- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 10 2012,09:16) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 09 2012,14:26) Mike, Who do you believe the following verse speaks of or pertain to:
“The days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land (Yeremyah 23:5.
Jesus.Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 09 2012,14:26) Now, who do you believe the following verse speaks of or pertain to: THIS IS THE NAME BY WHICH HE WILL BE CALLED: Yahweh Our Righteousness ().
The verse refers to Jesus, but your translation is incorrect. The name by which Jesus would be called is “Yahweh IS Our Righteousness”, not “Yahweh, our Righteousness”.In fact, Israel is also called by this same title in scripture.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 09 2012,14:26) Whoever you believe the last part of this verse in speaking of or who it pertains to, do you believe that they are LITERALLY “Yahweh or Righteousness”?
No to both counts. It is similar to the name “Jesus”, which means “Jehovah is Salvation”. The MANY people who have borne this name in history were neither “Jehovah Himself”, nor “Salvation”.
Mike,I would agree that 'Yahweh Tzidhenu' (Yahweh Our Righteousness) would be better translated into our English language as 'Yahweh [IS] our Righteousness', to save confusion in one believing Yahshua is Yahweh, there are two Yahwehs or possibly that Ysryl and Yahdah are LITERALLY Yahweh as many have done in privately interpreting Yeremyah 23:6b). But, this is not the case, since names/titles given to nations and mere men do not always give direct reference to the one being named or titled as I had made known in a previous post. So, to say that this is properly translated as “Yahweh [IS] Our Righteousness” is not established from what has been translated from. What I had posted previously is as follows:
“The Word of Yahweh”
Yahshua's Name Is Called “The Word of Yahweh”
Revelation 19:13Many erroneously believe since Yahshua is called or named “The Word of Yahweh” in Revelation 19:13 that he is and LITERALLY was the word of Yahweh and that he pre-existed as a separate being apart from his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning. This is not true! Father Yahweh's word is just that, His word. Father Yahweh's word is not a separate being apart from Himself. Yahshua is simply called or named “The Word of Yahweh” because he is the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh's word in this last time period as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes perfectly clear. Following is a list of Hebrews names and their meanings. Note that the meanings of these names do not LITERALLY mean that they are the meanings of their names:
Hagyah [Haggai]: meaning – 'Feast of Yahweh'
Moadyah [Moadian]: meaning – 'Appointed Feast of Yahweh'Hagyah and Moadyah were not LITERALLY Yahweh's feasts!
Pelalyah [Pelaliah]: meaning – 'Judgment of Yahweh'
Pelalyah was not LITERALLY Yahweh's Judgment!
Tobyah [Tobiah]: meaning – 'Righteousness of Yahweh'
Yahshaphat [Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat]: meaning – 'Judgment of Yahweh'Tobyah and Yahshaphat were not LITERALLY Yahweh's Judgment!
Uzzyah [Uzziah]: meaning – 'Strength of Yahweh'
Yliyah [Elijah]: meaning – 'Strength of Yahweh'Uzzyah and Yliyah were not LITERALLY Yahweh's strength!
Yahshabbth [Jehoshabeath]: meaning – 'Sabbath of Yahweh'
Yahshabbth was not LITERALLY Yahweh's Sabbath!
Zedekyah [Zedekiah, Zidkayah]: meaning – 'Righteousness of Yahweh'
Zedekyah was not LITERALLY Yahweh's righteousness!
Kolayah [Kolaiah]: meaning – 'Voice of Yahweh'
Kolayah was not LITERALLY the voice of Yahweh!
The same is true with Yahshua being called by the name/title “The Word of Yahweh”. Yahshua was not LITERALLY the word of Yahweh! Yahshua most certainly was not his and our Father Yahweh's word in the beginning as a separate being apart from Himself!
Following is the study that I had promised that I would present when you answered my question:
YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
Jeremiah 23:5,6
4/17/97“Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and proper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his day Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name whereby he shall be called, The LORD [Yahweh] Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:5,6 KJV).
Just as the name Yahshua means “Yahweh's salvation,” so in the future time someone will, at least ceremonially, be called “Yahweh our righteousness.” The question is, who? If indeed this speaks of Yahshua the Messiah, as some believe, wonderful. If not, so be it.
The subject in verse 5 is The Branch, but in verse 6 the salvation of Judah and Israel. The Berkely Version has a footnote on Jer. 23:6 which reads as follows:
“Receiving a name symbolizing the ideal character displayed by the NATION [Isa. 1:26; 61:11], for God, as we now know, in Christ, is the source of our righteousness” (Emphasis added).
Notice How It Reads
To arrive at a perfectly clear understanding, let us again carefully review Jeremiah 23:5,6.
“Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and proper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth” (Jer. 23:5, KJV).
In verse 5, two parties are spoken of: (1) David, and (2) David's descendant, The Branch (Yahshua, the Messiah). At some future time, The Branch will reign and prosper.
In his [Yahshua'a] day Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Yahweh Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6).
Notice: Judah and Israel will be saved (verse 6a). The first HIS (verse 6a) speaks of The Branch; not Judah, not Israel. Now for the second HIS. “And this is HIS name whereby HE shall be called, Yahweh Our Righteousness” (verse 6b). Question: To whom does the second His and He refer? To Judah and Israel, or to The Branch (Yahshua)?
The correct answer is, the second HIS and HE refer to Israel and Judah, not to The Branch (verse 6b). I say this with confidence because of the related prophecy which is almost identical:
“Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will perform that good thing which I promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of
righteousness [Yahshua] to grow up unto David; and He [The Branch, Yahshua] shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith SHE [Jerusalem] shall be called, Yahweh Our Righteousness” (Jer. 33:14-16).*Is The Branch (Yahshua) a SHE? No. But Jerusalem was often referred to as “she;” sometimes a homonym for Judah aslo (Ezek. 16:1-8). Both Israel and Judah were sometimes spoken of as women {she} (Hosea 2:1-18; Amos 5:12; 6:2). Jerusalem will be called, “Yahweh is there” (Ezek. 48:35). Jerusalem will be called “the city of righteousness, the faithful city” (Isa. 1:1,26).
Of several other versions which agree fully with the King James Version, the Beck Version is crystal clear:
“Then Judah will be saved and Jerusalem live without danger, and the CITY will be called “The-LORD-our-righteousness” [Yahweh-our-righteousness] (Jer. 33:16 Beck Version).
Conclusion
The title, Yahweh Our Righteousness” is not a reference to Yahshua, but to Judah, Israel, and especially to Jerusalem. This will occur at a future time when Yahweh and Yahshua the Messiah execute judgment and justice in the earth (Jer. 23:6) Obviously, that time has not yet come, because justice is not in the earth today. We wait for that day with patience (Rom. 8:18-26).
Blessed will be the day when Jerusalem will be called “Yahweh our righteousness.”
Come Yahshua Messiah.
* A footnote in the Berkely Version reads as follows” “Our righteousness due to God: expression of the ideal character which the NATION will then display [ch. 23:6]; future ideal king, see the symbolic name, 'the LORD is there,' in Ezek. 48:35” (Emphasis added).
JEREMIAH 33:16 – SHE = THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
VERSIONS WHICH AGREE WITH THE KING JAMES
King James Version (Companion Bible; see Bullinger's Notes)
New King James Version
Revised Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
New American Standard Version
New English Bible
Beck Version*
Amplified Version
New American Bible
Good News Bible*
Moffatt Translation
Bethel Bible
Jerusalem Bible*
Jewish Publication Society O.T. (1985)
New World Translation
Bible In Basic English
NIV Interlinear Hebrew/English/ Translation
Zodhiates Complete O.T. Word StudyQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 10 2012,11:29) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 09 2012,18:17) Mike, Do you not believe that one can have esteem for his own son (daughter, children) before they are even born or come into existence?
No Frank, I don't. I'm not trying to be rude, but I would call that as illogical as thinking a “thought in God's head” could be said to be WITH Him, or said to “EXIST”.But what about the second part of my question? What did it mean for the now existent Jesus to be asking to be returned to the same glory he had “as a thought in God's head”? Did Jesus want to cease from existing and go back to being a thought in God's head?
Also Frank, you are looking at this as if GOD is the one speaking about Jesus' past glory. So whether or not GOD had a “fore-esteem” for who He knew His Son would someday be, it doesn't add up to JESUS knowing about this esteem HE HAD, or wanting to go back to that “thought” esteem.
And don't forget that THE PERSON JESUS is the one who said “the glory I HAD WITH YOU……..” In other words, it was THE PERSON JESUS saying that THE PERSON JESUS had glory alongside his God before the world was created.
A person would have no idea about any esteem they were held in before they existed, nor could it logically be called “their glory” since “they” did not exist to “have” that glory.
According to Jesus' own words, HE HAD this glory in the past.
Mike,Sorry to hear that you would not have esteem for a son (daughter, child) that had not yet been born or came into existence. Would you express such a rude thought to your wife who was expecting a son (daughter, child) of yours? The truth is, I do not really believe that you would fell this way. I believe you simply do not want to give up your doctrine of a false pre-existent “Jesus”.
Quote ]I would call that as illogical as thinking a “thought in God's head” could be said to be WITH Him, or said to “EXIST”. Or as illogical as me saying “My thoughts are with you!”, right?
Yahshua did not ask “to be returned to the same [esteem] he had “as a thought in Yahweh's head”.
Frank, how many people have you told the following about yourself.
You existed in the form of God, emptied yourself, came in the flesh, and will eventually die and be in the glory you had with God before the world began.
Is the answer none? I thought so.
So why is it that if Jesus is like us and started life on his birthday like us, that you do not go around saying the same thing about yourself.
Seems a bit strange don't you think? Try to think why that is.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 10 2012,15:49) Frank, how many people have you told the following about yourself. You existed in the form of God, emptied yourself, came in the flesh, and will eventually die and be in the glory you had with God before the world began.
Is the answer none? I thought so.
So why is it that if Jesus is like us and started life on his birthday like us, that you do not go around saying the same thing about yourself.
Seems a bit strange don't you think? Try to think why that is.
t8,What kind of useless crap are you spewing now?
To ALL,
I have placed a new “FEATURE LINK” on my web page “Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?” to a book entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ by Servetus the Evangelical (a.k.a. Kermit Zarley). Following is an article based on the book:
Did Jesus Empty Himself of Any Divine Attributes?
by Servetus the EvangelicalThe Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians at Philippi, exhorting them to be humble
and love one another (Philippians 2.1-4). Then he added what all modern scholars insist
is a pre-existing hymn whose composer remains unknown. Paul introduces this hymn by
telling readers, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (v. 5).
Then he begins the hymn by saying, “who, although He existed in the form of God, did
not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form
of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men …” (vv. 6-7).
Philippians 2.6-11 has had a most profound impact on the history of Christology.
H.E. Todt says of it, “Christological doctrine has been developed in Protestantism mainly
with regard to the concepts expressed in Phil. 2. The synoptic texts were interpreted to
conform to this passage.” It should have been vice versa.
Consequently, Philippians 2.6-11 has been hotly debated among modern scholars.
N.T. Wright says the main reason is that it “is one of the most notoriously complex
passages” in all of Paul’s New Testament (NT) letters. Due to the necessary brevity of this
article, we will only be able to scratch the surface of this scholarly discussion.
Two contrasting interpretations of Philippians 2.6-11 have prevailed among scholars.
The traditional “incarnational” or “preexistent interpretation,” which still dominates to
the present, means that vv. 6-7 presents Jesus as personally existing in heaven prior to his
earthly life and being equal with God the Father. The “anthropological” or “human
interpretation,” which is gaining favor with scholars, means that vv. 6-8 refers only to
Jesus’ earthly life and therefore has nothing to do with preexistence or incarnation.
Those who adopt the preexistent interpretation of this Philippians 2 hymn view it in
three stages: preexistence in v. 6, incarnation in vv. 7-8, and heavenly exaltation in vv. 9-
11. They interpret “form of God” in v. 6 as Jesus having preexisted eternally as a distinct
hypostasis or Person, being the Logos of John 1.1-18, by possessing the same divine
nature as that of God the Father, which makes him equal with the Father.
How one interprets the expression, “in the form of God” (Gr. en morphe theou),
largely determines the interpretation of the remainder of the hymn. This critical phrase is
difficult partly because, except for cognates, morphe (“form”) occurs only twice in the
Greek NT, both being here in vv. 6-7. In most Greek literature, morphe means “outward
appearance,” that is, what can be perceived only by the senses. So, “form of God” seems
to refer to Jesus’ bodily existence rather than a pre-temporal, ontological preexistence.
Proponents of the human interpretation of Philippians 2.6-11 have searched the Old
Testament (OT) for links to this hymn as the key to understanding its author’s intended
meaning. Thus, they link Jesus existing “in the form of God” with Adam being made in
the “image (of God),” as in Genesis 1.27; 5.3. In support, Paul elsewhere describes Jesus
as God’s “image” (Greek eikon; 2 Corinthians 4.4; Col 1.15). Accordingly, the hymn
begins by saying Jesus was in the image of God, like Adam, called Adam Christology.
What does the hymn mean by saying that Jesus “did not regard equality with God a
thing to be grasped”? Scholars who adopt the preexistent interpretation usually insist it
means that prior to Jesus’ incarnation, as the Logos, he possessed “equality with God”
and relinquished it at the moment of incarnation. But if the Logos could have grasped at
equality with God, He did not possess it and thus could not have been equal with God.
Proponents of the human interpretation of this hymn link “equality with God” to
“like God” in Genesis 3.5. Recall that Adam sinned because Satan deceived Eve, saying
that if she ate the forbidden fruit, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This lie
means they could attain “equality with God” regarding knowledge and wisdom (v. 6).
What does the hymn mean by saying that Jesus “emptied Himself”? Proponents of
the preexistent interpretation of the hymn have understood this mostly in one of two
ways, that at Jesus’ incarnation he divested himself of his relative divine attributes or he
merely chose not to exercise some of them during his incarnation. These suggestions are
called Kenotic Christology because the root word for “emptied” in the Greek text is
kenosis. But either of these suggestions raises serious problems. A divesture of any of
these divine attributes—for example, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence—
would have been necessary because they are incompatible with being human, yet such
divestiture necessarily results in something less than full deity.
Some proponents of the human interpretation have linked “emptied Himself” (Gr.
heauton ekenosen) with “poured out Himself to death” (Heb. nephesho lamoot herah) in
Isaiah 53.12. Joachim Jeremias convincingly championed this background for the hymn.
He said of these words in Philippians 2.7, “The use of Is. 53:12 shows that the expression
heauton ekenosen implies the surrender of life, not the kenosis of the incarnation.”
Indeed. Paul introduced this hymn by saying, “Do nothing from selfishness or empty
conceit, but with humility of mind” (Philippians 2.3), which he says was Jesus’ attitude
(v. 5). Therefore, Paul likely understood this hymn to mean that Jesus emptied Himself of
self by submitting to God’s plan for his life. It is the cross of Christ, not incarnation,
which is the epitome of Jesus’ self-denial depicted in the NT. And it is only in this sense,
rather than incarnation, that Paul can legitimately set forth an example for his readers to
follow. Therefore, Jesus did not deny himself by laying aside or suppressing certain
divine attributes at his birth, but by doing acts of moral character throughout his life that
culminated in death on a cross, resulting in salvation for all those who believe in him.
In my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ, I devote 21 pages to the interpretation of
Philippians 2.5-11. In doing so, I cite 45 scholars and their works plus 4 church fathers.Quote (t8 @ Jan. 10 2012,15:49) Frank, how many people have you told the following about yourself. You existed in the form of God, emptied yourself, came in the flesh, and will eventually die and be in the glory you had with God before the world began.
Is the answer none? I thought so.
So why is it that if Jesus is like us and started life on his birthday like us, that you do not go around saying the same thing about yourself.
Seems a bit strange don't you think? Try to think why that is.
T8………My hope is for you and all of us we are doing the same thing Jesus did now, Or have you not read NOW we are the Son of the Living GOD Yes T8, rigth now brother while we walk this earth everyday brother. And you are also in the Form or Image of the Living GOD If Christ be formed (IN) YOU.peace and love brother…………………………………..gene
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 11 2012,14:25) To ALL, I have placed a new “FEATURE LINK” on my web page “Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?” to a book entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ by Servetus the Evangelical (a.k.a. Kermit Zarley). Following is an article based on the book:
Did Jesus Empty Himself of Any Divine Attributes?
by Servetus the EvangelicalThe Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians at Philippi, exhorting them to be humble
and love one another (Philippians 2.1-4). Then he added what all modern scholars insist
is a pre-existing hymn whose composer remains unknown. Paul introduces this hymn by
telling readers, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (v. 5).
Then he begins the hymn by saying, “who, although He existed in the form of God, did
not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form
of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men …” (vv. 6-7).
Philippians 2.6-11 has had a most profound impact on the history of Christology.
H.E. Todt says of it, “Christological doctrine has been developed in Protestantism mainly
with regard to the concepts expressed in Phil. 2. The synoptic texts were interpreted to
conform to this passage.” It should have been vice versa.
Consequently, Philippians 2.6-11 has been hotly debated among modern scholars.
N.T. Wright says the main reason is that it “is one of the most notoriously complex
passages” in all of Paul’s New Testament (NT) letters. Due to the necessary brevity of this
article, we will only be able to scratch the surface of this scholarly discussion.
Two contrasting interpretations of Philippians 2.6-11 have prevailed among scholars.
The traditional “incarnational” or “preexistent interpretation,” which still dominates to
the present, means that vv. 6-7 presents Jesus as personally existing in heaven prior to his
earthly life and being equal with God the Father. The “anthropological” or “human
interpretation,” which is gaining favor with scholars, means that vv. 6-8 refers only to
Jesus’ earthly life and therefore has nothing to do with preexistence or incarnation.
Those who adopt the preexistent interpretation of this Philippians 2 hymn view it in
three stages: preexistence in v. 6, incarnation in vv. 7-8, and heavenly exaltation in vv. 9-
11. They interpret “form of God” in v. 6 as Jesus having preexisted eternally as a distinct
hypostasis or Person, being the Logos of John 1.1-18, by possessing the same divine
nature as that of God the Father, which makes him equal with the Father.
How one interprets the expression, “in the form of God” (Gr. en morphe theou),
largely determines the interpretation of the remainder of the hymn. This critical phrase is
difficult partly because, except for cognates, morphe (“form”) occurs only twice in the
Greek NT, both being here in vv. 6-7. In most Greek literature, morphe means “outward
appearance,” that is, what can be perceived only by the senses. So, “form of God” seems
to refer to Jesus’ bodily existence rather than a pre-temporal, ontological preexistence.
Proponents of the human interpretation of Philippians 2.6-11 have searched the Old
Testament (OT) for links to this hymn as the key to understanding its author’s intended
meaning. Thus, they link Jesus existing “in the form of God” with Adam being made in
the “image (of God),” as in Genesis 1.27; 5.3. In support, Paul elsewhere describes Jesus
as God’s “image” (Greek eikon; 2 Corinthians 4.4; Col 1.15). Accordingly, the hymn
begins by saying Jesus was in the image of God, like Adam, called Adam Christology.
What does the hymn mean by saying that Jesus “did not regard equality with God a
thing to be grasped”? Scholars who adopt the preexistent interpretation usually insist it
means that prior to Jesus’ incarnation, as the Logos, he possessed “equality with God”
and relinquished it at the moment of incarnation. But if the Logos could have grasped at
equality with God, He did not possess it and thus could not have been equal with God.
Proponents of the human interpretation of this hymn link “equality with God” to
“like God” in Genesis 3.5. Recall that Adam sinned because Satan deceived Eve, saying
that if she ate the forbidden fruit, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This lie
means they could attain “equality with God” regarding knowledge and wisdom (v. 6).
What does the hymn mean by saying that Jesus “emptied Himself”? Proponents of
the preexistent interpretation of the hymn have understood this mostly in one of two
ways, that at Jesus’ incarnation he divested himself of his relative divine attributes or he
merely chose not to exercise some of them during his incarnation. These suggestions are
called Kenotic Christology because the root word for “emptied” in the Greek text is
kenosis. But either of these suggestions raises serious problems. A divesture of any of
these divine attributes—for example, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence—
would have been necessary because they are incompatible with being human, yet such
divestiture necessarily results in something less than full deity.
Some proponents of the human interpretation have linked “emptied Himself” (Gr.
heauton ekenosen) with “poured out Himself to death” (Heb. nephesho lamoot herah) in
Isaiah 53.12. Joachim Jeremias convincingly championed this background for the hymn.
He said of these words in Philippians 2.7, “The use of Is. 53:12 shows that the expression
heauton ekenosen implies the surrender of life, not the kenosis of the incarnation.”
Indeed. Paul introduced this hymn by saying, “Do nothing from selfishness or empty
conceit, but with humility of mind” (Philippians 2.3), which he says was Jesus’ attitude
(v. 5). Therefore, Paul likely understood this hymn to mean that Jesus emptied Himself of
self by submitting to God’s plan for his life. It is the cross of Christ, not incarnation,
which is the epitome of Jesus’ self-denial depicted in the NT. And it is only in this sense,
rather than incarnation, that Paul can legitimately set forth an example for his readers to
follow. Therefore, Jesus did not deny himself by laying aside or suppressing certain
divine attributes at his birth, but by doing acts of moral character throughout his life that
culminated in death on a cross, resulting in salvation for all those who believe in him.
In my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ, I devote 21 pages to the interpretation of
Philippians 2.5-11. In doing so, I cite 45 scholars and their works plus 4 church fathers.
frankit seems you spend lost of time for very little true knowledge in return,
it take you many studies to come to the same understanding as a simple and honest man that only need to read the scriptures,
why is that ??
Pierre
Pierre…………That is because of all the confusion out there in the world about , Jesus Preexisting as a Angels or a GOD or a what ever. Your fellow Preexistences the Trinitarian have done their Job of confusing people well brother They like you have muddied the waters of truth so much no one can see the truth hardly, unless God is With them and brings them out of all that confusion out there. IMO
peace and love …………………………………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 11 2012,16:39) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 10 2012,15:49) Frank, how many people have you told the following about yourself. You existed in the form of God, emptied yourself, came in the flesh, and will eventually die and be in the glory you had with God before the world began.
Is the answer none? I thought so.
So why is it that if Jesus is like us and started life on his birthday like us, that you do not go around saying the same thing about yourself.
Seems a bit strange don't you think? Try to think why that is.
T8………My hope is for you and all of us we are doing the same thing Jesus did now, Or have you not read NOW we are the Son of the Living GOD Yes T8, rigth now brother while we walk this earth everyday brother. And you are also in the Form or Image of the Living GOD If Christ be formed (IN) YOU.peace and love brother…………………………………..gene
geneQuote T8………My hope is for you and all of us we are doing the same thing Jesus did now, Or have you not read NOW we are the Son of the Living GOD Yes T8, rigth now brother while we walk this earth everyday brother. And you are also in the Form or Image of the Living GOD If Christ be formed (IN) YOU. so if I read you clearly ;you have for God the same LOVE that Christ Has right ?
and so you have the same attitude toward Gods will as Christ had right ??
and so you lips are not in no way try or do deceitful comments
but only the truth comes out of you ,rightand your understanding are all in according to the scriptures and the will of God,right ??
and so their is no doubt in your heart ,about your faith ,so that now you can move mountains ,right ??
it takes all the above to be in Christ and be one with him ,
can you say that this is all your case,??
Pierre
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 11 2012,17:07) Pierre…………That is because of all the confusion out there in the world about , Jesus Preexisting as a Angels or a GOD or a what ever. Your fellow Preexistences the Trinitarian have done their Job of confusing people well brother They like you have muddied the waters of truth so much no one can see the truth hardly, unless God is With them and brings them out of all that confusion out there. IMO peace and love …………………………………………….gene
geneno,that is not the answer,that is finger pointing
Pierre
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 09 2012,20:52) Mike, Sorry to hear that you would not have esteem for a son (daughter, child) that had not yet been born or came into existence. Would you express such a rude thought to your wife who was expecting a son (daughter, child) of yours?
Come on now, Frank.
I haven't the foggiest idea what “glory” my 10 year old son will someday have. I pray he will be a fisher of men. God forbid he become a murderer. But who knows – he could die in a car accident tomorrow for all I know.Holding him in some future esteem he might have seems silly, and you know that about your children as well.
But, you are missing the main point here, and I hope this time you WILL address it:
THE PERSON JESUS is the one who said “glorify me now with the glory I HAD alongside you before the creation of the world.”
Frank, it was THE PERSON JESUS saying that THE PERSON JESUS had glory alongside his God before the world was created.
How do you explain THE PERSON JESUS having glory with God before the world was, if THE PERSON JESUS didn't yet exist?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 10 2012,10:45) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 10 2012,15:49) Frank, how many people have you told the following about yourself. You existed in the form of God, emptied yourself, came in the flesh, and will eventually die and be in the glory you had with God before the world began.
Is the answer none? I thought so.
So why is it that if Jesus is like us and started life on his birthday like us, that you do not go around saying the same thing about yourself.
Seems a bit strange don't you think? Try to think why that is.
t8,What kind of useless crap are you spewing now?
Let me rephrase it for t8, since you're pretending not to get his point:I existed in the form of God. Then I emptied myself and was made into a human being. But I know that when I eventually die, God will return me to the glory that I already had alongside Him before the world was created through me.
Frank, can YOU make that statement? Jesus could. See the difference?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 09 2012,20:37) Mike, I would agree that 'Yahweh Tzidhenu' (Yahweh Our Righteousness) would be better translated into our English language as 'Yahweh [IS] our Righteousness'……………
Many erroneously believe since Yahshua is called or named “The Word of Yahweh” in Revelation 19:13 that he is and LITERALLY was the word of Yahweh and that he pre-existed as a separate being apart from his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning. This is not true!
Frank,You have not yet answered my query about this:
A title often describes the function served or the duty performed by the bearer. So it was with the title Kal-Hatzé, meaning “the word of the king,” that was given an Abyssinian officer. Based on his travels from 1768 to 1773, James Bruce describes the duties of the Kal-Hatzé as follows. He stood by a window covered with a curtain through which, unseen inside, the king spoke to this officer. He then conveyed the message to the persons or party concerned. Thus the Kal-Hatzé acted as the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.—Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, London, 1790, Vol. III, p. 265; Vol. IV, p. 76.Assuming for a moment that this was a Jewish custom, we see to what the ancient Jewish paraphrasts referred by their term, ‘Word of JEHOVAH,’ instead of JEHOVAH himself; and the idea was familiar to their recollection, and to that of their readers: a no less necessary consideration than that of their own recollection. . . . Shall we not, hereafter, acquit the evangelists from adopting the mythological conceptions of Plato? Rather, did not Plato adopt eastern language, and is not the custom still retained in the East? See all accounts of an ambassador’s visit to the grand seignior; who never himself answers, but directs his vizier to speak for him. So in Europe, the king of France directs his keeper of the seals to speak in his name; and so the lord chancellor in England prorogues the parliament, expressing his majesty’s pleasure, and using his majesty’s name, though in his majesty’s presence.”—Quoted from page 935 of Calmet’s Dictionary of The Holy Bible
Frank, is it possible for a spokesperson of a king to have the title “The Word of the King”? YES. Is it therefore possible for the spokesperson of God to have the title “The Word of God”? You have agreed the answer is “YES”, as is demonstrated in Rev 19:13, right?
So far, we are both in agreement, I believe. But…………………
Frank, is it possible that this spokesperson called The Word of God is the “HE” who was with God in the beginning before “HE” became flesh and dwelled among mankind, displaying the glory of God's only begotten Son?
Of course the answer is an unequivocal “YES”, and is supported by MANY scriptures, including Phil 2:6-8.
Hi Mike,
A much better example would be
a burned image of yourself on a CD.In the beginning was the CD,
and the CD was with Mike,
and the CD was Mike.Now the CD can be passed around,
because in it is the essence of Mike.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2012,11:18) Ed, a CD OF me that was WITH me cannot possibly BE me.
Hi Mike,I said it was you, I didn't say you were it?
If someone does not tell the truth, that,
in and of itself, does not mean that they lied.Like when I asked David to confirm that the JW's
teach that non-members are non-Christian.When I asked for the truth, he did not tell me the truth,
but neither did he lie. He instead avoided, diverted, and distracted.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2012,10:39) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 10 2012,10:45) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 10 2012,15:49) Frank, how many people have you told the following about yourself. You existed in the form of God, emptied yourself, came in the flesh, and will eventually die and be in the glory you had with God before the world began.
Is the answer none? I thought so.
So why is it that if Jesus is like us and started life on his birthday like us, that you do not go around saying the same thing about yourself.
Seems a bit strange don't you think? Try to think why that is.
t8,What kind of useless crap are you spewing now?
Let me rephrase it for t8, since you're pretending not to get his point:I existed in the form of God. Then I emptied myself and was made into a human being. But I know that when I eventually die, God will return me to the glory that I already had alongside Him before the world was created through me.
Frank, can YOU make that statement? Jesus could. See the difference?
Mike,It seems that you are spewing the same crap that t8 has previously spewed!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2012,11:00) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 09 2012,20:37) Mike, I would agree that 'Yahweh Tzidhenu' (Yahweh Our Righteousness) would be better translated into our English language as 'Yahweh [IS] our Righteousness'……………
Many erroneously believe since Yahshua is called or named “The Word of Yahweh” in Revelation 19:13 that he is and LITERALLY was the word of Yahweh and that he pre-existed as a separate being apart from his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning. This is not true!
Frank,You have not yet answered my query about this:
A title often describes the function served or the duty performed by the bearer. So it was with the title Kal-Hatzé, meaning “the word of the king,” that was given an Abyssinian officer. Based on his travels from 1768 to 1773, James Bruce describes the duties of the Kal-Hatzé as follows. He stood by a window covered with a curtain through which, unseen inside, the king spoke to this officer. He then conveyed the message to the persons or party concerned. Thus the Kal-Hatzé acted as the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.—Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, London, 1790, Vol. III, p. 265; Vol. IV, p. 76.Assuming for a moment that this was a Jewish custom, we see to what the ancient Jewish paraphrasts referred by their term, ‘Word of JEHOVAH,’ instead of JEHOVAH himself; and the idea was familiar to their recollection, and to that of their readers: a no less necessary consideration than that of their own recollection. . . . Shall we not, hereafter, acquit the evangelists from adopting the mythological conceptions of Plato? Rather, did not Plato adopt eastern language, and is not the custom still retained in the East? See all accounts of an ambassador’s visit to the grand seignior; who never himself answers, but directs his vizier to speak for him. So in Europe, the king of France directs his keeper of the seals to speak in his name; and so the lord chancellor in England prorogues the parliament, expressing his majesty’s pleasure, and using his majesty’s name, though in his majesty’s presence.”—Quoted from page 935 of Calmet’s Dictionary of The Holy Bible
Frank, is it possible for a spokesperson of a king to have the title “The Word of the King”? YES. Is it therefore possible for the spokesperson of God to have the title “The Word of God”? You have agreed the answer is “YES”, as is demonstrated in Rev 19:13, right?
So far, we are both in agreement, I believe. But…………………
Frank, is it possible that this spokesperson called The Word of God is the “HE” who was with God in the beginning before “HE” became flesh and dwelled among mankind, displaying the glory of God's only begotten Son?
Of course the answer is an unequivocal “YES”, and is supported by MANY scriptures, including Phil 2:6-8.
Mike,“[T]he Kal-Hatzé acted as the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.”, but was Kal-Hatzé LITERALLY the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.”? No!
Quote Frank, is it possible that this spokesperson called The Word of God is the “HE” who was with God in the beginning before “HE” became flesh and dwelled among mankind, displaying the glory of God's only begotten Son? The answer would be an unequivocal “NO”, since you know full well I do not believe nor do I believe Scripture teaches that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being with his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 11 2012,13:13) “[T]he Kal-Hatzé acted as the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.”, but was Kal-Hatzé LITERALLY the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.”? No!
Okay, we are at least making progress, Frank. Not only did Kal Hatze act as the word of the king, he had the title “The Word of the King”, right?So if I said that the king was with his word in the courtyard, a sensible person would assume I was talking about the king's spokesman, Kal Hatze, and not about the king hanging out WITH his own spoken words in the courtyard.
And if I said the word of the king was flesh, and had the glory of nobility, sensible people would still know I was referring to Kal Hatze, and not to the king's spoken words.
This is similar to the teaching in John 1. John tells us that God's Word was WITH Him in the beginning. He tells us that all things came into being through this SINGLE Word of God. He tells us that the Word of God came into a world that was made through HIM (personal pronoun), but the world didn't recognize him. (How are we supposed to recognize a spoken word, Frank?
) John goes on to tell us that the Word of God became flesh. What does that part mean? Can a SINGLE (not plural) spoken word of God BECOME FLESH? In what way?
John further tells us that this Word of God displayed the glory that God's only begotten Son would have on earth. (Would one single spoken word from God have the glory of His own Son?
)Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 11 2012,13:13) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Frank, is it possible that this spokesperson called The Word of God is the “HE” who was with God in the beginning before “HE” became flesh and dwelled among mankind, displaying the glory of God's only begotten Son? The answer would be an unequivocal “NO”, since you know full well I do not believe nor do I believe Scripture teaches that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being with his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning.
Yes Frank, I know what you believe. I'm asking if it is POSSIBLE that the Word of God who was with God in the beginning could be the same Word of God described in Rev 19:13. You said “NO”, but could you tell me why it's not even POSSIBLE? “Because I don't believe that!” is not a valid reason, Frank.Frank, please give a VALID reason why the Word of God in John 1:1 and 14 cannot possibly be the same person as the Word of God in Rev 19:13.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Jan. 11 2012,12:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2012,10:39) I existed in the form of God. Then I emptied myself and was made into a human being. But I know that when I eventually die, God will return me to the glory that I already had alongside Him before the world was created through me. Frank, can YOU make that statement?
Mike,It seems that you are spewing the same crap that t8 has previously spewed!
Yeah, yeah………….. we're all spewing crap.Now, will you actually answer the question? Or will you continue to hide from it behind insults?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
