- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Adam and Mandy,
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:Peter, the very apostle of Jesus, the “rock” which the church is built on, calls the Son of God “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Think about this you two, if you keep comforting one another in believing the error you are not really doing each other a favor. I appreciate the idea of comforting one another but Mandy, if Adam is dead wrong you are not helping him. Of course you must think he is right or you wouldn't purposefully enable him to stay blind would you? I don't think that you would do that.
The verse in 2 Peter is the same in 3 of the earliest Greek manuscripts and shows no evidence of being tampered with. You can ignore it if you want.
I think that is why we have 415 pages of this because of ignoring scriptures like this.
IMO,
KathiHi Kathi,
Quote You can ignore it if you want. While your comment leads me to believe that you don't respect my ability to reason any scriptures out for myself (or with the help of the Spirit), I will acknowledge your condescending attitude towards me and other's, but I will leave it at that.
I do not believe Adam is in error to believe there is One God (period). I believe scripture as we have it and perhaps how it has been handed down for even the manuscripts that we have available for comparison (remember even those are hand copied – copies!) could be in error. I do believe that strong passages of scripture that tell us God is One, and that he is the ONLY God should be heeded over the few that recognize any *other* as God or a god (including our dear Lord).
Quote I think that is why we have 415 pages of this because of ignoring scriptures like this.
Did you mean because we are ignoring your interpretation of these scriptures? Sister, it is not that clear-cut I'm afraid. You are not the first one to study the original languages, and you are certainly not the first one to have received a revelation regarding Jesus' preexistence! The curious thing that I find, however, is that you seem to think other's are in error if they do not stand behind you in your interpretations? I find many good interpretations here……yours is among them!
Love,
MandyHello Mandy You said to lightenup referring to scripture “Sister, it is not that clear-cut I'm afraid. “Well the following are words directly from that one God you and Adam feel you are defending.
Heb 1:8-12
But about the Son he says,“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”10 He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”
NIVYou say I believe scripture as we have it and perhaps how it has been handed down for even the manuscripts that we have available for comparison (remember even those are hand copied – copies!) could be in error.
Now I agree that there can be an error in scripture But are you trying to tell us that only you and Adam can decipher these errors That all the scriptures you and Adam have been given are spurious; including the three above?
Of course the scripture was hand written even the Ten Commandments given to Moses were written by the hand of God.
That one God you worship, in reference to his Son, is telling you above “”Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Then in the very next verse The Almighty Father again destroys the foolishness of the trinity doctrine by saying “”…therefore God, YOUR GOD, has set you above your companions” Then in his own words the one God you worship is sayingHeb 1:10
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands. NIV
What part of these three statements from the scriptures made by the one God you worship do you find unclear?
Where do you find the documentation to back up your claim that these scripture are in error.Lets look at these scriptures from other versions
Heb 1:88 But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
NKJVHeb 1:10
You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
NKJVHeb 1:8
8 But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
NASUHeb 1:10
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
NASUHeb 1:8-10
8 but of the Son (he saith,) Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands:
ASVHeb 1:7-11
8 but of his Son he says, “Your Kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever; its commands are always just and right. 9 You love right and hate wrong; so God, even your God, has poured out more gladness upon you than on anyone else.”10 God also called him “Lord” when he said, “Lord, in the beginning you made the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 1
TLBHeb 1:8
8 But of the Son He says,
“Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
NASBHeb 1:10
10 And,
“Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Thy hands;
NASBHeb 1:8
8 But to his Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
NLTHeb 1:10
10 And,
“Lord, in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
NLTHeb 1:8
8 But of the Son he says,
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,
the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.
RSVHeb 1:10
10 And,
“Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of thy hands;
RSV
Are all of these versions in error on thes three scriptures or is it that you cannot see because you will not look. Now I know you to be inteligent so I cannot believe that you think you know more than the God we all worship.RoyT01
Quote Are all of these versions in error on thes three scriptures or is it that you cannot see because you will not look. Heb 1:8
KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB, RS all state something like:
“Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’”AT, Mo, TC, By, NWT all state something like:
“But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’”Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
Hi Roy,
Quote Now I agree that there can be an error in scripture But are you trying to tell us that only you and Adam can decipher these errors That all the scriptures you and Adam have been given are spurious; including the three above?
Heavens, no! Where would you get such an idea?I'm glad that you are willing to look at the fact that the bible as we have it before us *could* contain misinformation. The point that I am trying to make is that none of us have the decoder pin to make complete sense of it all. If we did, we would all be in harmony with one answer to the question!
Quote Now I know you to be inteligent so I cannot believe that you think you know more than the God we all worship.
Thank you for the back-handed compliment, I think? And of course you would be correct that I do not think I know more than the God we all worship. Key idea here: we all worship the same God!Love,
MandyQuote (david @ Aug. 15 2008,09:40) B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
Thank you, David. You have proved my point quite nicely and that is that everyone has ideas about what certain passages of scripture should (or does) say. Who is correct?With this uncertainty, should we strut about thinking that we have the ONLY interpretation possible and other's are completely misled, or worse, not a child of God at all? I dare say that more patience and tolerance for other's is needed.
Mandy
Hi Mandy,
I know people are trying to prove that Bible talks about Polytheim in believing more than one God. Let them interpret scriptures as per their wish. Even many biblical recorders have done in the past in the history of christianity which made this religion a mess than any other religion. If Bible controdicts its own I don't need such scriptures at all. What is that we are proving here our dogma or the truth ? If Paul or any biblical writer says two things which controdict each other I don't need such religion at all. I came here to understand the God of the Bible as it says every where there is only One God but I see here there are lot of mindblowing debates to prove more than one God. One says satan is also god and other says no no Jesus is also God. Which one I have to believe ? If one or two scriptures differ with what the hundreds of scriptures say on One God should I have to ignore those hundred scriptures to take the meaning of one or two scriptures ? or should have to interpret them in the light of those hundred scriptures which establish the Jewish Monotheism ?The Christianity in the past struggled for proving or disproving those two or few scriptures and killed many who opposed their dogma. I see utter confusion here. May the Only God the Father help us to know Him and His Son Jesus properly.
Thanks and love to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Aug. 15 2008,19:20) I see utter confusion here. May the Only God the Father help us to know Him and His Son Jesus properly.
Dear brother,This is nothing new. There has been confusion since Adam and Eve. Did Eve really know the consequences of her decision to eat the apple?
It's my personal belief that we have been given the outer bits of the puzzle but some of the inside pieces are missing….. We can speculate, debate, accuse and point finger's, we can give-up, press on, hope….. But we won't know for certain until the Day comes when we see him face-to-face. What a glorious Day that will be.
Take comfort in knowing that God rewards those who earnestly seek him. You are doing this, Adam. He didn't say that he rewards those who figure it all out or who find the ultimate truth. He rewards those who seek him with all their hearts. In my opinion the answers are optional, faith is required however.
Have faith my brother. Don't worry if you don't have all the answers or if the bible seems to have holes in it (it indeed does) – God knows our situation. He knows we are but mud-men.
Love to you,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 15 2008,04:17) Hi Kathi, Perhaps Adam is pointing out the fact that the Almighty has told us that there is no God beside him?
Deuteronomy 32:39
“See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”I'm wondering, if Jesus is the “begotten God”, would God have said, “There is no God beside me except for my Son who is the begotten God.” I'm not sure about this.
Sometimes I wonder if we put scriptures together based on various translations (that *could be* tampered with) and determine that Jesus is a “god/God”? That is why I was asking you about the Greek before to see if it panned out or not.
I guess when one or two scriptures counter what other's are saying, it deserves some care. Clearly the OT scriptures above are telling us that there is NO GOD BESIDE THE ALMIGHTY GOD, this would include a begotton God, imo.
Thanks,
Mandy
Hi MandyYou are exactly right.
Hebrew monotheism doesn't allow for other God's.
YHWH clearly states that we are not to even mention the name of such.
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods ('elohiym), neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. Exod 23:13
YHWY has not changed his mind and given us a “begotten God”.
The NASB stands alone in the interpretation of John 1:18.
Sorry LU. The NET, NIV, ESV has the correct interpretation.
The NET reads reads John 1:18…
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
The NET written by 25 scholars who had access to over 60,000 translators notes explains why John 1:18 should be interpreted that way.
45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.
One thing to note is even if Yeshua was the begotten god as LU states, John did not use the term in John 1:1. This term “the begotten god” is translated by the NASB in a post incarnation setting, after Yeshua came in the flesh.
There is no such term refering to Yeshua found anywhere else in scriptures pre-incarnation or post incarnation which makes it more ambiguous.
As far as Yeshua being the “firstborn of creation” in which she as well as others claim that somewhere way back in time Yeshua was born out of an aesexual God as a God is also ambiguous, since the word “firstborn” can also mean preeminence and not the first to be born.
There is only one way to reconcile scriptures like 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 and John 1:1-3 and John 20:28 and Col 1:16 and Hebrews 1:10 Etc, and you know what I believe.
Unitarianism would be closer to reconciling the scriptures IMO, however that would mean Yeshua is not “theos” at all.
I believe what the Apostles like Thomas and John and Paul and Peter had to say, he is my Lord and my God, my Great God and my o
nly Saviour and I am not a Henotheist, but a follower of my only master Yeshua…For certain men have secretly slipped in among you – men who long ago16 were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 1:4
Yeshua said you can only have one master!
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,
Isn't it strange to tell Mandy she is “exactly right” when your one God “Yeshua” is NOT her one God. You might as well congratulate her for making your God less than your “God” because that is what is being said.And then there is my understanding of who God is and He doesn't talk to Himself or refer to Himself as being His own son or His own Father.
LU
Hi All
There is one scripture which should satisfy this madness. Just kidding! Its John 17:3
“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. NASU
Here Jesus is praying to His Father, not himself, saying the expression “The only true God” for the Father. I challenge anyone to go to their bibles and find one instance where that expression is given to our Lord Jesus Christ or anyone else.
Roy I found the card to get to heaven, and you can't have it. It's locked in a safe with two pit bulls guarding it in a location unknown to you or anyone else. Yicks I forgot where it is. I’m going to spend my time looking for that map. Gota go!
“Kathi do I get a prize for entering the 4150th post”
Before Time
before time The last post was 417 not 4150 Post. Was that a typing error or did you really think 4150 post.
Peace and Love Irene
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2008,10:25) Hi WJ,
Isn't it strange to tell Mandy she is “exactly right” when your one God “Yeshua” is NOT her one God. You might as well congratulate her for making your God less than your “God” because that is what is being said.And then there is my understanding of who God is and He doesn't talk to Himself or refer to Himself as being His own son or His own Father.
LU
Hi LUQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2008,10:25) Isn't it strange to tell Mandy she is “exactly right” when your one God “Yeshua” is NOT her one God. Not at all. When Mandy reads scriptures that say there is only “One God” and “None other”, she has a right to be concerned when someone tells her there is also another god.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2008,10:25) You might as well congratulate her for making your God less than your “God” because that is what is being said.
She has been around enough to know what I believe.Ha. It seems to me that you are the one making your “god”, Yeshua less than your God. That is not at all what I am saying.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2008,10:25) And then there is my understanding of who God is and He doesn't talk to Himself or refer to Himself as being His own son or His own Father. LU
LU, I understand your frustration for not understanding my view, and I am sure this is why you resort to mimiking a Modalist view as if to say I am a Modalist.
Could it be entirely Possible that God is Triune? After all the building blocks of all of creation is triune.
You reject this concept because as you have shown by your statement above you do not logically understand it.
I do give you credit though for going out on a limb with your Henotheistic view by calling Yeshua your Lord and God, unlike others who find it hard to call Yeshua “theos” for fear of Polytheism.
Blessings WJ
Quote (before Time @ Aug. 16 2008,11:00) Hi All There is one scripture which should satisfy this madness. Just kidding! Its John 17:3
“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. NASU
Here Jesus is praying to His Father, not himself, saying the expression “The only true God” for the Father. I challenge anyone to go to their bibles and find one instance where that expression is given to our Lord Jesus Christ or anyone else.
Roy I found the card to get to heaven, and you can't have it. It's locked in a safe with two pit bulls guarding it in a location unknown to you or anyone else. Yicks I forgot where it is. I’m going to spend my time looking for that map. Gota go!
“Kathi do I get a prize for entering the 4150th post”
Before Time
Hi BT
Quote (before Time @ Aug. 16 2008,11:00)
I challenge anyone to go to their bibles and find one instance where that expression is given to our Lord Jesus Christ or anyone else.John recorded the words in John 17:3. I think he more than anyone knew what they meant.
This same John who recorded John 17:3 also recorded John 1:1 and John 1:18 and John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20.
Compare…
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life. NET 1 John 5:20
The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
This is what they say about 1 John 5:20, Emphasis mine…
The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.
Now that your challange has been met, do I get a prize?
Blessings WJ
Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 16 2008,05:21) Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 15 2008,19:20) I see utter confusion here. May the Only God the Father help us to know Him and His Son Jesus properly.
Dear brother,This is nothing new. There has been confusion since Adam and Eve. Did Eve really know the consequences of her decision to eat the apple?
It's my personal belief that we have been given the outer bits of the puzzle but some of the inside pieces are missing….. We can speculate, debate, accuse and point finger's, we can give-up, press on, hope….. But we won't know for certain until the Day comes when we see him face-to-face. What a glorious Day that will be.
Take comfort in knowing that God rewards those who earnestly seek him. You are doing this, Adam. He didn't say that he rewards those who figure it all out or who find the ultimate truth. He rewards those who seek him with all their hearts. In my opinion the answers are optional, faith is required however.
Have faith my brother. Don't worry if you don't have all the answers or if the bible seems to have holes in it (it indeed does) – God knows our situation. He knows we are but mud-men.
Love to you,
Mandy
Hi Sis,
Thank you very much for your comforting words for me. Really God's Spirit is in you when you said “Take comfort in knowing that God rewards those who earnestly seek him”. What else I need than His consoling words from my loving sister.May God continue to bless you with such love and compassion for distressed souls.
Thanks and love to you
AdamHi WJ
Not so fast WJ you don’t get the prize until we iron this out. The challenge was to find one scripture where anyone except the Father is called the only true God. You said you found one. But let’s take a further look if you did.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know58 him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. “This one”59 is the true God and eternal life
As you can see the predictor added the words “this one” which changes the scripture to suggest it referred to Christ. And yet the interpreters are “far” from sure if it refers to the Father or the Son. I got this from the source you presented in your last post. No need to post the rest because the words “it appears” and words of the equivalent nature run rampant to complete it.
sn The pronoun “This one” (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is “far from clear” whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ
We don’t find this problematic in John 17:3 with the Net Bible and other translations, where it is quite obvious it means the Father only.
John 17:3 Now this7 is eternal life8 – that they know “you, the only true God”, and Jesus Christ,9 whom you sent “Net Bible”
John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know “You, the only true God”, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. “NASU Bible”
So the challenge remains and I get the prize if I can only find it. You can have the next one.
We don't find this problematic in John 17:3 with the Net Bible and other translations, where it is quite obvious it means the Father only.
Yet you do get the prize for finding a bible with the expression. Good Job.
God Bless
Hi BT,
Welcome to this wonderful family of Heavennet. I think you started a new debate on knowing the “Only True God” It is my favourite topic too. Bible can not controdict itself nor Jesus' words can not controdict themselves. I believe Father is only the True God as per Jesus' words as in Jn 17:3, but you have to remmber that Jesus is the True image of that “only True God the Father”. He is the perfect dwelling for that One and Only God bodily as per Col 2:9“For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily”
Of course that doesn't make himself as the One God. When I see Jesus I see the True God in him not any lesser diety or a god as many are claiming here. He is true representation of One God in three-dimentional image so that we can understand the invisible God. We see God in the face of Jesus as per 2 Cor 4:
3 “And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing,
4 in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
5 For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for the sake of Jesus.
6 For God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of (Jesus) Christ”.This is what I believe about God and Jesus. God gave Jesus equal status in the plan of Salvation of mankind. That's why John says in Jn 17:3
“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ”.For our Salvation both are important God always liked His son in this whole creation and Salvation plan.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamAdam I find it interesting that you quote John 17:3 First it talks about God the Father and then ONE WHOM YOU SENT, JESUS CHRIST.
You say that God sent Jesus but do not believe in the preexisting of Jesus Christ. Question is were did God sent Jesus from?
Peace and Love IreneQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,06:26) One thing to note is even if Yeshua was the begotten god as LU states, John did not use the term in John 1:1. This term “the begotten god” is translated by the NASB in a post incarnation setting, after Yeshua came in the flesh. There is no such term refering to Yeshua found anywhere else in scriptures pre-incarnation or post incarnation which makes it more ambiguous.
Hi Keith,Interesting point you have made here. I'll ponder this some more.
Thanks, bro.
MandyKathi,
Quote Isn't it strange to tell Mandy she is “exactly right” when your one God “Yeshua” is NOT her one God.
There's really no need to speak for me. I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God and so does Keith. I believe that the One true God is the Father and so does Keith. To my knowledge, Keith's God IS my God!How he understands Jesus' role in the Godhead is a bit different from how I currently understand it. But I am not as exclusive in my belief system as you are. I would say that Keith and I indeed DO serve and glorify the same God Almighty.
Quote And then there is my understanding of who God is and He doesn't talk to Himself or refer to Himself as being His own son or His own Father.
A patronizing spirit will not gain any converts, I'm afraid. If your message is indeed given to you via personal revelation and you are to proclaim it, I'm only left to assume you will recognize that making fun of other's beliefs is not part of the equation below. Instead, I encourage you to encourage other's and remain considerate towards other's.James 3:17
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.Love,
Mandy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
