- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 02 2009,00:16) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 02 2009,02:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 30 2009,22:22) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 30 2009,20:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 30 2009,17:05) Marty That is how you see it. But an honest look at Phil 2:6-8 and John 1:1, 14 and other scriptures does not agree with you IMO!
Jesus forgave sins against God because only God could do that! No other had power to forgive sins against God.
We can only forgive those who sin against us!
Not so with Jesus our Great God and Saviour! Titus 2:13
WJ
Why have the Jews and all others of time since the Old Testament believe in “ONE” 'elohim for over 6000 years, and you believe in three gods?Why do you only subscribe to the the councils descisision of three gods set forth by the Romans?
And you only find a problem with us.
ConPlurality of Unity! The entire universe reveals the Glory of God!
The molecular structure of the Universe is triune!
The Atom is one yet 3, proton, neutron, and electron!
One cannot do without the other, or the Atom would fly apart.
Scientist know nothing of the Mystery of the Atom and what holds it together!
“By Jesus all things consist” and are upheld by the word of HIS power. Col 1:16, 17, Heb 1:3
Just as scientist know nothing of the mystery of the Atom, so does the “carnal man” know nothing of the Plural nature of God!
Great is the Mystery of Godliness, God was manifest in the flesh!
WJ
So Yahweh cannot exist without Yeshua HaMoshiach? Will he fly apart too?Quote Just as scientist know nothing of the mystery of the Atom, so does the “carnal man” know nothing of the Plural nature of God! Maybe it's because he isn't plural. If Yahweh elightens you to know the things you should, then why hasn't cleared up this thing about plurality?
Also the bible in itself discusses and debates just about everything one can think of, why is it the bible is silent on this discussion?
ConThe Scriptures as always are silent to those who do not have ears to hear.
Jesus spoke many things that were hard to be understood, but to the pure in heart they believed his words!
WJ
You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.Constitutionalist wrote:
Quote You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.
If Worshiping Jesus means illogical when he states mystery I have to agree. I also agree that God is not an illogical God.
Mystery: Occurs 22 times in 22 verses in the KJV, every instance “The Mystery” is revealed to the saints.
Quote MYSTERY: Greek, μυστήριον Mystērion: 1) hidden thing, secret, mystery
a) generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to ordinary mortals
b) a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding
c) a hidden purpose or counsel1) secret will
a) of men
b) of G-d: the secret counsels which govern G-d in dealing with the righteous, which are hidden from ungodly and wicked men but plain to the godly2) in rabbinic writings, it denotes the mystic or hidden sense
a) of an OT saying
b) of an image or form seen in a vision
c) of a dreamAccording to the Greek, a mystery is only to and/or for the ungodly.
According to the Greek, a mystery is always revealed to the righteous, hence there is no “mystery” unto the righteous.
Quote Vines Exspository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Mystery:
Primarily that which is known to the mustes, “the initiated” (from mueo, “to initiate into the mysteries;” cp. Phl 4:12, mueomai, “I have learned the secret,” RV).
In the NT it denotes, not the mysterious (as with the Eng. word), but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by Divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by G-d, and to those only who are illumined by His Spirit.
In the ordinary sense a “mystery” implies knowledge withheld; its Scriptual significance is truth revealed.
Hence the terms especially associated with the subject are:
*made known,” “manifested,” “revealed,” “preached,” “understand,”
“dispensation.”The definition given above may be best illustrated by the following passage: “the mystery which hath been hid from all ages and generations: but now hath it been manifested to His saints” (Col 1:26, RV).
“It is used of:
“(a) spiritual truth generally, as revealed in the gospel, 1Cr 13:2; 14:2 (cp. 1Ti 3:9).
Among the ancient Greeks 'the mysteries' were religious rites and ceremonies practiced by secret societies into which any one who so desired might be received.
Those who were initiated into these 'mysteries' became possessors of certain knowledge, which was not imparted to the uninitiated, and were called 'the perfected,' cp. 1Cr 2:6-16 where the Apostle has these 'mysteries' in mind and presents the gospel in contrast thereto; here 'the perfected' are, of course, the believers, who alone can perceive the things revealed;
(b) Christ, who is G-d Himself revealed under the conditions of human life, Col 2:2; 4:3, and submitting even to death, 1Cr 2:1 (in some mss., for marturion, testimony), 7, but raised from among the dead, 1Ti 3:16, that the will of G-d to co-ordinate the universe in Him, and subject it to Him, might in due time be accomplished, Eph 1:9 (cp. Rev 10:7), as is declared in the gospel, Rom 16:25; Eph 6:19;
© the Church, which is Christ's Body, i.e., the union of redeemed men with G-d in Christ, Eph 5:32 (cp. Col 1:27);
(d) the rapture into the presence of Christ of those members of the Church which is His Body who shall be alive on the earth at His Parousia, 1Cr 15:51;
(e) the operation of those hidden forces that either retard or accelerate the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., of G-d), Mat 13:11; Mar 4:11;
(f) the cause of the present condition of Israel, Rom 11:25;
(g) the spirit of disobedience to G-d, 2Th 2:7; Rev 17:5, 7; cp. Eph 2:2.” *
[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 256, 257.]
To these may be added
(h) the seven local churches, and their angels, seen in symbolism, Rev 1:20;
(i) the ways of G-d in grace, Eph 3:9. The word is used in a comprehensive way in 1Cr 4:1. *
[* See The Twelve Mysteries of Scripture, by Vine.]
Quote Easton's Bible Dictionary: Mystery:
The calling of the Gentiles into the Christian Church, so designated (Eph 1:9,10; 3:8-11; Col 1:25-27); a truth undiscoverable except by revelation, long hid, now made manifest.
The resurrection of the dead (1Cr 15:51), and other doctrines which need to be explained but which cannot be fully understood by finite intelligence (Mat 13:11; Rom 11:25; 1Cr 13:2); the union between Christ and his people symbolized by the marriage union (Eph 5:31,32; Eph 6:19); the seven stars and the seven candlesticks (Rev 1:20); and the woman clothed in scarlet (17:7), are also in this sense mysteries.
The anti-Christian power working in his day is called by the apostle (2Th 2:7) the “mystery of iniquity.”
Quote International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: Mystery:
mis’-ter-i (musterion; from mustes, “one initiated into mysteries”; mueo “to initiate,” muo, “to close” the lips or the eyes; stem mu-, a sound produced with closed lips; compare Latin mutus, “dumb”):
Its usual modern meaning (equals something in itself obscure or incomprehensible, difficult or impossible to understand) does not convey the exact sense of the Greek musterion, which means a secret imparted only to the initiated, what is unknown until it is revealed, whether it be easy or hard to understand.
The idea of incomprehensibility if implied at all, is purely accidental.
The history of the word in ancient paganism is important, and must be considered before we examine its Biblical usage.
Cont. . .
Quote Cont. . . International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:
Mystery:
1. In Ancient Pagan Religions:
In the extant classics, the singular is found once only (Menander, “Do not tell thy secret (musterion) to thy friend”).
But it is frequently found in the plural ta musteria, “the Mysteries,” the technical term for the secret rites and celebrations in ancient religions only known to, and practiced by, those who had been initiated.
These are among the most interesting, significant, and yet baffling religious phenomena in the Greek-Roman world, especially from the 6th century BC onward.
In proportion as the public cults of the civic and national deities fell into disrepute, their place came more and more to be filled by secret cults open only to those who voluntarily underwent elaborate preliminary preparations.
There was scarcely one of the ancient deities in connection with whose worship there was not some subsidiary cult of this kind.
The most famous were the Mysteries celebrated in Eleusis, under the patronage and control of the Athenian state, and associated with the worship of Demeter and her daughter Persephone.
But there were many others of a more private character than the Eleusinian, e.g. the Orphic Mysteries, associated with the name of Dionysus. Besides the Greek Mysteries, mention should be made of the Egyptian cults of Isis and Serapis, and of Persian Mithraism, which in the 3rd century AD was widely diffused over the whole empire.
It is difficult in a brief paragraph to characterize the Mysteries, so elaborate and varied were they, and so completely foreign to the modern mind.
The following are some of their main features:
(1) Their appeal was to the emotions rather than to the intellect.
Lobeck in his famous Aglaophamus destroyed the once prevalent view that the Mysteries enshrined some profound religious truth or esoteric doctrine.
They were rather an attempt to find a more emotional and ecstatic expression to religious aspiration than the public ceremonies provided.
Aristotle (as quoted by Synesius) declared that the initiated did not receive definite instruction, but were put in a certain frame of mind (ou mathein ti dein alla pathein).
This does not mean that there was no teaching, but that the teaching was vague, suggestive and symbolic, rather than didactic or dogmatic.
(2) The chief purpose of the rites seems to have been to secure for the rotaries mystic union with some deity and a guaranty of a blissful immortality.
The initiated was made to partake mystically in the passing of the deity through death to life, and this union with his saviour-god (theos soter) became the pledge of his own passage through death to a happy life beyond.
This was not taught as an esoteric doctrine; it was well known to outsiders that the Mysteries taught the greater blessedness of the initiated in the under-world; but in the actual ceremony the truth was vividly presented and emotionally realized.
(3) The celebrations were marked by profuse symbolism of word and action.
They were preceded by rites of purification through which all the mystae had to pass.
The celebrations themselves were in the main a kind of religious drama, consisting of scenic representations illustrating the story of some deity or deities, on the basis of the old mythologies regarded as allegories of Nature’s productive forces and of human immortality; combined with the recital of certain mystic formulas by the hierophant (the priest).
The culminating point was the epopteia, or full vision, when the hierophant revealed certain holy objects to the assembly.
(4) The cults were marked by a strict exclusiveness and secrecy.
None but the initiated could be present at the services, and the knowledge of what was said and done was scrupulously kept from outsiders.
What they had seen and heard was so sacred that it was sacrilege to divulge it to the uninitiated.
(5) Yet the Mysteries were not secret societies, but were open to all who chose to be initiated (except barbarians and criminals).
They thus stood in marked contrast to the old civic and national cults, which were confined to states or cities.
They substituted the principle of initiation for the more exclusive principle of birthright or nationality; and so foreshadowed the disintegration of old barriers, and prepared the way for the universal religion.
Thus the mystery-religions strangely combined a strict exclusiveness with a kind of incipient catholicity.
This brief account will show that the Mysteries were not devoid of noble elements.
They formed “the serious part of pagan religion” (Renan).
But it must also be remembered that they lent themselves to grave extravagances and abuses.
Especially did they suffer from the fact that they were withheld from the light of healthy publicity.
2. In the Old Testament and the Apocrypha:
The religion of the Old Testament has no Mysteries of the above type.
The ritual of Israel was one in which the whole people partook, through their representatives the priests.
There was no system of ceremonial initiation by which the few had privileges denied to the many.
G-d has His secrets, but such things as He revealed belonged to all (De 29:29); so far from silence being enjoined concerning them, they were openly proclaimed (De 6:7; Neh 8:1 ).
True piety alone initiated men into confidential intercourse with Yahweh (Ps 25:14; Pr 3:32).
The term “mystery” never occurs in the English Old Testament.
The Greek word musterion occurs in the Septuagint of the Old Testament.
Only in Daniel, where it is found several times as the translation of raza’,” a secret,” in reference to the king’s dream, the meaning of which was revealed to Daniel (2:18,19,27-30,47).
In the Apocrypha, musterion is still used in the sense of “a secret” (a meaning practically confined to the Septuagint in extant Greek); of the secrets of private life, especially between friends (Sirach 22:22; 27:16,17,21), and of the secret plans of a king or a state (Tobit 12:7,11; Judith 2:2; 2 Macc 13:21).
The term is also used of the hidden purpose or counsel of God or of Divine wisdom.
The wicked “knew not the mysteries of G-d,” i.e. the secret counsels that govern G-d’s dealings with the godly (The Wisdom of Solomon 2:22); wisdom “is initiated [mustis] into the knowledge of G-d “( The Wisdom of Solomon 8:4), but (unlike the pagan mystagogues) the writer declares he “will not hide mysteries,” but will “bring the knowledge of her (wisdom) into clear light” (The Wisdom of Solomon 6:22). Hatch maintains that the analogy here is that of an oriental king’s secrets, known only to himself and his trusted friends (Essays in Biblical Greek, 58); but it is more likely that the writer here betrays the influence of the phraseology of the Greek Mysteries (without acquiescing in their teaching).
In another passage, at any rate, he shows acquaintance with the secret rites of the Gentiles, namely, in The Wisdom of Solomon 14:15,23, where the “solemn rites” and “secret mysteries” of idolaters are referred to with abhorrence.
The term “mystery” is not used in reference to the special ritual of Israel.
3. In the New Testament:
In the New Testament the word occurs 27 or (if we include the doubtful reading in 1Co 2:1) 28 times; chiefly in Paul (20 or 21 times), but also in one passage reported by each of the synoptists, and 4 times in Revelation.
It bears its ancient sense of a revealed secret, not its modern sense of that which cannot be fathomed or comprehended.
(1) In a few passages, it has reference to a symbol, allegory or parable, which conceals its meaning from those who look only at the literal sense, but is the medium of revelation to those who have the key to its interpretation (compare the rabbinic use of raza’, and codh, “the hidden or mystic sense”).This meaning appears in Re 1:20; 17:5,7; probably also in Eph 5:32, where marriage is called “a mystery,” i.e. a symbol to be allegorically interpreted of Christ and His church.
It also seems implied in the only passage in which the word is attributed to our Lord, “Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of G-d: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables” (Mr 4:11; compare parallel Mt 13:11; Lu 8:10).
Here parables are spoken of as a veiled or symbolic form of utterance which concealed the truth from those without the kingdom, but revealed it to those who had the key to its inner meaning (compare Mt 13:35; Joh 16:29 margin).
(2) By far the most common meaning in the New Testament is that which is so characteristic of Paul, namely, a Divine truth once hidden, but now revealed in the gospels.
Ro 16:25 f might almost be taken as a definition of it, “According to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested” (compare Col 1:26; Eph 3:3 ff).
(a) It should be noted how closely “mystery” is associated with “revelation” (apokalupsis), as well as with words of similar import, e.g. “to make known” (Eph 1:9; 3:3,5,10; 6:19), “to manifest” (Col 4:3,4; Ro 16:26; 1Ti 3:16). “Mystery” and “revelation” are in fact correlative and almost synonymous terms.
The mysteries of Christianity are its revealed doctrines, in contrast to the wisdom of worldly philosophy (see especially 1Co 2:1-16; compare Mt 11:25 f); the point of contrast being, not that the latter is comprehensible while the former are obscure, but that the latter is the product of intellectual research, while the former are the result of Divine revelation and are spiritually discerned.
(b) From this it follows that Christianity has no secret doctrines, for what was once hidden has now been revealed.
But here arises a seeming contradiction. On the one hand, there are passages which seem to imply a doctrine of reserve.
The mystery revealed to some would seem to be still concealed from others.
The doctrines of Christ and of His Kingdom are hidden from the worldly wise and the prudent (Mt 11:25; 1Co 2:6 ), and from all who are outside the kingdom (Mt 13:11 and parallel), and there are truths withheld even from Christians while in an elementary stage of development (1Co 3:1 ff; Heb 5:11-14).
On the other hand, there are many passages in which the truths of revelation are said to be freely and unreservedly communicated to all (e.g. Mt 10:27; 28:19; Ac 20:20,27; 2Co 3:12 f; Eph 3:9, “all men”; 6:19 f; Col 1:28; 1Ti 2:4).
The explanation is that the communication is limited, not by any secrecy in the gospel message itself or any reserve on the part of the speaker, but by the receptive capacity of the hearer. In the case of the carnally-minded, moral obtuseness or worldliness makes them blind to the light which shines on them (2Co 4:2-4).
In the case of the “babe in Christ,” the apparent reserve is due merely to the pedagogical principle of adapting the teaching to the progressive receptivity of the disciple (Joh 16:12 f).
There is no esoteric doctrine or intentional reserve in the New Testament.
The strong language in Mt 13:11-15 is due to the Hebrew mode of speech by which an actual result is stated as if it were purposive.
 What, then, is the content of the Christian “mystery”?
In a wide sense it is the whole gospel, God’s world-embracing purpose of redemption through Christ (e.g. Ro 16:25; Eph 6:19; Col 2:2; 1Ti 3:9).
In a special sense it is applied to some specific doctrine or aspect of the gospel, such as the doctrine of the Cross (1Co 2:1,7), of the Incarnation (1Ti 3:16), of the indwelling of Christ as the pledge of immortality (Col 1:27), of the temporary unbelief of the Jews to be followed by their final restoration (Ro 11:25), of the transformation of the saints who will live to see the Second Advent (1Co 15:51), and of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the gospel salvation (Eph 3:3-6).
These are the Divine secrets now at last disclosed. In direct antithesis to the Divine mystery is the “mystery of lawlessness” (2Th 2:7) culminating in the coming of the Antichrist.
Here, too, the word means a revealed secret, only in this case the revelation belongs to the future (2Th 2:8), though the evil forces which are to bring about its consummation are already silently operative. (Besides the references in this paragraph, the word occurs in 1Co 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; Re 10:7.
It is interesting to note that the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) sometimes renders musterion by Latin sacramentum, namely, in Eph 1:9; 3:3,9; 5:32; 1Ti 3:16; Re 1:20.
This rendering in Eph 5:32 led to the ecclesiastical doctrine that marriage is a “sacrament.”)
4. The Pagan Mysteries and the New Testament:
The question is now frequently discussed, how far the New Testament (and especially Paul) betrays the influence of the heathen mystery-cults.
Hatch maintains that the Pauline usage of the word musterion is dependent on the Septuagint, especially on the Apocrypha (op. cit.), and in this he is followed by Anrich, who declares that the attempt to trace an allusion to the Mysteries in the New Testament is wholly unsuccessful; but Lightfoot admits a verbal dependence on the pagan Mysteries (Commentary on Col 1:26).
At present there is a strong tendency to attribute to Paul far more dependence than one of phraseology only, and to find in the Mysteries the key to the non-Jewish side of Paulinism.
A. Loisy finds affinity to the mystery-religions in Paul’s conception of Jesus as a Saviour-God, holding a place analogous to the deities Mithra, Osiris, and Attis; in the place Paul assigns to baptism as the rite of initiation; and in his transformation of the Lord’s Supper into a symbol of mystic participation in the flesh and blood of a celestial being and a guaranty of a share in the blissful immortality of the risen Saviour.
“In its worship as in its belief, Christianity is a religion of mystery” (article in Hibbert Journal, October, 1911). Percy Gardner traces similar analogies to the Mysteries in Paul, though he finds in these analogies, not conscious plagiarism, but “the parallel working of similar forces” (Religious Experience of Paul, chapters iv, v). Kirsopp Lake writes, “Christianity has not borrowed from the mystery-religions, because it was always, at least in Europe, mystery-religion itself” (The Earlier Epistles of Paul, 215).
On the other hand, Schweitzer wholly denies the hypothesis of the direct or indirect influence of the Mysteries on Paul’s thought (Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung).
The whole question is sub judice among scholars, and until more evidence be forthcoming from inscriptions, etc., we shall perhaps vainly expect unanimous verdict.
It can hardly be doubted that at least the language of Paul, and perhaps to some extent his thought, is colored by the phraseology current among the cults.
Paul had a remarkably sympathetic and receptive mind, by no means closed to influences from the Greek-Roman environment of his day.
Witness his use of illustrations drawn from the athletic festivals, the Greek theater (1Co 4:9) and the Roman camp. He must have been constantly exposed to the contagion of the mystic societies.
Tarsus was a seat of the Mithra religion; and the chief centers of Paul’s activities, e.g. Corinth, Antioch and Ephesus, were headquarters of mystic religion. We are not surprised that he should have borrowed from t
he vocabulary of the Mysteries, not only the word musterion, but memuemai, “I learned the secret,” literally, “I have been initiated” (Php 4:12); sphragizesthai, “to be sealed” (Eph 1:13, etc.); teleios, “perfect,” term applied in the Mysteries to the fully instructed as opposed to novices (1Co 2:6,7; Col 1:28, etc.) (note, outside of Paul, epoptai, “eye-witnesses,”2Pe 1:16).Further, the secret of Paul’s gospel among the Gentiles lay, humanly speaking, in the fact that it contained elements that appealed to what was best and most vital in contemporary thought; and doubtless the Mysteries, by transcending all lines of mere citizenship, prepared the way for the universal religion.
On the other hand, we must beware of a too facile acceptance of this hypothesis in its extreme form. Christianity can be adequately explained only by reference, not to what it had in common with other religions, but to what was distinctive and original in it.
Paul was after all a Jew (though a broad one), who always retained traces of his Pharisaic training, and who viewed idolatry with abhorrence; and the chief formative factor of his thinking was his own profound religious experience.
It is inconceivable that such a man should so assimilate Gentile modes of thought as to be completely colored by them.
The characteristics which his teaching has in common with the pagan religions are simply a witness to the common religious wants of mankind, and not to his indebtedness to them.
What turned these religions into Mysteries was the secrecy of their rites; but in the New Testament there are no secret rites.
The gospel “mystery” (as we have seen) is not a secret deliberately withheld from the multitude and revealed only to a privileged religious aristocracy, but something which was once a secret and is so no longer.
The perfect openness of Christ and His apostles sets them in a world apart from the mystic schools.
It is true that later the Mysteries exercised a great influence on ecclesiastical doctrine and practice, especially on baptism and the Eucharist (see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, chapter x). But in the New Testament, acts of worship are not as yet regarded as mystic rites.
The most we can say is that some New Testament writers (especially Paul) make use of expressions and analogies derived from the mystery-religions; but, so far as our present evidence goes, we cannot agree that the pagan cults exercised a central or formative influence on them.
LITERATURE.
There is a large and growing literature on this subject. Its modern scientific study began with C.A. Lobeck’s Aglaophamus (1829). The following recent works may be specially mentioned: Gustav Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen (1894); G. Wobbermin, Religiongeschichtliche Studien zur Frage, etc. (1896); E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889) and Hibbert Lectures, 1888 (published 1890); F.B. Jevons, An Introduction to the History of Religion (1896); S. Cheethara, The Mysteries, Pagan and Christian (1897); R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910); P. Gardner, The Religious Experience of Paul (1911); K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of Paul (1911); articles on “Mystery” in Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition), edition 9 (W.M. Ramsay), and edition 11 (L.R. Farnell), Encyclopedia Biblica (A. Julicher), Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes) (A. Stewart); 1-volume Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible; (G.G. Findlay); Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (R.W. Bacon); articles on musterion in Cremer and Grimm-Thayer New Testament Lexicons; the commentaries, including J.B. Lightfoot on Colossians, J. Armitage Robinson on Ephesians, H. Lietzmann on 1 Corinthians; 9 articles in The Expositor on “St. Paul and the Mystery Religions” by Professor H.A.A. Kennedy (April, 1912, to February, 1913).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Search….14#ISBE
Written by D. Miall EdwardsNow, if it is a mystery to you, it is either your not of the righteous, or you made it a mystery, or you follow false teachers, or it's not from 'Elohim. There are no mystery's that 'Elohim will not reveal.
Quote (katjo @ Dec. 02 2009,00:55) Nick, w.j. post is scriptural. Jesus is called our great God and Savior. And scripture does say God was manifest in the flesh! you who dont believe are denying these scriptures! there is one GOD, who is the LORD ,who became flesh. Mark 12; 29 THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD! (jESUS IS LORD !)You are seeing “a Son” as a son like we have, but that is not so. By the incarnation we do not mean that God was turned into a human or that Jesus ceased to be God while he was a man. The incarnation means that while remaining God, Jesus took upon a new nature – a human nature. The incarnation was the uniting the divine and the human into one being, one person. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human. katjo
Katjo: For whatever it is worth, I agree with your post! Bless you, TKQuote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 02 2009,22:13) Quote (katjo @ Dec. 02 2009,00:55) Nick, w.j. post is scriptural. Jesus is called our great God and Savior. And scripture does say God was manifest in the flesh! you who dont believe are denying these scriptures! there is one GOD, who is the LORD ,who became flesh. Mark 12; 29 THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD! (jESUS IS LORD !)You are seeing “a Son” as a son like we have, but that is not so. By the incarnation we do not mean that God was turned into a human or that Jesus ceased to be God while he was a man. The incarnation means that while remaining God, Jesus took upon a new nature – a human nature. The incarnation was the uniting the divine and the human into one being, one person. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human. katjo
Katjo: For whatever it is worth, I agree with your post! Bless you, TK
the mystery card is pulled every time a trinitarian is backed into a corner. It is from the roots of the Trinity. Gnosticism is a Greek Philosophy in which the believer has a special knowledge not available to the common person.Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2009,21:10) Constitutionalist wrote: Quote You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.
If Worshiping Jesus means illogical when he states mystery I have to agree. I also agree that God is not an illogical God.
Perhaps you should define “worship”. The word is not restricted to worshiping of a God. It simply means to prostrate oneself in respect.Quote (martian @ Dec. 02 2009,07:12) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2009,21:10) Constitutionalist wrote: Quote You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.
If Worshiping Jesus means illogical when he states mystery I have to agree. I also agree that God is not an illogical God.
Perhaps you should define “worship”. The word is not restricted to worshiping of a God. It simply means to prostrate oneself in respect.Im sorry, I thought I did mention that somewhere in here. You are absolutly correct, it was considered a simple and normal custom, that was practiced by many.
Quote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,02:09) Quote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 02 2009,22:13) Quote (katjo @ Dec. 02 2009,00:55) Nick, w.j. post is scriptural. Jesus is called our great God and Savior. And scripture does say God was manifest in the flesh! you who dont believe are denying these scriptures! there is one GOD, who is the LORD ,who became flesh. Mark 12; 29 THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD! (jESUS IS LORD !)You are seeing “a Son” as a son like we have, but that is not so. By the incarnation we do not mean that God was turned into a human or that Jesus ceased to be God while he was a man. The incarnation means that while remaining God, Jesus took upon a new nature – a human nature. The incarnation was the uniting the divine and the human into one being, one person. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human. katjo
Katjo: For whatever it is worth, I agree with your post! Bless you, TK
the mystery card is pulled every time a trinitarian is backed into a corner. It is from the roots of the Trinity. Gnosticism is a Greek Philosophy in which the believer has a special knowledge not available to the common person.
Martian,
There you go speaking through the meds again. It was Paul and not WJ who said that the incarnation was a “mystery.” So if you're going to accuse someone of pulling the “mystery card” then accuse Paul. WJ was merely citing Paul.Paul said also that God's ways are a mystery (Rom. 11:34-35). By this he meant that God's ways are past finding out.
Again, it was Paul who said that the incarnation was a “mystery.” So get off the meds and try to make an intelligible argment here. You anti-trinitarians think you know the mind of the Lord but you do not (Rom. 11:34-35).
thinker
Quote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,02:12) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2009,21:10) Constitutionalist wrote: Quote You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.
If Worshiping Jesus means illogical when he states mystery I have to agree. I also agree that God is not an illogical God.
Perhaps you should define “worship”. The word is not restricted to worshiping of a God. It simply means to prostrate oneself in respect.
Matian is still on the meds I see. However you wish to define the term “worship” does not matter because Christ receives it WITH the Father:13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
“ Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”What part of “and to the Lamb” do you not understand? Try posting before you take your meds so you may acquire a little more coherence when you speak. It doesn't matter how you define “worship” for it is to be given to the Father “and to the Lamb.”
And don't put too much stock in that novice Constitutionalist who tries to pass himself off as educated.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 03 2009,02:44) Quote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,02:09) Quote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 02 2009,22:13) Quote (katjo @ Dec. 02 2009,00:55) Nick, w.j. post is scriptural. Jesus is called our great God and Savior. And scripture does say God was manifest in the flesh! you who dont believe are denying these scriptures! there is one GOD, who is the LORD ,who became flesh. Mark 12; 29 THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD! (jESUS IS LORD !)You are seeing “a Son” as a son like we have, but that is not so. By the incarnation we do not mean that God was turned into a human or that Jesus ceased to be God while he was a man. The incarnation means that while remaining God, Jesus took upon a new nature – a human nature. The incarnation was the uniting the divine and the human into one being, one person. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human. katjo
Katjo: For whatever it is worth, I agree with your post! Bless you, TK
the mystery card is pulled every time a trinitarian is backed into a corner. It is from the roots of the Trinity. Gnosticism is a Greek Philosophy in which the believer has a special knowledge not available to the common person.
Martian,
There you go speaking through the meds again. It was Paul and not WJ who said that the incarnation was a “mystery.” So if you're going to accuse someone of pulling the “mystery card” then accuse Paul. WJ was merely citing Paul.Paul said also that God's ways are a mystery (Rom. 11:34-35). By this he meant that God's ways are past finding out.
Again, it was Paul who said that the incarnation was a “mystery.” So get off the meds and try to make an intelligible argment here. You anti-trinitarians think you know the mind of the Lord but you do not (Rom. 11:34-35).
thinker
Funny, I do not see the word “incarnation” in the context at all. Why do you feel a need to import a word with obvious doctrinal bias into the text? Could it be that the concept of the incarnation in this context is an illusion so you must conjure it up?Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 03 2009,02:52) Quote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,02:12) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2009,21:10) Constitutionalist wrote: Quote You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.
If Worshiping Jesus means illogical when he states mystery I have to agree. I also agree that God is not an illogical God.
Perhaps you should define “worship”. The word is not restricted to worshiping of a God. It simply means to prostrate oneself in respect.
Matian is still on the meds I see. However you wish to define the term “worship” does not matter because Christ receives it WITH the Father:13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
“ Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”What part of “and to the Lamb” do you not understand? Try posting before you take your meds so you may acquire a little more coherence when you speak. It doesn't matter how you define “worship” for it is to be given to the Father “and to the Lamb.”
And don't put too much stock in that novice Constitutionalist who tries to pass himself off as educated.
thinker
You know I do not remember making a personal attack on you. why are you making this personal? Is this a fruit of your doctrine?Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 03 2009,02:52) Quote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,02:12) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2009,21:10) Constitutionalist wrote: Quote You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.
If Worshiping Jesus means illogical when he states mystery I have to agree. I also agree that God is not an illogical God.
Perhaps you should define “worship”. The word is not restricted to worshiping of a God. It simply means to prostrate oneself in respect.
Matian is still on the meds I see. However you wish to define the term “worship” does not matter because Christ receives it WITH the Father:13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
“ Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”What part of “and to the Lamb” do you not understand? Try posting before you take your meds so you may acquire a little more coherence when you speak. It doesn't matter how you define “worship” for it is to be given to the Father “and to the Lamb.”
And don't put too much stock in that novice Constitutionalist who tries to pass himself off as educated.
thinker
so you are saying that because worship is given to God and to the lamb that this proves that the lamb is deity?
Ex 18:7 Mosses gives worship to his father. Is Mosses father also deity?
Worship is simply bowing down and placing your head on the ground in respect. It can be given to God and to man. The lamb of God is very worthy of respect. All power in heaven and Earth is given to him. the creation bows to the one who has been given that authority over it.
BTW The lamb was given the authority because he did not have the authority on his own.Quote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,03:43) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 03 2009,02:52) Quote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,02:12) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2009,21:10) Constitutionalist wrote: Quote You did not answer my question. You say it is a mystery and know one can understand trinity! Why would 'elohim keep it a mystery? There is no reason to keep it a mystery. Well answer my question.
If Worshiping Jesus means illogical when he states mystery I have to agree. I also agree that God is not an illogical God.
Perhaps you should define “worship”. The word is not restricted to worshiping of a God. It simply means to prostrate oneself in respect.
Matian is still on the meds I see. However you wish to define the term “worship” does not matter because Christ receives it WITH the Father:13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
“ Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”What part of “and to the Lamb” do you not understand? Try posting before you take your meds so you may acquire a little more coherence when you speak. It doesn't matter how you define “worship” for it is to be given to the Father “and to the Lamb.”
And don't put too much stock in that novice Constitutionalist who tries to pass himself off as educated.
thinker
You know I do not remember making a personal attack on you. why are you making this personal? Is this a fruit of your doctrine?
Martian,
You have a poor memory. You and Con didn't pay attention to what WJ said. He cited Paul man! So why don't you just accuse Paul of pulling the “mystery card?”I have become quite impatient with you novices.
thinker
thinker…..you seem to be on Meds, you can't seem understand when it says GOD the FATHER (AND) Jesus Christ that the word (AND) denotes two, not ONE>
martian and Con are both right on, But you mystery religious conceptions cause you to not see and understand it. IMO
gene
To All…………The trinity and Preexistence are indeed (mysterious and illogical) those who preach them don't understand them and when cornered they say well, it's a (MYSTERY) and indeed it is a MYSTERY RELIGION, and has to be taken on “FAITH”< BLIND FAITH. IMO
peace and love to all……………..gene
Quote (Gene @ Dec. 03 2009,04:12) To All…………The trinity and Preexistence are indeed (mysterious and illogical) those who preach them don't understand them and when cornered they say well, it's a (MYSTERY) and indeed it is a MYSTERY RELIGION, and has to be taken on “FAITH”< BLIND FAITH. IMO peace and love to all……………..gene
Gene,
Paul said that the ways of God are mysterious. Does this mean that His ways are illogical?33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “ For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “ Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”By your logic God's ways are also illogical because they are mysterious. Paul said that the incarnation is a “mystery.” This is not WJ's word.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 03 2009,04:26) Quote (Gene @ Dec. 03 2009,04:12) To All…………The trinity and Preexistence are indeed (mysterious and illogical) those who preach them don't understand them and when cornered they say well, it's a (MYSTERY) and indeed it is a MYSTERY RELIGION, and has to be taken on “FAITH”< BLIND FAITH. IMO peace and love to all……………..gene
Gene,
Paul said that the ways of God are mysterious. Does this mean that His ways are illogical?33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “ For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “ Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”By your logic God's ways are also illogical because they are mysterious. Paul said that the incarnation is a “mystery.” This is not WJ's word.
thinker
Again you pull out words not in scripture.
show me where Paul uses the word “incarnation”.Quote (Gene @ Dec. 03 2009,04:12) To All…………The trinity and Preexistence are indeed (mysterious and illogical) those who preach them don't understand them and when cornered they say well, it's a (MYSTERY) and indeed it is a MYSTERY RELIGION, and has to be taken on “FAITH”< BLIND FAITH. IMO peace and love to all……………..gene
Right again GeneQuote (martian @ Dec. 03 2009,04:44) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 03 2009,04:26) Quote (Gene @ Dec. 03 2009,04:12) To All…………The trinity and Preexistence are indeed (mysterious and illogical) those who preach them don't understand them and when cornered they say well, it's a (MYSTERY) and indeed it is a MYSTERY RELIGION, and has to be taken on “FAITH”< BLIND FAITH. IMO peace and love to all……………..gene
Gene,
Paul said that the ways of God are mysterious. Does this mean that His ways are illogical?33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “ For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “ Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”By your logic God's ways are also illogical because they are mysterious. Paul said that the incarnation is a “mystery.” This is not WJ's word.
thinker
Again you pull out words not in scripture.
show me where Paul uses the word “incarnation”.
Come on! The word “incarnation” is the word for God coming IN the flesh. Thus, you have the word “incarnation.” Paul said that His being manifested “IN the flesh” is the “great mystery of godliness.”Again, it is Paul you ought to be accusing of pulling out the “mystery card.” WJ is not responsible for saying it is a mystery.
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
