed origin:

All things came into being through Him. And without Him not one thing has come into being that has come into being.

Mike:

Quote

You say John 17:11 holds the key; 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. Hmmmm….I don't see any explanation of purpose vs. essence, do you?

I misled you to verse 11. I should have directed you to the end of verse 21. Jesus prayed that they would be one as He and His Father that the world may know that the Father had sent Him. This clearly indicates that the unity Christ speaks of is a unity of purpose. Sorry for giving you the wrong verse.

Mike:

Quote

Let's look at it again:   25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

First, the word “God” is not in the Greek text. It says, “he has put all things under his feet” (NIV).

Second, I have never denied that God put all things under Christ. I showed from verse 25 that Christ also did it.

Third, You ignored my points about Christ being the one to destroy the last enemy which is death (vs. 26). This is proof that He also participates in the subjugation of His enemies.

Fourth, you ignored my point that God gives us the victory through THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Jesus Christ our Lord.

You just don't want to give Him the credit due Him do you?

Mike:

Quote

Now let's look at Psalm 110:1   [ Of David. A psalm. ] The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

What! I answered this already. I said that the new testament interprets the old. Then I showed you from verse 25 that Christ also does it and gave proof that He is the one who destroys the last enemy which is death. Then I gave you Paul's statement inwhich he said that God gives us the victory through Jesus Christ. Jesus ain't passive in all this!

I don't have the time or the patience to be repeating myself to you!

Mike:

Quote

The “he” that put Jesus' enemies under his feet is most definitely his God, Jehovah.

Verse 25 says it is Jesus too. I gave you the scriptures which say that it is Jesus who abolishes death.

Mike:

Quote

In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

The animal sacrifices covered only the transgressions against the ceremonial laws. They could not atone for the sins against the moral law. Only the blood of Jesus could atone for sins:

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins Heb. 10:11

Mike:

Quote

I'm not sure what you're saying, but God is the ultimate source of everything.  Aaron also became a priest by God's calling.

Enough please! You're being stubborn. The verse EXPLICITLY says without any ambiguity that Christ is “THE SOURCE of eternal salvation.” However, God is the source because Christ is God. But the Father is not the source of eternal salvation. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior.

14And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14

Are you going to argue with it?

Mike:

Quote

Jesus is our lord.  Jehovah is our lord.

Thank you! Okay, Jesus is our God and the Father is our God.

Mike:

Quote

Thinker, if I “call out” to you with a petition, is it a prayer?

Okay, have it your way little child. Did Stephen “call out” to the Father in Jesus' name to forgive those who stoned him? Or did he “call out” to Jesus Himself to forgive them?

Mike:

Quote

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 1.  Why can Stephen see Jesus but only the glory of God? 2.  Knowing that a mediator cannot be either of the parties he mediates between, can Jesus be the mediator between God Almighty and mankind, and at the same time be God Almighty? 3.  Was Jehovah begotten? 4.  Does “in the form of” or “in the image of” ABSOLUTELY mean “exactly the same as”? 5.  Does “everlasting father” mean Jesus is the Father God, or that he can be considered a father because of his part in creation? That's enough for now.

Go back and read my posts with sincerity and comprehension and you will find your answers.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

(I'm glad you make time for your daughter, I spend every weekend with my 8 year old boy)

Not so much bravo this time.   We're circling again.  I will try a different approach, maybe we'll get somewhere.  I will number our points of disagreement.

You said:

Quote

You keep dodging the fact that the expression “form of a servant” is the antithesis of the expression “form of God.” Form of a servant = servant Form of God = God

I did not dodge it.  I expained it (I thought) very well.  Jesus was in the “form of” a servant.  John the Baptist was in the “form of” a servant.
1.  Was Jesus actually John the Baptist?
2.  Was Jesus equal to John the Baptist?

Form of a servant=A servant, not THE servant
Form of God=A god (supernatural being), not THE God

Quote

Psalm 95:3 For Jehovah is the great God,       the great King above all gods.

You said:

Quote

First, the expression “firstborn of all creation is misleading. It would be better read, “firstborn of every creature.

To me they seem to mean the exact same thing.
3.  Does “ALL creation” include “every creature”?

You said:

Quote

The Greek “every creature” is “pasa ktisis” and it ALWAYS refers to mankind. In verse 23 it says that the gospel was preached to “every creature” (all mankind). The Greek is “pasa ktisis” here also. Christ is the firstborn of all humanity. We know that this cannot mean that Jesus was the first man.

Seems to me that if we know it cannot mean that Jesus was the first man, as you pointed out, but it could sensibly mean that he was the first of “every creature”, then maybe “pasa ktisis” does not ALWAYS refer only to mankind.  4.  Is that POSSIBLE?

If it were just the “firstborn” thing, we could call it a draw.  But when you add the “firstborn” thing to “only begotten god”, only begotten son, the rank of son in itself, Psalm 8:5,

Quote

You made him a little lower than God and crowned him with glory and honor.

and other Scriptures, the evidence starts to add up to a conclusion.  5a.  Are these Scriptures enough for you to come to the conclusion that Jesus was brought into existence?  5b.  And if not, will more supporting Scriptures be of any help for you to reach that conclusion?

You said:

Quote

Second, I gave you the literal reading of John 1:3 and you have yet to reply. It says that without Him “not one thing came into being that has come into being.” NOT ONE THING! This absolutely rules out your theory that Jesus was the “first created being.” Without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being!

John 1:3 says:

Quote

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Two points.  First, the Scriptures tell us all things come FROM God, THROUGH Jesus. (Sound familiar?)  This Scripture complies. 6.  When many Scriptures tell us that “everything” in heaven and earth comes from Jehovah, do we take that to include Jehovah, too?  7.  Should we take John 1:3 to include Jesus, too?  Paul says in 1 Cor 15:27;

Quote

Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself,

It should also be clear on this subject.

You said:

Quote

But when I show you that the Father did not call the Son “a god” but rather “hotheos” (the God) you do a flip flop and apply the word “theos” to the Father.

I don't know that much about the Greek language particles, but I'm sure “the only true God”, as Jesus calls Him, did not mean that Jesus was the God. 8.   Where would that leave Jehovah, the One who according to that same Scripture was Jesus' God and also the One who had the power and authority to “set Jesus above his companions”?

You said:

Quote

My Interlinear reads, “Your throne O God is forever and ever.”

Your Interlinear reads the same as mine.  This is an example:
pink the car fast
You know it can mean: “The pink car is fast” or “The fast car is pink”  It is similar with Heb 1:8.

You blew this question off, so I'll ask again:
9a.  Are we to assume that because Paul called Satan a god, that Satan is God Almighty?  9b.  Should we assume as much when he called Jesus a god?

You said:

Quote

Yes it is a word for word quote. But verse 6-8 tell us that it was Jesus speaking in Jeremiah. Note the bold “HE” used three times:

10.  Did Jesus go by the Name of Jehovah back then?
11.  Do I really need to find other Scriptures that refer to more than one person as he in the same Scripture?

You said:

Quote

The one who makes the will (covenant) is the same one who dies. Did the Father die? No!

Here we go again!   12.  Did the Father die to enforce  the old covenant?  13.  Did Jesus die to enforce the old covenant?  Thinker, Paul starts off talking about the new covenant between Jehovah and mankind – the one Jehovah spoke through Jeremiah about.  In the middle of this testimony, he makes an analogy of a will.  He is saying that Jesus left us a promise o
f the possibility of everlasting life for mankind through his death.  Sort of like he left this promise in a last will and testament.  When Jesus died, we inherited this promise of everlasting life.   We would not have inherited the promise if Jesus didn't die.  Jesus had to die for us to be able to collect our inheritance.  Just like in Paul's world – you couldn't collect an inheritance unless the testator (the one who made the will) died.  Then Paul goes back to talking about the old and new covenants and how a blood sacrifice is required to enforce a covenant.  So Paul is referring to Jesus as being both the testator of his own “last will and testament” AND as the sacrificial blood needed to enforce Jehovah's new covenant.  The “I will be their God” was said by Jehovah through Jeremiah and was still Jehovah when Paul quoted Scripture.  This should be clear to anyone who reads it.  

I am starting to get very frustrated with Trinitarians.  They were taught a flawed man-made doctrine, and because it's hard for them to let go of things they have believed so strongly in for so long, they search the Scriptures to find little words and phrases that they can take completely out of context to try and twist the Scripture into their own flawed beliefs.  And when another Scripture blatanly contradicts the Scripture they twisted to fit their beliefs, they bring in scholars to say, “Well, even though it says black, in the Greek language, black sometimes meant white.”  And when all else fails, they pretend that they just can't agree with the plain and simple meaning of the Scripture in question.  “No, it can't mean that, it MUST mean this.”  Even when “this” is contradicted by the rest of Scripture!  I mean, why would Stephen see Christ, but only the glory of God?  Why would “Jesus God Almighty” call Jehovah his God?  Why would “equal Jesus God” say the Father is greater?  Why would Scripture tell us that the Son is begotten and created and made when he was none of these?  Why would Paul quote Scripture spoken by the LORD (Jehovah) and a Trinitarian not only insist the Scripture is now talking about Jesus, but that it was actually Jesus who said it in the first place – even thought it clearly says Jehovah said it?

Whew!  I feel better!  What's next?

You said:

Quote

You either failed to comprehend what I said or you are being evasive. I said that the mediation occurred by the “kin from both parties.”

 

You've OBVIOUSLY failed to comprehend what I said: A mediator between two parties ABSOLUTLY CANNOT be one of those two parties, period.  So while Jesus can be kin to both mankind and God Almighty, he can be neither “all of mankind” nor God Almighty.  12.  Do you understand this?

You said:

Quote

I misled you to verse 11. I should have directed you to the end of verse 21. Jesus prayed that they would be one as He and His Father that the world may know that the Father had sent Him. This clearly indicates that the unity Christ speaks of is a unity of purpose.

John 17, verses 21 and 22 say:

Quote

21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:

Again, no explanation of purpose versus essence.

You previoulsy said:

Quote

Before the “and” it says that Jesus is “before” all things. See Strong's # 4253. According to Strong “before” means “superior” or “above.” So the words before and after the “and” (“above” and “supreme”) are an exposition of the word “firstborn.”

To which I will reply again: 13.  If you take “before all things” literally, it would mean that Jesus is “superior” or “above” Jehovah.  Is he?  If on the other hand, “before all things” means superior or above everything excluding Jehovah, then I agree so what's your point?

I said:

Quote

Mike:   John said that Jesus gave us understanding of someone who is TRUE so that we may know him who is TRUE; and we are in him who is TRUE, also in this TRUE one's Son Jesus Christ. And you said: You are violating all the rules of grammar.

Come on man, it's right there in front of you!

“…and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”

It doesn't say we are “in his Son Jesus Christ, the true God…”
It says we are in the true one's Son Jesus Christ.  So who is the true one who has a Son named Jesus Christ?  That is the true One he keeps talking about, the true God, Jehovah.  This is the kind of crap I just ranted about.

You said:

Quote

The “eternal life” was not the Father but was WITH the Father.

Yes, Jack.  Because since Jesus is called Lord, then Jehovah can't be our Lord.  And since Jesus was called savior, then Jehovah can't be our savior.  So it follows that if Jesus is called eternal life, then Jehovah can not be eternal life.  Just more crap.

You said:

Quote

First, the word “God” is not in the Greek text. It says, “he has put all things under his feet” (NIV).

You're right and wrong.  The NIV does say God.   Almost all the Bible quotes I use are from the NIV, including the ones I posted yesterday.   The Greek says “it is clear this does not include the one who put everything under his feet”.

You said:

Quote

Second, I have never denied that God put all things under Christ. I showed from verse 25 that Christ also did it.

And I showed you three Scriptures that prophesied that God will put everything under Christ's feet.  Here's a fourth, Luke 20:

Quote

41Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:(110 which I quoted yesterday)   ” 'The Lord said to my Lord:      “Sit at my right hand    43until I make your enemies      a footstool for your feet.” ' 44David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?”

Okay?  Jesus never puts his enemies under his fee
t.  God does it for him.  And Jesus will destroy death because God has put it under him.

You said:

Quote

This is proof that He also participates in the subjugation of His enemies. Fourth, you ignored my point that God gives us the victory through THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Jesus Christ our Lord. You just don't want to give Him the credit due Him do you?

Of course Jesus participates.  Of course Jesus made accomplishments.  But unfortunately, trying to convince someone that Jesus is not God Almighty has the sad side effect of making me seem uncaring toward Jesus.  Trust me I'm not.  I know what he's done and what I owe him.

You said:

Quote

What! I answered this already. I said that the new testament interprets the old.

Never does the NT change the meaning or the players of the OT.  If the OT says Jehovah will do something, the NT never contradicts that.  You are the one interpreting incorrectly.

You said:

Quote

The animal sacrifices covered only the transgressions against the ceremonial laws. They could not atone for the sins against the moral law.

Leviticus is full of the sacrifices required for ceremonial and moral sins.

You said:

Quote

Enough please! You're being stubborn. The verse EXPLICITLY says without any ambiguity that Christ is “THE SOURCE of eternal salvation.” However, God is the source because Christ is God. But the Father is not the source of eternal salvation. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior.

Oh, right.  I forgot that since Jesus it the savior, Jehovah cannot be.  And since Jesus is the source, Jehovah cannot be.  Get something straight, dude!  Jehovah is the ultimate source of EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE.

You said:

Quote

Thank you! Okay, Jesus is our God and the Father is our God.

I can live with that. 14.  Can you live with the fact that the Father is greater?

You said:

Quote

Okay, have it your way little child. Did Stephen “call out” to the Father in Jesus' name to forgive those who stoned him? Or did he “call out” to Jesus Himself to forgive them?

I think he “cried out” to God to forgive them, but didn't have time to formally pray through Jesus' name, what with being stoned to death and all.

You have not even attempted to answer any of these questions to my knowledge.  So even if you did, it shouldn't be hard to do it again.

14.  Why was Stephen able to see Christ, but only God's glory?

15.  Was Jehovah begotten?

16.  Does “in the form of” mean “exactly the same as”?

Thinker, there are 16 questions in bold print, please answer them in an appropriate manner that shows that you either don't have an answer, or that you do have a Scripturally backed answer, one that the Scripture actually clearly says what you say it does.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

Form of a servant=A servant, not THE servant Form of God=A god (supernatural being), not THE God

In the “form” of a servant Jesus possessed all the attributes of humanity. In the “form” of God He possessed all the attributes of divinity.

Mike:

Quote

Does “ALL creation” include “every creature

No! “All creation” means all humanity. Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “all creation.” The apostles did not preach to rocks and lizards did they? Jesus was the “firstborn” in relation to men alone. A cow was “firstborn” in relation to cows alone.

The word “firstborn” has no reference whatsoever to Christ's relation to animate and inanimate creation. It has sole reference to His relation to humanity. This says nothing of His being the first chronologically for He was the SECOND ADAM yet the FIRSTBORN OF MEN (the SUPREME man).

Mike:

Quote

If it were just the “firstborn” thing, we could call it a draw.  But when you add the “firstborn” thing to “only begotten god”, only begotten son, the rank of son in itself, Psalm 8:5,

The terms “firstborn” and “only begotten” are used synonomously in Hebrews 1:1-6. They mean the same thing. The terms refer to His rank as God's officiating Son.

Mike:

Quote

Psalm 8:5, You made him a little lower than God and crowned him with glory and honor. and other Scriptures, the evidence starts to add up to a conclusion.  5a.  Are these Scriptures enough for you to come to the conclusion that Jesus was brought into existence?  5b.  And if not, will more supporting Scriptures be of any help for you to reach that conclusion?

The word “made” does not mean “created.” He was “made” High priest. He was “made” both Lord and Christ.

Was He created again when He was “made” High priest? He existed in the form of God but was for a little while “made” a little lower than the angels. It has nothing to do with His being created.

Mike:

Quote

1:3 says: 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Two points.  First, the Scriptures tell us all things come FROM God, THROUGH Jesus.

You dodged my point. It says that without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being. NOT ONE THING! This cannot be true if he Himself came into being. This is now the second time you have dodged John's point.

Mike:

Quote

I don't know that much about the Greek language particles, but I'm sure “the only true God”, as Jesus calls Him, did not mean that Jesus was the God. 8.

The Father explicitly called His Son “hotheos” (the God). Don't forget that the Hebrew “elohim” (God) is plural.

Mike:

Quote

Jehovah, the One who according to that same Scripture was Jesus' God and also the One who had the power and authority to “set Jesus above his companions”?

Because Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant.

Mike:

Quote

You blew this question off, so I'll ask again: 9a.  Are we to assume that because Paul called Satan a god, that Satan is God Almighty?  9b.  Should we assume as much when he called Jesus a god?

I blew the question off because I had said twice already that there is only one “hotheos” to the people of God. What satan might be to the world has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

thethinker said:

Quote

Yes it is a word for word quote. But verse 6-8 tell us that it was Jesus speaking in Jeremiah. Note the bold “HE” used three times:

Mike replied:

Quote

10.  Did Jesus go by the Name of Jehovah back then?

Hebrews 8:6-7 clearly indicates that it was Jesus who was speaking and who made the new covenant with Israel. Chapter 9 says that the will (covenant) goes into effect upon the death of the one who made the covenant. DID THE FATHER DIE? ANSWER: A THOUSAND TIMES NO!
Did you address this point? No you didn't. Instead you attempt to detract from it by asking me a question. Chapter 9 says that the covenant goes into effect by the DEATH of the one who made it.

Again I ask, DID THE FATHER DIE? Answer: NO! Therefore, it is Jesus Christ who made the covenant with the house of Israel as Hebrews 8 CLEARLY says. He said, “I will be their God and they shall be My people”

Titus 2:13-14 (New King James Version)
13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Mike:

Quote

Here we go again!    12.  Did the Father die to enforce  the old covenant?  13.  Did Jesus die to enforce the old covenant?  Thinker, Paul starts off talking about the new covenant between Jehovah and mankind – the one Jehovah spoke through Jeremiah about.  In the middle of this testimony, he makes an analogy of a will.  He is saying that Jesus left us a promise of the possibility of everlasting life for mankind through his death.  Sort of like he left this promise in a last will and testament.  When Jesus died, we inherited this promise of everlasting life.   We would not have inherited the promise if Jesus didn't die.  Jesus had to die for us to be able to collect our inheritance.  Just like in Paul's world – you couldn't collect an inheritance unless the testator (the one who made the will) died.  Then Paul goes back to talking about the old and new covenants and how a blood sacrifice is required to enforce a cove nant.  So Paul is referring to Jesus as being both the testator of his own “last will and testament” AND as the sacrificial blood needed to enforce Jehovah's new covenant.  The “I will be their God” was said by Jehovah through Jeremiah and was still Jehovah when Paul quoted Scripture.  This should be clear to anyone who reads it.

Goo goo ga ga. You said that you are frustrated with Trinitarians. Your frustration is due to your own inability to defend your beliefs. Hebrews 9 CLEARLY says that the covenant goes into effect by the DEATH of the one WHO MADE IT.

It was Jesus who died to put the covenant into effect. Therefore, Jesus made the covenant with the house of Israel!

Mike:

Quote

A mediator between two parties ABSOLUTLY CANNOT be one of those two parties, period.

So you're saying that Jesus was not a man?

Mike:

Quote

Again, no explanation of purpose versus essence.

The unity Jesus spoke about is observable to the world. Therefore, it is a unity of purpose and not of essence.

Mike:

Quote

To which I will reply again: 13.  If you take “before all things” literally, it would mean that Jesus is “superior” or “above” Jehovah.  Is he?  If on the other hand, “before all things” means superior or above everything excluding Jehovah, then I agree so what's your point?

Let's go all the way back to my original post which caused you to start this debate.

Here is what I said:

Quote

The English word “over” is the same Greek word “epi” in both verses. * The Father is “over (epi) all.” * Christ is “over (epi) all.” Therefore, God and Christ are EQUAL in authority.

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3076

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you stonewalling?

Mike:

Quote

Come on man, it's right there in front of you! “…and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” It doesn't say we are “in his Son Jesus Christ, the true God…”

It CLEARLY says that “HE” (Jesus Christ) is the “true God and eternal life.” The pronoun “He” refers immediately back to Jesus Christ. You are violating the rules of grammar.

Mike:

Quote

And I showed you three Scriptures that prophesied that God will put everything under Christ's feet.

I did not deny the scriptures you gave. I gave you the WHOLE truth in respect to them. You are giving only partial truth. For instance, you use Psalm 110 as “proof” that Jesus does nothing to subjugate His enemies. Yet the WHOLE Psalm shows that it is the Messiah who destroys His enemies. Note verses 5-7:

5 My Lord is at Your right hand;
        He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the nations,
        He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
        He shall execute the heads of many countries.
7 He shall drink of the brook by the wayside;
        Therefore He shall lift up the head.

Note that it says that the Messiah shall “execute kings.” Revelation 19 says that it is the Lamb who comes on a white horse as King of kings and Lord of lords and “STRIKES THE NATIONS.”

Quote

Revelation 19:9-16 (New King James Version) 9 Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” 11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[ sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:      KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Answer the WHOLE Psalm Mike. And answer Revelation 19 also. You speak HALF truths. A half truth is a lie Mike!

Mike:

Quote

Never does the NT change the meaning or the players of the OT.  If the OT says Jehovah will do something, the NT never contradicts that.  You are the one interpreting incorrectly.

I agree that the NT does not change the players. It tells us who the player in the OT really is. It tells us that the new covenant is put into effect by the death of the one who made it. Did the Father die? Answer: No! Therefore, it was Jesus who made the new covenant with the house of Israel as Hebrews 8 CLEARLY says. The one who made the covenant is the one who dies to put it into effect. And the one who made the covenant said, “I will be their God and they shall be My people.”

Mike:

Quote

Leviticus is full of the sacrifices required for ceremonial and moral sins.

You could not be more mistaken. God gave the ten commandments in Exodus 20. In chapter 21 He said that the one who breaks them shall be “put to death.” When Moses instituted the animal sacrifices in Leviticus he kept the death penalty for breaking the ten commandmments. For instance, there was no sacrifice for the one who committed adultery or for the one who cursed his father and mother.
They were to be “PUT TO DEATH.”

Leviticus 20:9-16

Quote

9 ‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him. 10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. 11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. 15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death.

There it is! There was no sacrifice for breaking the ten commandments! All who transgressed the ten commandments were to be “PUT TO DEATH.” This even included idolaters and those who broke the sabbath.

But those who broke only the ceremonial laws were required to offer a sacrifice which would atone for that sin. Example: A man who touched a dead body was considered ceremonially unclean and had to offer a sacrifice.

Your view that animal sacrifices could take away moral sins is totally anti-christian. The new testament is VERY CLEAR that Christ's blood alone atones for our moral transgressions.

The things you say turn my stomach and this is why I could NEVER become an anti-trinitarian. They always end up speaking gross errors because they have no grasp of the things of God. No, not at all!

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

You said:

Quote

In the “form” of a servant Jesus possessed all the attributes of humanity. In the “form” of God He possessed all the attributes of divinity.

I quoted this:

Quote

Psalm 95:3 For Jehovah is the great God,      the great King above all gods.

Jesus could not have been equal to Jehovah or this Scripture is a lie.  Unless you can point me to a Scripture that explicitly says the Son is equal to the Father – not “in the form of”, or one that says Jesus is God Almighty, this should be the end of the discussion on this point.  

You said:

Quote

This says nothing of His being the first chronologically for He was the SECOND ADAM yet the FIRSTBORN OF MEN (the SUPREME man).

You prove my point.  It couldn't mean firstborn of men, because he wasn't.  In this instance, it MUST mean exactly what it says, “firstborn of ALL CREATION”.

You said:

Quote

The terms “firstborn” and “only begotten” are used synonomously in Hebrews 1:1-6. They mean the same thing. the terms refer to His rank as God's officiating Son.

I ask again, was Jehovah the “firstborn” of anything or “begotten” by anyone?

You said:

Quote

You dodged my point. It says that without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being. NOT ONE THING! This cannot be true if he Himself came into being. This is now the second time you have dodged John's point.

Again, echoing the words of Paul, when it says “not one thing”, it is clear that this does not include Jesus himself, who was already created by God before “all OTHER things” came into being.  Think it out, man!  If Jesus was God Almighty, the “not one thing” would exclude Jesus. It would mean “not one thing” after Jesus was already here.  Jesus is not God Almighty, but the meaning is the same.  It means “not one thing” after Jesus.

You said:

Quote

Because Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant.

Because “this is the COMMAND I received from my Father”.

You said:

Quote

I blew the question off because I had said twice already that the is only one “hotheos” to the people of God. What satan is to the world has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

No, you say Jesus is God because he is called “the god”.  Satan is called “the god” also.  And you didn't answer the fact that the NWT might have the translation correct.

I've answered the Hebrews 8 covenant thing in a way that even a 5th grader could understand it.  If you refuse to comprehend it, I cannot help you.  Inheritance can only be claimed when the person who made the will dies.   A covenant does not require the death of the one making it.  It would make no sense if two parties made a covenant, but one of the parties had to die to enforce it.  Who would the covenant be between if one of the parties had died?

You said:

Quote

Titus 2:13-14 (New King James Version) 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Jesus tells us who gave him his own special people:

Quote

John 17:6 NIV “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

You asked:

Quote

So you're saying that Jesus was not a man?

No, I am saying Jesus is not “all of mankind”.  Do you see the difference?  Give me one example in the history of the world where a mediator was one of the two parties being mediated between.  Besides, Jesus was always more than just a man.  What other man was a child of God's Holy Spirit and a human?

You said:

Quote

The unity Jesus spoke about is observable to the world. Therefore, it is a unity of purpose and not of essence.

Not only does this statement not prove your point, it doesn't even make any sense.

You said concerning the “over all” thing:

Quote

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you stonewalling?

Jesus and Jehovah are both called King.  Does that mean they are equal?  If so, the Bible tells about a lot of others who are also equal.  This is the stuff that gets on my nerves, Jack.  David is called King and was a savior to Israel, but you don't think he is God.  But if the same phrase is used for Jehovah and Jesus, it is your “proof” of their equality.

You said:

Quote

It CLEARLY says that “HE” (Jesus Christ) is the “true God and eternal life.” The pronoun “He” refers immediately back to Jesus Christ. You are violating the rules of grammar.

Actually, the last pronoun refers to God.  We are in “his” Son, Jesus Christ.  Who has a Son called Jesus Christ?  The true God, Jehovah.

You said:

Quote

Answer the WHOLE Psalm Mike. And answer Revelation 19 also. You speak HALF truths. A half truth is a lie Mike!

WHAT is your point.  I admitted Jesus will judge
all and destroy some of the things that GOD put under his feet.  You said Jesus PUT his enemies under himself – that is not what the Scriptures teach.

You said:

Quote

You could not be more mistaken. God gave the ten commandments in Exodus 20. In chapter 21 He said that the one who breaks them shall be “put to death.

What if a man raped a woman who was not promised to another man?  Was he to be killed?  Was it a moral sin?  Do you have Scriptural proof that the sin sacrifices didn't atone for moral sins such as this, or just conjecture?  Show me proof, and I will believe.  I don't claim to know everything in the Bible.

You said:

Quote

The things you say turn my stomach and this is why I could NEVER become an anti-trinitarian. They always end up speaking gross errors because they have no grasp of the things of God. No, not at all!

To which I say, show me my gross errors Scripturally.  Have you lost sight of why Jesus was sent BY Jehovah to the earth?  Was it to proclaim the good news of his own kingdom?  No, but God's kingdom.  Did Jesus EVER ask or tell anyone to worship him as God?  No.  Did he speak of his own authority?  No, but God's.  Did he claim equality with God?  No, but said much to the contrary.  Can't you see that it is actually quite simple.  It's the Trinitarians who speak gross errors, and then try to twist Scripture to fit into those errors.

Try this, Thinker:  Eliminate every word of the Scriptures except the ones that are direct quotes from Jehovah or Jesus.  Can you find one that suggests a trinity?

Still waiting on these answers…tick-tock, tick-tock….
1.  Why did Stephen see Christ but only the glory of God?

2.  Was Jehovah begotten?

peace and love and understanding
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

“Psalm 95:3 For Jehovah is the great God,     the great King above all gods.[/i]   Jesus could not have been equal to Jehovah or this Scripture is a lie.

Mike,
Jesus is called “Jehovah our righteousness”:

 In His days Judah will be saved,
     And Israel will dwell safely;
     Now this is His name by which He will be called:

     JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jeremiah 23:6

Mike:

Quote

Unless you can point me to a Scripture that explicitly says the Son is equal to the Father – not “in the form of”, or one that says Jesus is God Almighty, this should be the end of the discussion on this point.

The apostle John said that Jesus made Himself EQUAL with God:

18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself EQUAL with God. John 5:18

Mike:

Quote

You prove my point.  It couldn't mean firstborn of men, because he wasn't.  In this instance, it MUST mean exactly what it says, “firstborn of ALL CREATION”.

He is the “firstborn” [in rank] over men. The expression “all creation” means “all mankind” (vs. 23). Again, Paul EXPLICITLY said that “firstborn” means “supreme.” He is SUPREME (firstborn) over ALL MEN (all creation).

Mike:

Quote

I ask again, was Jehovah the “firstborn” of anything or “begotten” by anyone?

Again, the terms refer to His office.

Mike:

Quote

Again, echoing the words of Paul, when it says “not one thing”, it is clear that this does not include Jesus himself, who was already created by God before “all OTHER things” came into being.

Chapter and verse please! It CLEARLY says that without Him not “NOT ONE THING” came into being that has come into being.” This EXCLUDES Him as having come into being.

thethinker said:

Quote

Because Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant.

Mike replied:

Quote

Because “this is the COMMAND I received from my Father”.

The “command” (or principle) was that Jesus offer himself VOLUNTARILY. If He would have offered Himself out of obligation or because He was required, then He would have broken the principle. The word “entole” may be translated “principle.” Jesus meant, “This principle I have received from My Father.” Therefore, the “principle” was that He offer up Himself as a FREE-WILL offering. You are taking away from His love for you.

Mike:

Quote

, you say Jesus is God because he is called “the god”.  Satan is called “the god” also.

Show where satan is called “the God” of God's people? He is not called “the God” of God's people. Jesus is called “the God” of God's people as I have already shown.

Mike:

Quote

And you didn't answer the fact that the NWT might have the translation correct.

Now I know that you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that the NWT has “no contextual basis.”

Mike:

Quote

Inheritance can only be claimed when the person who made the will dies. A covenant does not require the death of the one making it.

You should have looked at your interlinear before you said this. The word translated “covenant” in chapter 8 is the same word translated “will” in chapter 9. It says that the one who made the “daitheke” (covenant, or will) dies to put the covenant (or will) into effect. See Strong's# 1242.

I have been watching how quickly you reply to my posts. Each time I see that you have answered too quickly I say to myself, “Mike is not doing his homework.” If you would have done your homework you would have known that the words “covenant” and “will” are the same Greek word. Do you even have a Strong's Concordance?

The one who makes the covenant (or will) DIES. Did the Father die?

Mike:

Quote

It would make no sense if two parties made a covenant, but one of the parties had to die to enforce it.

Who said that two parties made the covenant/will of salvation?

Mike:

Quote

Jesus and Jehovah are both called King.  Does that mean they are equal? If so, the Bible tells about a lot of others who are also equal.  This is the stuff that gets on my nerves, Jack.  David is called King and was a savior to Israel, but you don't think he is God.  But if the same phrase is used for Jehovah and Jesus, it is your “proof” of their equality.

First, David called Jesus His “Lord.” Second, though David was king he was never exalted to God's right hand. The position at God's right hand is the position of equality. Third, where in the scripture is David called “the Savior?”

Mike:

Quote

This is the stuff that gets on my nerves, Jack.

Who challenged who to this debate? I was just going along my merry way and I saw a thread which said, “Mikeboll versus thethinker.” So I said to myself, “Hmmm…what's this all about?”

Hey, if you don't want “stuff” to get on your nerves, then don't invite that stuff into your life.

thethinker said:

Quote

Quote   S o you're saying that Jesus was not a man?

Mike replied:

Quote

No, I am saying Jesus is not “all of mankind”.  Do you see the difference?

Who said that Jesus is “all of mankind?” I said that both parties must have a representative from their own KIN. You definitely have a comprehension problem!

Mike said:

Quote

Jesus tells us who gave him his own special people: “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

First, He made Himself a servant. Second, you did not answer that part of Titus 2:13-14 which says that Jesus Christ is OUR great God and Savior:

13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of OUR great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Answer ALL of Titus 2:13-14  please!

Mike:

Quote

Give me one example in the history of the world where a mediator was one of the two parties being mediated between.

Goo goo ga ga again. I already gave Jacob and Laban as an example. I pointed out that each man had brothers from his own KIN to do the mediation and come to a decision.

Mike:

Quote

Actually, the last pronoun refers to God.  We are in “his” Son, Jesus Christ.  Who has a Son called Jesus Christ?  The true God, Jehovah.

Your English teacher robbed the taxpayers! A pronoun must refer back to the nearest noun. A personal pronoun must refer back to the nearest personal noun. The nearest personal pronoun back is the personal pronoun “Jesus Christ.”

20And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He (Jesus Christ) is the true God and eternal life.

It says that “HE” (Jesus Christ) is the “true God AND eternal life.” The Father is not “the eternal life.” Jesus is the “eternal life” which was WITH the Father (1:2). The “eternal life” is also the “true God.”

Your explanation has no GRAMMATICAL basis whatosever!

Mike:

Quote

WHAT is your point.  I admitted Jesus will judge all and destroy some of the things that GOD put under his feet.  You said Jesus PUT his enemies under himself – that is not what the Scriptures teach.

I said that BOTH the Father and the Son put Christ's enemies under His feet. I gave verse 25 which says that the Son does it. Then I gave verse 28 which says that the Father does it.

THE SON PUTS HIS ENEMIES DOWN:

25For he (the Son) must reign until he (the Son) has put all his enemies under his (the Son's) feet.

THE FATHER PUTS THE SON'S ENEMIES DOWN:

28When all things are subjected to him (the Son), then the Son himself will also be subjected to him (the Father) who put all things in subjection under him,

The Father and the Son do all things as ONE (John 10:30). Your explanation of 1 corinthians 15 is a denial that the Father and the Son do ALL THINGS as one. This is a denial of scripture and of christianity.

Mike:

Quote

Do you have Scriptural proof that the sin sacrifices didn't atone for moral sins such as this, or just conjecture?

Maaaan! First, the very first scripture I gave you was Hebrews 10:4 which says:

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Second, I showed you that after God gave the ten commandments He required the death penalty for offenses against them (Ex. 21). Then I showed you that when Moses set up the sacrificial system he kept the death penalty for offenses against the ten commandments (Lev. 20). After all this you ask me for “proof” and you ask me to define a “moral sin?” I have already indicated that a “moral sin” was a sin against any of the ten commandments.

The sacrificial system covered ONLY the sins that were of a ceremonial nature. When a ceremonial law was broken there was a sacrifice for it. But when one of the ten commandments was broken there was no sacrifice. The offender was PUT TO DEATH. There was not a sacrifice for any offense against the moral code. ONLY the blood of Jesus can atone for offenses against the moral code!

Mike:

Quote

Have you lost sight of why Jesus was sent BY Jehovah to the earth?

Have I not affirmed repeatedly that Jesus was sent? I admit that I have denied that He was sent in the way you say He was sent. He was sent in the way Isaiah was sent. Jehovah did not require Isaiah to go. Jehovah said, “Who shall go for US?” Isaiah replied saying, “Here I am. Send me.”

Was Isaiah more noble than Jesus? Of course not! Jesus said as Isaiah said, “Here I am. Send Me.”

btw, Note the plural again. Jehovah said, Who shall go for US” (Isaiah 6:8-9)

Mike:

Quote

1.  Why did Stephen see Christ but only the glory of God?

I asked you first and this is now the fourth time I ask: Did Stephen ask the Father in Jesus' name to forgive those who stoned him? Or did he ask Jesus directly to forgive them?

Mike:

Quote

2.  Was Jehovah begotten?

The word “begotten” refers to His rank over all mankind. Jehovah the Son was not literally begotten. He is called the “begotten” because of His supreme rank over men (Hebrews 1:1-6).  The term “begotten” refers to His office.

1. The one who makes the covenant (or will) DIES to put it into effect. Did the Father die?

2. Why did Jesus need to die if the animal sacrifices could atone for moral sins?

tick tock tick tock

thinker

[KangarooJack]

ATTN MIKE:

This is an addition to my post immediately above.

I Corinthians 15:28 says this:

28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Philippians 3:20-21 says this:

20For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

There you have it! Philippians 3 says that Jesus Christ will change our vile bodies and transform them like His glorious body according to the working by which He is able to “subdue all things unto Himself.”

The word “subdue” is the same word (hupotasso) in both 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3.

The Father and the Son do ALL things as ONE.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Man, I think this (although frustrating at times) is one of the most mentally entertaining things I've ever done.

The NWT translates the name of the savior of Israel in Jeremiah 23:6 as:
“Jehovah Is Our Righteousness.” Heb., Yehwah′ Tsidh‧qe′nu.

The translators only have Jehovah/Righteousness to go on.  But let's use your translation.  Are you saying that the Son is/was/will be the Father?  I thought your trinity doctrine confessed three SEPARATE yet equal persons.  Do I have it wrong?

Either way, the Son sits at the right hand of the Father as a separate person.  So since it would seem that Jesus can't actually be Jehovah, how do you explain it?  Which translation makes more Scriptural sense?

You said:

Quote

The apostle John said that Jesus made Himself EQUAL with God: 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself EQUAL with God. John 5:18

I'll give two answers to this.

1.  The Jews also called God the only Father they have:

Quote

John 8:41 NIV You are doing the things your own father does.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

While I admit John did write those words, I find it hard to understand why when the Jews did it, it was okay, but when Jesus did it, it was a stoning offense.

2.  How did Jesus respond when the Jews (like Trinitarians) mistakenly thought Jesus was making himself equal to God?  John 10 says:

Quote

33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”    34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

If only the Jews (and Trinitarians) could have accepted these words straight from Jesus' mouth…  But you now have the benefit of other words straight from Jesus' mouth:

Quote

John 14:28 NIV “You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

John is the one who recorded this straight out of Jesus' mouth.  So, let's narrow the search.  Is there any Scripture where someone explicitly said Jesus is God Almighty or equal to Him and WASN'T corrected for the mistake?

You said:

Quote

He is the “firstborn” [in rank] over men. The expression “all creation” means “all mankind”

This is your non-Scripturally supported opinion.  Thinker, this is what happens when instead of learning truth from the Scriptures, you start with a man-made idea and then try to fit Scripture into that idea.  Imagine the last sentence in the Bible said in big bold letters: “There is no trinity.  God created Jesus, then created everything else through Jesus.”  Would you still think “firstborn of all creation” and “begotten” were ranks?  Not at all.  You wouldn't even give it a second thought because you wouldn't be trying to fit Scripture into a pre-conceived idea.  You would read “firstborn” the way Paul intended it – Jesus was brought into existence by God before any other creation.  And you would read “begotten” the way John and Jesus meant it – a procreated or generated offspring.  So your scholar's conjecture doesn't hold much weight with real believers.  We are the ones who take the Scriptures to mean what they say.

You said:

Quote

Paul EXPLICITLY said that “firstborn” means “supreme.” He is SUPREME (firstborn) over ALL MEN (all creation).

Where?

I asked again:

Quote

Was Jehovah the “firstborn” of anything or “begotten” by anyone?

You replied:

Quote

Again, the terms refer to His office.

Okay Thinker, even though your answer is pure conjecture, I'll ask a different way.  Was Jehovah ever given “firstborn rights” or the “rights of an only begotten” by anyone?  Did anyone EVER have to GIVE Jehovah ANYTHING?

You said:

Quote

Chapter and verse please! It CLEARLY says that without Him not “NOT ONE THING” came into being that has come into being.” This EXCLUDES Him as having come into being.

Again, ECHOING PAUL'S WORDS (no chapter and verse), when it says “not one thing”, it is clear that this doesn't include Jesus, who had already been begotten by God.”  The chapter and verse I ECHO is 1 Cor 15:27;

Quote

27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[Psalm 8:6] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

It is unfortunate that John didn't have the foresight to include a disclaimer like Paul did.  Even though Psalm 8:6 says God put “everything” under Christ's feet, Paul had the understanding and forethought to add the disclaimer, probably just so Trinitarians couldn't later say, “It says EVERYTHING, so that must include God, too!”…just like you're trying to do with John 1:3.  But you only need to read John 1:18 to understand:

Quote

18No one has ever seen God, but the only Begotten God, (some manuscripts:only begotten son)who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Now think it out, Thinker.  “No one has ever seen God”.
Not Moses, not the prophets, not the apostles, not even Stephen as he was being stoned to death.  But many, people saw Jesus on earth.  And at least one (Stephen), saw him after he ascended into heaven and made it to the right hand of God.  Note that Stephen could still not see God, only his glory.  But he could see Jesus, even after he had been exalted to the highest position and given a name above all others.  What does that tell you?

“But the only begotten god, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known.”  This part tells us that: A.  Jesus was begotten.  That is why he calls God his Father, and God calls him “My son, whom I approved.”  And why he is called the Son of God.  No tricks or learning a new language or over-analyzation by scholars required – Jesus is God's Son in the most simple form of the phrase.  

B.  Jesus is at the Father's side.  Not a part of Him, not equal to Him, but at His side, exactly where Stephen saw him.

You said:

Quote

The “command” (or principle) was that Jesus offer himself VOLUNTARILY.

We have beat this into the ground, brother.  It doesn't matter for this debate that Jesus volunteered.  Your point is Jesus is equal, and the fact that he follows commands from his Father, voluntarily or not, clarifiies an inequality.  And, we can assume that because Jesus knew what was required of him before he took the form of a man, the command was given while Jesus was still in heaven.  (My conjecture only.)

You said:

Quote

Show where satan is called “the God” of God's people? He is not called “the God” of God's people. Jesus is called “the God” of God's people as I have already shown.

First, Hebrews 1:8 doesn't mention who he is God of.  Second, are you really going to put so many eggs in this basket?  Even as Jesus is referred to as god, it is clear that HIS GOD is the one with the power and authority to set him above his companions.  Does Jehovah need God to set him above His companions?  And you still didn't answer the NWT question appropriately.  The Greek is worded in a way that it could be translated either way.  Do you agree?

You said:

Quote

You should have looked at your interlinear before you said this. The word translated “covenant” in chapter 8 is the same word translated “will” in chapter 9. It says that the one who made the “daitheke” (covenant, or will) dies to put the covenant (or will) into effect. See Strong's# 1242. I have been watching how quickly you reply to my posts. Each time I see that you have answered too quickly I say to myself, “Mike is not doing his homework.” If you would have done your homework you would have known that the words “covenant” and “will” are the same Greek word. Do you even have a Strong's Concordance? The one who makes the covenant (or will) DIES. Did the Father die?

      Thinker, I'm the one that made the point to you that will and testament are the same Greek word in your “Testator” topic.  And no, I don't have a Strong's concordance.  I have used only two referrences throughout this debate – the Scriptures and Dictionary.com.  I have dumbed this down as far as I can without actually resorting to the goo goo ga ga you often attribute to me. Does a person have to die to enforce a covenant?  Not a will, but a covenant like the old one God made with the Israelites.

You said:

Quote

Who said that two parties made the covenant/will of salvation?

Who is the new (or old) covenant between?

You said

Quote

The position at God's right hand is the position of equality.

Where is that in the Scriptures?  It is the highest position one can have relevant to another, except for the position of the one who's right hand you are at.  Again, see Stephen.  If right hand meant equal, then Stephen would have only been able to see Jesus' glory, not Jesus himself.

You said:

Quote

Third, where in the scripture is David called “the Savior?”

It's late and I'm tired but here's one for now.

Quote

1 Samuel 23:5 NIV So David and his men went to Keilah, fought the Philistines and carried off their livestock. He inflicted heavy losses on the Philistines and saved the people of Keilah.

If you save someone, you are a savior.  Pretty simple.

You said:

Quote

Who said that Jesus is “all of mankind?” I said that both parties must have a representative from their own KIN. You definitely have a comprehension problem!

Me?  I said a mediator CANNOT be one of the parties being mediated between.  Therefore, Jesus cannot be “all of mankind”, and he cannot be Jehovah God Almighty.

You said:

Quote

Second, you did not answer that part of Titus 2:13-14 which says that Jesus Christ is OUR great God and Savior:  Answer ALL of Titus 2:13-14  please!

Again, Jehovah foretold that Jesus would be called “mighty god”.  Since “great” and “mighty” are synonyms, Titus 2:13-14 is one of God's prophesies being fulfilled.  You remember now?  You asked why I didn't address the “everlasting father” part.

You said:

Quote

Goo goo ga ga again. I already gave Jacob and Laban as an example.

Was Jacob the mediator?  Was Laban the mediator?  Give me one example in the history of the world where a mediator was one of the parties being mediated between.

You said:

Quote

Your English teacher robbed the taxpayers! A pronoun must refer back to the nearest noun. A personal pronoun must refer back to the nearest personal noun. The nearest personal pronoun back is the personal pronoun “Jesus Christ.” HEY, THINKER, I changed some things in this Scripture.  Is it still English? 20And I know that WJ has come and has given me understanding, so that I may know him who is true; and I am debating him who is true, even debating his friend WJ. He is Jack.

You see Jack, it can work both ways.  So how do we decide?  Well first, John never referred to Jesus as the “true God” anywhere else in all of his writings.  Second, John was there and recorded Jesus praying to his God, Jehovah:

Quote

John 17:3 NIV Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John also heard Jesus say the Father is greater than I.  He also heard him pray multiple times to his God.  He was there in person for all the times Jesus said things like, “I can do nothing on my own”, etc.  He also summed up his book with these words:

Quote

John 20:31 NIV But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So you tell me, which reading makes more sense.  See, this is one of those things we wouldn't even be discussing had you not been taught the trinity.

You said:

Quote

I said that BOTH the Father and the Son put Christ's enemies under His feet. I gave verse 25 which says that the Son does it. Then I gave verse 28 which says that the Father does it. THE SON PUTS HIS ENEMIES DOWN: 25For he (the Son) must reign until he (the Son) has put all his enemies under his (the Son's) feet. THE FATHER PUTS THE SON'S ENEMIES DOWN: 28When all things are subjected to him (the Son), then the Son himself will also be subjected to him (the Father) who put all things in subjection under him,

Read the other Scriptures, man.  In verse 25, the second “he” is referring back to Psalms and talking about the Father.  I gave you 4 Scriptures to prove this.  One of them was a quote from Jesus himself.  If you can't handle that, then read the last part of verse 28.  It was the Father who put all things under him.

You said:

Quote

The Father and the Son do all things as ONE (John 10:30). Your explanation of 1 corinthians 15 is a denial that the Father and the Son do ALL THINGS as one. This is a denial of scripture and of christianity.

Did the Father and Son die as one?  Was the Father dead for three days?  Did the Father and Son sleep in the boat as one, even though Scripture tells us God never sleeps?  Why do you take everything at exact face value only when it seems to make the Scripture fit into your trinity doctrine?  But when it comes to begotten and firstborn, you want to say they mean something different?

You said:

Quote

Maaaan! First, the very first scripture I gave you was Hebrews 10:4 which says: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Hebrews 9 says:

Quote

7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

And when David commited adultery and murder, what happened?  Was he killed?  Or did Jehovah accept a sacrifice and repentance for the forgiveness of his sins?  These are the kind of moral sins that were committed daily by the Israelites, and were atoned for by the sin sacrifices.  I can list more instances if you like.

You said:

Quote

btw, Note the plural again. Jehovah said, Who shall go for US” (Isaiah 6:8-9)

Thinker, do you think Jehovah is alone in heaven.  Do you think he doesn't talk to others and ask them questions?

You said:

Quote

I asked you first and this is now the fourth time I ask: Did Stephen ask the Father in Jesus' name to forgive those who stoned him? Or did he ask Jesus directly to forgive them?

Unlike the question I've asked you at least four times, yours has been answered.  But again, I think (my conjecture) that he asked the Father but didn't have time to make a formal prayer in Jesus' name because of the circumstances.  Also again, even if it was Jesus, Stephen as a disciple knew that Jesus had been given authority from his God to forgive sins.

You said:

Quote

The word “begotten” refers to His rank over all mankind. Jehovah the Son was not literally begotten. He is called the “begotten” because of His supreme rank over men (Hebrews 1:1-6).  The term “begotten” refers to His office.

      Jehovah the Son!       Jehovah is the personal divine name of the Father only, not some sort of title.  Even if Jesus were a separate person in the Godhead, as you claim, would he have the same name as the Father?  Nevermind, you just keep praying to and worshipping Jehovah.

See how this is done?  I'll answer any question to the best of my ability.  And if I don't know,
I'll say so.

You said:

Quote

1. The one who makes the covenant (or will) DIES to put it into effect. Did the Father die?

No, the Father didn't die, because a person doesn't have to die to put a covenant into effect, only a last will and testament.  No person died to put the old covenant into effect, did they?

You said:

Quote

2. Why did Jesus need to die if the animal sacrifices could atone for moral sins? tick tock tick tock

Your answer:

Quote

13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Jesus' blood not only made us outwardly clean, but cleansed our consciences.

Your additional post brings nothing new.  Jesus can subdue things because God set them under his feet.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

The NWT translates the name of the savior of Israel in Jeremiah 23:6 as: “Jehovah Is Our Righteousness.” Heb., Yehwah′ Tsidh‧qe′nu.

So what? It is Christ's name.

Mike:

Quote

I thought your trinity doctrine confessed three SEPARATE yet equal persons.  Do I have it wrong?

Jehovah is three persons but one God. The Messenger of Jehovah said to Moses, “I am that I am.” Jesus said, “Before Abraham was “I AM”.

Mike:

Quote

Either way, the Son sits at the right hand of the Father as a separate person.

Of course the Son is a separate person.

Mike:

Quote

the Son sits at the right hand of the Father as a separate person

A separate but EQUAL person. His position at God's right hand signifies EQUALITY.

Mike:

Quote

So since it would seem that Jesus can't actually be Jehovah, how do you explain it?

I have already explained it in showing you that the word “elohim” (God) is plural and that elohim said, “let US make man in OUR image.” Please don't ask me to explain it again. The time is past due for you to refute it.

Mike:

Quote

How did Jesus respond when the Jews (like Trinitarians) mistakenly thought Jesus was making himself equal to God?

If the Jews were mistaken then so was the apostle John. The statement that Jesus was “making Himself equal with God” is John's own commentary.

Do you reject John's commentary?

Mike:

Quote

So, let's narrow the search.  Is there any Scripture where someone explicitly said Jesus is God Almighty or equal to Him and WASN'T corrected for the mistake?

Where have you been? Thomas addressed Jesus as “My Lord and my God” and Jesus did not correct him. Jesus assured Thomas of his confession saying,

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Why did Jesus not correct Thomas? Why did Jesus say to him, “because you have seen and believed…?

thethinker said:

Quote

He is the “firstborn” [in rank] over men. The expression “all creation” means “all mankind”

 

Mike replied:

Quote

This is your non-Scripturally supported opinion.

Paul said that “firstborn” means “supreme.” He said that Jesus is the “firstborn that in all things He might have the SUPREMACY.”  

And the term “all creation” everywhere in the New Testament means “all mankind.” Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” Jesus obviously meant that they were to preach the gospel to “all men.” Colossians 1:23 says, “The gospel was preached to all creation.” This clearly refers to MEN. The meaning of the term “all creation” is the same in verse 6.

So Jesus was not literally “firstborn.” If He had been it would mean that He was the first man. We know that He was not the first man. Therefore, the term “firstborn” refers to His rank over men. Paul said that it means “SUPREME” over men and the NIV and the NKJV show this by their rendering of it, “the firstborn OVER all creation” (all men).

You have yet to disprove this.

Mike:

Quote

Was Jehovah ever given “firstborn rights” or the “rights of an only begotten” by anyone?

Jehovah the Son received firstborn rights. I believe I have been clear about this. Again, the time is past due for you to begin to refute me.

Mike:

Quote

Again, ECHOING PAUL'S WORDS (no chapter and verse), when it says “not one thing”, it is clear that this doesn't include Jesus, who had already been begotten by God.”

Did you notice that I put your word “already” in bold? This is where you err. Jesus had not been begotten “already” before creation. He was begotten AT HIS RESURRECTION AND EXALTATION to God's right hand.  

33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath RAISED UP Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm,

“Thou art my Son, TODAY have I begotten thee.” Acts 13:33

There you have it! Jesus was “begotten” at His exaltation. Therefore, He pre-existed His being begotten.

Now go back to John 1:3 and read it correctly. It CLEARLY says that “without Him NOT ONE THING came into being that has come into being.”

Jesus had not been begotten “already” as you say. He was “begotten” at His exaltation when He assumed His position as God's officiating Son. Peter applied the term “TODAY I have begotten you” to the time of His resurrection and exaltation. See also Hebrews chapters 1 & 5.

Do you know what “today” means Mike? You're choking friend. I suggested to you that you do your homework before you post but you won't listen.

Mike:

Quote

It is unfortunate that John didn't have the foresight to include a disclaimer like Paul did.  Even though Psalm 8:6 says God put “everything” under Christ's feet, Paul had the understanding and forethought to add the disclaimer, probably just so Trinitarians couldn't later say, “It says EVERYTHING, so that must include God, too!

Ha! If Paul was making a “disclaimer” as you say then he must have taken his “disclaimer” back:

20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who wil
l transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. Philippians 3:20-21

Paul surely was one confused dude. He makes a “disclaimer” saying that Christ has nothing to do with the subjugation of his enemies and then he takes his “disclaimer” back by saying that Jesus will subdue His enemies.

Or Paul understood the concept that the Father and the Son do all things as ONE. The last enemy to be subdued is death. Paul said that it is Christ who will “transform our vile body.” Therefore, Christ will subdue the last enemy. Again, the Father and the Son do all things as ONE. This is elementary christianity.

Do your homework Mike!

Mike:

Quote

Note that Stephen could still not see God, only his glory.  But he could see Jesus, even after he had been exalted to the highest position and given a name above all others.  What does that tell you?

Jesus said, “He that has seen Me has seen the Father.” What does this tell you Mike?

Mike:

Quote

Jesus is at the Father's side.  Not a part of Him, not equal to Him, but at His side, exactly where Stephen saw him.

Uh, Mike, the expression “at the side” means EQUALITY. The woman was at Adam's side as his EQUAL. Please don't invoke the scripture which says that the man is the head of the woman and suggest that the woman was not originally equal. Before sin entered into the world the woman was at the man's side as his EQUAL. The woman's position under the man was the result of sin.

“At the side” means EQUAL. Try again.

Mike:

Quote

Your point is Jesus is equal, and the fact that he follows commands from his Father, voluntarily or not, clarifiies an inequality.

You're wrong! Jesus could have chosen His own will and the Father would have sent Him twelve legions of angels. Looks like equality to me. You use the fact that He denied His own will to put Him down. You should be glorifying Him for had He not denied Himself you would be eternally lost.

Mike:

Quote

First, Hebrews 1:8 doesn't mention who he is God of.

Is He God over dust?

Mike:

Quote

Even as Jesus is referred to as god, it is clear that HIS GOD is the one with the power and authority to set him above his companions.

He was in the form of God and therefore He was equal with God. But He made Himself nothing and so God set Him up on the throne. You must have known how I would answer.

Mike:

Quote

And you still didn't answer the NWT question appropriately.  The Greek is worded in a way that it could be translated either way.  Do you agree?

I already said no! The NWT is a cult translation. Let's move on.

Mike:

Quote

Thinker, I'm the one that made the point to you that will and testament are the same Greek word in your “Testator” topic.  And no, I don't have a Strong's concordance.  I have used only two referrences throughout this debate – the Scriptures and Dictionary.com.  I have dumbed this down as far as I can without actually resorting to the goo goo ga ga you often attribute to me. Does a person have to die to enforce a covenant?  Not a will, but a covenant like the old one God made with the Israelites.

Double goo goo ga ga! Read again what you just said. You admitted that the word “covenant” and “will” are the same Greek word. But then you say, “Does a person have to die to enforce a covenant?  Not a will, but a covenant like the old one God made with the Israelites.”

Triple goo goo ga ga. Is the “covenant” of chapter 8 and the “will” of chapter 9 the same or not? Make up your mind! Most translations do not use the word “will.” They use the word “covenant” or “testament.” The scripture CLEARLY says that the covenant is not in force until the one who made it dies. DID THE FATHER DIE?

Mike:

Quote

If right hand meant equal, then Stephen would have only been able to see Jesus' glory, not Jesus himself.

Wow! Major break through for me! If seeing the glory of Jesus implies that He is equal with the Father AS YOU HAVE JUST SAID, then Jesus is EQUAL with the Father for the disciples saw His glory:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

You have made me one happy camper today!  

Mike:

Quote

So David and his men went to Keilah, fought the Philistines and carried off their livestock. He inflicted heavy losses on the Philistines and saved the people of Keilah. If you save someone, you are a savior.  Pretty simple.

My question was this: Where in scripture is David called “THE Savior.” Neither did you address the point that David called the Messiah “My Lord.”

Mike:

Quote

said a mediator CANNOT be one of the parties being mediated between.  Therefore, Jesus cannot be “all of mankind”, and he cannot be Jehovah God Almighty.

When did I say that Jesus was one of the parties? I said that Jesus was the “kin” of both parties. He was both of God and of man.

Mike:

Quote

Jacob the mediator?  Was Laban the mediator?  Give me one example in the history of the world where a mediator was one of the parties being mediated between.

You really need to quit with the nonsense Mike. I have repeatedly said that the mediation occurred by the “kin” from both parties. Jacob and Laban were the two parties. The brothers of each did the mediation and came to a decision. Each had a “kin representative.” Jesus fulfilled this because He was both God'
s kin and man's kin.

Mike:

Quote

Again, Jehovah foretold that Jesus would be called “mighty god”.

Jesus is not “a mighty god” but “the mighty God.” This cannot mean that Jesus is “a god” because we are forbidden to have other gods.

thethinker said:

Quote

Your English teacher robbed the taxpayers! A pronoun must refer back to the nearest noun. A personal pronoun must refer back to the nearest personal noun. The nearest personal pronoun back is the personal pronoun “Jesus Christ.”

Mike replied:

Quote

HEY, THINKER, I changed some things in this Scripture.  Is it still English? 20And I know that WJ has come and has given me understanding, so that I may know him who is true; and I am debating him who is true, even debating his friend WJ. He is Jack.

Though your changes may be English they are not proper grammar. John said that the one who is true is “the true God AND eternal life.” Jesus is the “eternal life” who was WITH the Father (1:2). The eternal life is the “true God.” Therefore, Jesus is the “true God.”

John identified the one who is true saying, “that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ“. Therefore, the one “who is true” is the one we are “in” and the one we are “in” is JESUS CHRIST. Therefore, Jesus Christ is the “true God and eternal life.”

In verse 13-15 John tells us that his purpose for writing is that we may believe in the name of the Son of God and that we may express our confidence in Him by asking Him for things. If we ask according to the Son's will He will give it to us. Sure looks like He is God to me.

Mike:

Quote

John also heard Jesus say the Father is greater than I.

John also heard Jesus tell His disciples that they would do “greater” works than Himself. They did not do works that were superior to the works of Jesus did they? Their works were “greater” quantitatively.

Mike:

Quote

Read the other Scriptures, man.  In verse 25, the second “he” is referring back to Psalms and talking about the Father.  I gave you 4 Scriptures to prove this.  One of them was a quote from Jesus himself.  If you can't handle that, then read the last part of verse 28.  It was the Father who put all things under him.

First, the second “he” is not referring back to the Psalm. Verse 28 refers back to the Psalm. Second, the Psalm says that it is Messiah who “executes kings.” Third, Christ's enemies are not put under His feet UNTIL HE HIMSELF destroys them. Fourth, Paul said that the Son will “transform or vile bodies according to the power by which He is able to subdue all things UNTO HIMSELF.”

Therefore, Father and the Son act as ONE.

thethinker said:

Quote

Father and the Son do all things as ONE (John 10:30). Your explanation of 1 corinthians 15 is a denial that the Father and the Son do ALL THINGS as one. This is a denial of scripture and of christianity.

Mike replied:

Quote

Did the Father and Son die as one?

The Father deserted Jesus at this point because He was carrying our sins and our filth on His shoulders. Jesus died all alone. The Father and the Son were not one at this point. This has nothing to do with the principle I have set forth. Paul said that the Father subdues all Christ's enemies. He said also that Christ will transform our vile bodies “according to the power by which He is able to subdue all things unto Himself.” Therefore, the Father and the Son do all things as ONE.

I believe the WHOLE Bible Mike!

Mike:

Quote

And when David commited adultery and murder, what happened?  Was he killed?  Or did Jehovah accept a sacrifice and repentance for the forgiveness of his sins?  These are the kind of moral sins that were committed daily by the Israelites, and were atoned for by the sin sacrifices.  I can list more instances if you like.

You did not answer Hebrews 10:4. You totally ignored it. The statment is VERY CLEAR. It says that it is “NOT POSSIBLE that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.”

I was expecting that you would bring up David. Try to remember that thethinker will ALWAYS be one step ahead of you and sometimes three steps ahead.

David's confession of his sin of adultery is recorded for us in Psalm 51. After David came to see his sin he had a broken and a contrite heart and asked God for mercy. He asked God to wash him from sin (vs. 1-4). This washing was solely the act of God for David himself said that God would not accept a sacrifice for his sin:

16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
        You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
        A broken and a contrite heart—
        These, O God, You will not despise. verses 16-17

David was forgiven strictly on the basis of the mercy of God without a sacrifice being offered. There was no sacrifice for moral sins. If there was then Christ would not have needed to die. Why did Christ need to die Mike?

Your beliefs especially in respect to this subject are thoroughy unbiblical and anti-christian.

Mike:

Quote

13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! Jesus' blood not only made us outwardly clean, but cleansed our consciences.

Note that the sacrifices could not do the inward but only the outward cleansing. Right Mike? The verse you offer CLEARLY proves my point that the animal sacrifices atoned only for sins against the ceremonial law.

Mike said:

Quote

Your additional post brings nothing new.  Jesus can subdue things because God set them under his feet.

Don't deal with Philippians 3:20-21. Just sweep it under the rug. I don't see a “because” clause:

20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

Where is the “because” clause Mike?

thinker

[Author]

Posts