- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,10:29) HI WJ,
One attribute?
God is not the Son of God
NHAttribute…”an inherent characteristic”
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,10:40) Hi WJ,
You say
“It is the false conclusions of the Arians that Yeshua is not “the image” of the invisible God, for in making him less than God they have created a false image of the invisible God.”Of course no image is equal to the original that is projected onto it. The image is utterly dependant on the original and cannot exist without that original.
Was Jesus anointed by one member of your trinity with another?[Acts 10.38]
Did Jesus need that anointing by God with power or was a being that was powerful in his own right?NH
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,10:40)
Of course no image is equal to the original that is projected onto it. The image is utterly dependant on the original and cannot exist without that original.If you have no image then you do not exist!
WJ
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,10:40) Hi WJ,
You say
“It is the false conclusions of the Arians that Yeshua is not “the image” of the invisible God, for in making him less than God they have created a false image of the invisible God.”Of course no image is equal to the original that is projected onto it. The image is utterly dependant on the original and cannot exist without that original.
Was Jesus anointed by one member of your trinity with another?[Acts 10.38]
Did Jesus need that anointing by God with power or was a being that was powerful in his own right?
NHSo then, the source can project a true image of itself that is less than itself?
Hi WJ,
Certainly sonship is an essential attribute.
Sons do not exist without a parent.You can exist without a image of you, but a image cannot exist without an original.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03) Hi WJ,
Certainly sonship is an essential attribute.
Sons do not exist without a parent.You can exist without a image of you, but a image cannot exist without an original.
NHSo your Son does not have all the attributes you have as a human?
You cannot exist without an image. Your definition of an image is limited to a mirror or a picture or something.
But if your wife looks at you she sees a true live image of yourself.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03) Hi WJ,
Certainly sonship is an essential attribute.
Sons do not exist without a parent.You can exist without a image of you, but a image cannot exist without an original.
NHYeshua is not a copy of the invisible God.
He is the “image of the invisible God”
He is God manifest to us.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 26 2008,11:08) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03) Hi WJ,
Certainly sonship is an essential attribute.
Sons do not exist without a parent.You can exist without a image of you, but a image cannot exist without an original.
NHSo your Son does not have all the attributes you have as a human?
You cannot exist without an image. Your definition of an image is limited to a mirror or a picture or something.
But if your wife looks at you she sees a true live image of yourself.
Hi WJ,
Do you get muddled between Son of God and Son of Man?Jesus imaged God's nature because God was IN HIM reconciling the world to Himself [2Cor5]
God can also reveal himself through other men.[Eph 3.19]
But only of Christ Jesus is it said that he was given the FULNESS of the Spirit.[Jn3]
WJ……why is God then manifested to us, why not actually exist to us , not as an image as scripture says Jesus is , and we are also made in His image, are we then fully GOD as He is because we are being created into His image. The definition of image is to reflect, or mirror something, but as Nick brought out, it is not the very thing. God is spirit and therefore can not be seen, He is manifested to us through what He makes, no man has seen God at anytime scripture says. Here is the way i see it WJ, when we look at the moon we see light and it reflects on the earth that light, but that light is not its (OWN) Light, but the reflected light of the sun. Jesus was the man who reflect that light to us on earth, but was not the source of it as He said the Glory of that light was the FATHER and Jesus gave Him that glory, saying I have GLORIFIED YOU (the Father) on the earth, not Himself WJ. IMO
peace to you and yours…………..gene
peace………..gene
Amen to that wonderful post brother Gene. When we see Jesus our Lord we see the True image of God in him. The invisible God is visible through the man Jesus.
Thanks and love to you
AdamQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,10:40) Hi WJ,
You say
“It is the false conclusions of the Arians that Yeshua is not “the image” of the invisible God, for in making him less than God they have created a false image of the invisible God.”Of course no image is equal to the original that is projected onto it. The image is utterly dependant on the original and cannot exist without that original.
Was Jesus anointed by one member of your trinity with another?[Acts 10.38]
Did Jesus need that anointing by God with power or was a being that was powerful in his own right?
NHSo then, the source can project a true image of itself that is less than itself?
No matter what you say, one is the source and one is the image.God the Father is not an image of anyone.
Because he is the Most High God and the only true God.
No point in changing this. It is written. You are free to disagree with scripture however. But that doesn't make scripture wrong.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 26 2008,11:11) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03) Hi WJ,
Certainly sonship is an essential attribute.
Sons do not exist without a parent.You can exist without a image of you, but a image cannot exist without an original.
NHYeshua is not a copy of the invisible God.
He is the “image of the invisible God”
He is God manifest to us.
The woman is the image of the man. That doesn't make Eve, Adam, does it? It does make Eve, adam/mankind however.I know that you cannot or will not grasp this, but I post it for the benefit of those who have ears to hear.
Hi guys, dare I quote John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and was with God. Then later, the Word became flesh and was called Jesus. Then after He had done His thing He prayed saying Joh 17:4 I have glorified You upon the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. Joh 17:5 And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
What was His glory in the beginning? He was (and is) the Word of God. Evidence in Revelation Rev 19:11 And I saw Heaven opened. And behold, a white horse! And He sitting on him was called Faithful and True. And in righteousness He judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 And His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head many crowns. And He had a name written, one that no one knew except Himself.
Rev 19:13 And He had been clothed in a garment dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.Oxy…….But Jesus said the words were not His words, what do we do with that then, while he can be the spokesman of God and relay GOD”S words to us , that does not make the Word does it.. Jesus is the word of God in a representative state not actual state. He relayed God's words to us. Just as He said He did, “the words i am telling you are (NOT) mine, but the words of Him who sent me.”.
Oxy…> Jesus' Glory in the beginning was that He was (foreordained) to that Glory by God before He ever was born. Not because He had obtained it already as a preexistent being of some kind. Much like Cyrus was 200 hundred years before he was born, God told of His glory and even maned Him. It is the same with Jesus. Jesus was a man just like us having no advantage of a preexistence existence. Scripture say there is only one GOD and one mediator between God and Man, the (MAN) Jesus Christ. No where does it say the incarnated man.
Love and peace to you and yours……….gene
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2008,19:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,10:40) Hi WJ,
You say
“It is the false conclusions of the Arians that Yeshua is not “the image” of the invisible God, for in making him less than God they have created a false image of the invisible God.”Of course no image is equal to the original that is projected onto it. The image is utterly dependant on the original and cannot exist without that original.
Was Jesus anointed by one member of your trinity with another?[Acts 10.38]
Did Jesus need that anointing by God with power or was a being that was powerful in his own right?
NHSo then, the source can project a true image of itself that is less than itself?
No matter what you say, one is the source and one is the image.God the Father is not an image of anyone.
Because he is the Most High God and the only true God.
No point in changing this. It is written. You are free to disagree with scripture however. But that doesn't make scripture wrong.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 26 2008,11:11) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03) Hi WJ,
Certainly sonship is an essential attribute.
Sons do not exist without a parent.You can exist without a image of you, but a image cannot exist without an original.
NHYeshua is not a copy of the invisible God.
He is the “image of the invisible God”
He is God manifest to us.
The woman is the image of the man. That doesn't make Eve, Adam, does it? It does make Eve, adam/mankind however.I know that you cannot or will not grasp this, but I post it for the benefit of those who have ears to hear.
Hi t8Yeshua is not an image of God, but he is “The Image of God”, the “Monogenes”, unique one.
This means that all the attributes, characteristics, and qualities of who and what God is, Yeshua is.
Man can only Know and see the Father by how they know and see Yeshua.
No man can come to the Father but by him.
Therefore, to see and know Yeshua as less than God is to have a false image of the Father which is Idolatry.
Even if we take your view that “theos” can be read in a qualitative sense as far as Yeshua is concerned.
Then when John wrote John 1:1c, using the same “theos” as in John 1:1b, then he could have only meant qualitatively Yeshua is everything that the Father is, which is also supported by Heb 1:3 and Col 1:15.
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Heb 1:3
Yeshua, God in the flesh, is the Monogenes, “Unique” one.
So John 1:1 should be understood as…
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. John 1:1 NET
Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence. Source.
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET
I do not expect you to understand or accept this, or accept the scriptures and the scholars that translated them, but I state this for the viewers. You have chosen to reject John 1:1, John 20:28, 2 Peter 1:1, Heb 1:3, Col 1:15, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20 and see Yeshua as a “lesser theos”, and in so doing you teach men to see Yeshua in this way. If men want to know and see who God is, then you can only know and see him by knowing and seeing Yeshua who is clearly in nature all that God is, and if he is in nature all that God is then he is truly God.
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. John 14:7
Again t8, did God create a
ll things through a lesser being than himself?WJ
Hi t8
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2008,19:28) The woman is the image of the man.
No scripture says that Eve was created in the image of man.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:27
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2008,19:28)
That doesn't make Eve, Adam, does it?
Correct, the Word that was with God is not the Father.Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2008,19:28) It does make Eve, adam/mankind however.
Correct, Eve is also 100% human.The Word that was with God and was God is 100% God.
You seem to have identity confused with nature.
In the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Adam and Eve was human. We know that Eve is not Adam, but qualitatively Eve is 100% humanity, therefore she is called the “Mother of all living”.
This is not hard to understand.
WJ
Hi WJ,
You say
“The Word that was with God and was God is 100% God.”Is this sort of pathetic human measure suitable as a box for God or His son?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 27 2008,09:13) Hi WJ, You say
“The Word that was with God and was God is 100% God.”Is this sort of pathetic human measure suitable as a box for God or His son?
NHWhats pathetic is you do not believe Johns words.
Was the Word that was with God and was God, less than God in nature?
If so why did John use the word “theos”?
WJ
Romans 11:34 (King James Version)
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
