- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Kenrch
Another way to render that verse is as follows:
Rev 3:14 ‘And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness—the faithful and true—the chief (746) of the creation of God;(YLT – Youngs Literal Translation).
Strongs Greek Lexicon:
746. arch arche ar-khay’; from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):—beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.Quote (Ramblinrose @ Dec. 09 2005,19:52) Kenrch Another way to render that verse is as follows:
Rev 3:14 ‘And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness—the faithful and true—the chief (746) of the creation of God;(YLT – Youngs Literal Translation).
Strongs Greek Lexicon:
746. arch arche ar-khay’; from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):—beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
Ram,Any way you look at it the Word was first. God used the word to creat. As we said God said (spoke) let there be light and there was light.
And of course the Word became Jesus.Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 09 2005,20:12) Quote (Ramblinrose @ Dec. 09 2005,19:52) Kenrch Another way to render that verse is as follows:
Rev 3:14 ‘And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness—the faithful and true—the chief (746) of the creation of God;(YLT – Youngs Literal Translation).
Strongs Greek Lexicon:
746. arch arche ar-khay’; from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):—beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
Ram,Any way you look at it the Word was first. God used the word to creat. As we said God said (spoke) let there be light and there was light.
And of course the Word became Jesus.
Ram,Something to chew on: God says He knew us before the foundation of the world. Could God have been thinking of us before the He spoke things into existence. We were in God's mind before he created the world. He thought of the plan and now is making it come to pass.
Satan stopped the plan of God. Now was it in God's plan for Adam to fall? I believe it was! For God IS God. What purpose would Adams fall have so that we His children could learn the joy of the Lord. If we don't know bad, then how are we to know good.Quote By Kenrch: Any way you look at it the Word was first. God used the word to creat. As we said God said (spoke) let there be light and there was light.
And of course the Word became Jesus.YHWH = GOD = THE FATHER = THE WORD
YHWH God spoke and created. YHWH’s word is powerful.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
YHWH God spoke and created.
Nehemiah 9:6 YOU ALONE ARE YHWH; YOU HAVE MADE HEAVEN, THE HEAVEN OF HEAVENS, WITH ALL THEIR HOST, THE EARTH AND EVERYTHING ON IT, THE SEAS AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, AND YOU PRESERVE THEM ALL. The host of heaven worships You.
Isaiah 37:16 “O YHWH of hosts, God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim, You are God, You ALONE, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.
Isaiah 44:24 Thus says YHWH, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all ALONE, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
Deuteronomy 4:32 “For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, SINCE THE DAY THAT GOD CREATED MAN ON THE EARTH, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has happened, or anything like it has been heard.
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one Father? HAS NOT ONE GOD CREATED US? Why do we deal treacherously with one another By profaning the covenant of the fathers?
Job 38:1-4 Then YHWH answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:
“Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH? Tell Me, if you have understanding.Yahshua himself states that YHWH was the creator.
Luke 10:5-6 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. “But from the beginning of the creation, GOD MADE THEM male and female.’
Yahshua did not exist until his birth.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
What does it mean to be ‘the Son of God’?
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/keywords.htm
Son of God – This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus’. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said:“The Son is of the same substance as the Father.”
It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was not included in the formula. It was included fifty-six years later at another council. Let’s see what this title really means:
Son of God – In the Old Testament Israel is described as God’s first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah “Son of God” for he is Israel’s representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).
“Son of God” denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman’s contention that the Hebrew concept of “son” does not denote an extensive circle of relationships” (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the “son of God” (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His “son” in 1 Chronicles 28:6.
For Paul, “Son of God” is essentially a Christological description expressing “the Son’s solidarityy with God” (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of “Son of God”(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God’s anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:
“The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:
Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man
applies to Mark’s gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament.”
Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:
“The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization.”
This is the meaning of the title “Son of God.” Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let’s take a look at some verses to confirm this
“The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)”… “I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)”… “The LORD said to me, “You are my son” (Psalm 2:2,6-7).
Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.
“He first found his own brother and told him, “We have found the Messiah”…”Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel” (John 1:41& 49).
John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of “Son of God.” Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author. .
Understanding John 1 (from the same article as listed above)
Logos – This word is translated in English as “Word“. It is not as some would have you believe Jesus’ middle name. Jesus is not called Jesus Logos of Nazareth. This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14. For a full and detailed explanation of John 1:1-3 &14 please refer to Understanding: The Father, Son, Holy Spirit pg.26. In this paper I will cover only the basics of this verse. First, Jesus is not the “Word.” The same word “logos” appears in Revelation 20:4-5:
“I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God.”
Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing. Word of God in this verse means God’s plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does “logos” mean?
Log
os – 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (NAB & VED).
I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for “logos:”“In the beginning was God’s plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God’s plan or will possessed all the attributes of God.”
The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:“Lack of a definite article with “God” in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.”
Predication – to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster’s Dictionary).
So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, “was this baby planned?” Let’s say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God’s plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined “logos” as the “divine principle of life.” Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:
“In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh.”
With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God’s essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God’s essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.
You decide which definition is correct, Greek philosophy’s or John’s Jewish definition.
Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 08 2005,23:53) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 08 2005,22:03) Hi kenrch,
Good stuff.Who was Jesus Christ?
Was he only in existence from his conception?
Was he only like us, flesh with the breath of God?
Mary was his mother but who was his father?
If his Father was God Himself does that not make him possibly different?If so then who CAME IN the flesh? If Christ did not exist before his birth then nobody did. But 1Jn 4.2f says
“By this you will know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God”
And again in 2 Jn 1.7 says
” For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh”
So according to John, Jesus Christ WAS before he was conceived. He said the same himself many times.So who was he known as before his cinception. John tells us again in 1Jn 1.1f” What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-and that life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-what we have seen and proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ”
Jesus Christ=The Word=The Son of God.
Nick,Ok, In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and was God. Does that satisfy you?
Hi kenrch,
Almost. But Jesus also had and has flesh which has become part of him that he did not originally have. Abraham existed first with flesh then the flesh died but he still lives. Just as Abraham had flesh and now lives still without it awaiting being clothed in a body like to the Son of Man. We are man with or without a fleshly tent and so is Jesus. Paul saw himself still alive as Paul when freed from his tent through natural death.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 11 2005,19:09) Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 08 2005,23:53) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 08 2005,22:03) Hi kenrch,
Good stuff.Who was Jesus Christ?
Was he only in existence from his conception?
Was he only like us, flesh with the breath of God?
Mary was his mother but who was his father?
If his Father was God Himself does that not make him possibly different?If so then who CAME IN the flesh? If Christ did not exist before his birth then nobody did. But 1Jn 4.2f says
“By this you will know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God”
And again in 2 Jn 1.7 says
” For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh”
So according to John, Jesus Christ WAS before he was conceived. He said the same himself many times.So who was he known as before his cinception. John tells us again in 1Jn 1.1f” What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-and that life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-what we have seen and proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ”
Jesus Christ=The Word=The Son of God.
Nick,Ok, In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and was God. Does that satisfy you?
Hi kenrch,
Almost. But Jesus also had and has flesh which has become part of him that he did not originally have. Abraham existed first with flesh then the flesh died but he still lives. Just as Abraham had flesh and now lives still without it awaiting being clothed in a body like to the Son of Man. We are man with or without a fleshly tent and so is Jesus. Paul saw himself still alive as Paul when freed from his tent through natural death.
Ok Nick hows this:
Fleshly Jesus was runing around when God said JESUS I want you to go down to earth and become flesh again so Nick's pride will be satisfied .
Nevermind that the Word BECAME, (you know as in never been ) flesh. And nevermind that My Word Says That I'm Spirit that's not good enough for Nick. For Nick has said that Jesus was already in heaven and made of flesh, THEN became flesh AGAIN. 1 book of Nick verse 1,14.Look I'm open to the truth especialy if I've never heard it before as long as you have scripture to back up what you say is true. But i can't find the 1st book of Nick in any translation. If you look at John 1:1, 14 and then 1John it becomes evident that 1 John is saying that anyone who says that the Jesus the MESSIAH the Word came in flesh. When did the Word come in the flesh. When the Word was born flesh
The Word became Jesus and Jesus was flesh.
The only possible way you could be right is to say that the Word was already flesh. Before the Word there was no Jesus unless you look at the book of Nick. I don't know how else to explain it the Word was not flesh before it became flesh.Hello kenrch,
did you read what I said?
Jesus partook of flesh.Heb 2.9f
“But we do see him, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus……
…Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same..”
So he had no flesh till he was born of Mary.Hello all,
I recently noticed something from Genesis 1:26 which puzzled me.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I checked out Strong's lexicon at blb.org
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1136054564-3622.html#26
Let us make = `asah [06213] = (1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make (2) (Piel) to press, squeeze
in our image,= tselem [06754] = (1) image
after our likeness:= d@muwth [01823] = (1) likeness, similitude (2) in the likeness of, like asThis would be the first instance and use of the pronouns US & OUR in scripture, but the Hebrew words used to make these denotations do not appear to include them in their original translations. Thus it would appear that translators added the pronouns. If not, then where are the first instances of those pronouns by which the hebrew words `asah, tselem, d@muwth are defined?
Hope to hear your insights.
What I see from my non-hebrew scholarly understanding is that, there were no OURS or US in Genesis 1:26 according to the lexicon's definition there; and that the Elohiym of Genesis 1:1 continued to create as in the previous verses.
Hi guys,
Sorry to digress, but just a quick little something i have been looking at today…
God |is not| a MAN, that He should lie; |neither| the SON OF MAN, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good? Num 23:19
What is MAN, that thou art mindful of him? or the SON of MAN, that thou visitest him? Heb 2:6
It was just a thought, God is not a man, neither the SON OF MAN – therefore am I right to conclude by these two scriptures that if God became a man then what is stated in Numbers 28 makes no sense.
GOD is not a man – therefore he cannot lie, GOD is not the son of man – therefore he has no need to repent. If broken down would not this statement equal – God is not man nor the son of man.
Just a thought?
I was reading an article in your website dealing with Apostasy. > Antichrist > Jesus Christ.
I found it interesting and was wanting to know what type of Church you are or what you call yourselves at Heaven.Net
I have been researching Arianism which comes close to my personal beliefs and your article seemed to follow Arianism closely.
Is Christ co-equal to God the Father or is he of “Like Substance” and not the “Same Substance”?
Hi Ashamanjim,
There is now only one administrator at heaven.Net, “t8” and he, like Nick Hassen, the other Administator who is now gone, doesn't hold to any church, but believes that all churches or organized religion is false.
The people on here, as far as I can tell, are half like t8 and Nick, believing that you don't have to be a part of any religion, but can find Christ yourself and consider all organized religion to be a part of Babylon the Great.
The other half are from various groups.What mostly seems to hold this forum together is the trinity doctrine and most people on here are against it, but of course, not all.
There is a small discussion on Arianism in this section of the forum, “general questions.”
Quote Is Christ co-equal to God the Father or is he of “Like Substance” and not the “Same Substance”?
We've been having a very similar discussion in the “bible topics” section of this forum under the heading of “Jesus.”
The answer to the question would depend who you ask.david
Quote (ashamanjim @ Jan. 24 2006,20:36) I was reading an article in your website dealing with Apostasy. > Antichrist > Jesus Christ. I found it interesting and was wanting to know what type of Church you are or what you call yourselves at Heaven.Net
I have been researching Arianism which comes close to my personal beliefs and your article seemed to follow Arianism closely.
Is Christ co-equal to God the Father or is he of “Like Substance” and not the “Same Substance”?
Hi ashamanjim.Yes I personally do not belong to any denomination.
I think it is not about which church you go to, but rather realising that you are the Church and that you cannot go to church if you are the (part of the) church.Those who are redeemed from among men are the Church, no matter the time of the day or location. That is why the letters in scripture often say things like “to the church in Thessalonica”, or the church in Pricilla and Aquilla's house”.
Pauls letters were to the Church in a a specific geographic region, not to denominations. The Church in Rome for example are those who belong to Christ, who reside or are in Rome. It is not a denominational setup at all.
You may be interested in the following article.
Yes thanks david.
ashamanjim, there are a number of discussions in 'Biblical Discussions' and 'General Questions' that go into detail regarding your question. Feel free to get involved in those discussions.
Thank you all for your input. I will try to take a look at some of the discussions later in the week when my work slacks off. In the mean time, take care and God Bless.
Jim
Quote I think it is not about which church you go to, but rather realising that you are the Church and that you cannot go to church if you are the (part of the) church. Those who are redeemed from among men are the Church, no matter the time of the day or location. That is why the letters in scripture often say things like “to the church in Thessalonica”, or the church in Pricilla and Aquilla's house”.
Pauls letters were to the Church in a a specific geographic region, not to denominations. The Church in Rome for example are those who belong to Christ, who reside or are in Rome. It is not a denominational setup at all.
True enough T8.
The words “church” and “churches” occur over 110 times in the King James Version. Other translations also use these terms. The Greek word translated “church” literally means “a calling forth,” or, in other words, a gathering of people. For example, Acts 7:38, in the King James Version, tells of Moses being “in the church in the wilderness,” that is, among the congregated nation of Israel. In another instance the Scriptures state that “a bitter persecution started against the church,” referring to the community of Christians in Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1, The Jerusalem Bible) In one of his letters, Paul greets “the church in [Philemon’s] house,” the local congregation that met there.—Philemon 2, Revised Standard Version.The point as you made is this: Clearly the term “church” as used in the Bible designates, not a place of worship, but rather a group of worshipers. Acknowledging this, Clement of Alexandria, a second-century religious teacher, wrote: “Not the place, but the congregation of the elect, I call the Church.”
Instead of encouraging us to worship in a church, the Bible encourages us to worship WITH the church, “the congregation of the living God,” the people who “worship with spirit and truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15; John 4:24) Religious meetings approved by God should instruct people “in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion.” (2 Peter 3:11) They should help those present to become mature Christians, who can “distinguish both right and wrong.”—Hebrews 5:14.
Worship in the Nation of Israel
The Law of Moses required that all Jewish men be present at a specific location for three annual festivals. Many women and young ones also attended. (Deuteronomy 16:16; Luke 2:41-44) On certain occasions the priests and the Levites taught the congregated throngs, reading from God’s Law. They ‘expounded it, put meaning into it, and gave understanding in the reading.’(Nehemiah 8:8) For Sabbath years, God’s direction stated: “Congregate the people, the men and the women and the little ones and your alien resident who is within your gates, in order that they may listen and in order that they may learn, as they must fear Jehovah your God and take care to carry out all the words of this law.”—Deuteronomy 31:12.
Only at the temple in Jerusalem could a person offer sacrifices to God and receive instruction from the priests. (Deuteronomy 12:5-7; 2 Chronicles 7:12) In time, other houses of worship were established in Israel—the synagogues. These were locations for the reading of the Scriptures and for praying. Still, the temple in Jerusalem was the principal place of worship. This is illustrated by what the Bible writer Luke reports. He mentions an elderly woman named Anna, who was “never missing from the temple, rendering sacred service night and day with fastings and supplications.” (Luke 2:36, 37) True worship with other devoted ones was the focal point of Anna’s life. Other God-fearing Jews followed a similar course.True Worship After Christ’s Death
After Jesus’ death his followers were no longer under the Mosaic Law, nor were they required to worship at the temple. (Galatians 3:23-25) Still, they continued to meet together for prayer and study of God’s Word. They had no elaborate buildings, using instead private homes and public places. (Acts 2:1, 2; 12:12; 19:9; Romans 16:4, 5) Free of ritualism and pomp, those first-century Christian meetings had a beautiful simplicity.Amid the moral gloom of the Roman Empire, the Bible principles taught at those meetings sparkled like diamonds. Some unbelievers attending for the first time could only exclaim: “God is really among you.” (1 Corinthians 14:24, 25) Yes, God was really among them. “Therefore, indeed, the congregations [“churches,” RS, JB] continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.”—Acts 16:5.
Could a Christian at that time have God’s approval by worshiping in pagan temples or on his own?
The Bible gives clear direction on this matter: Approved worshipers had to become part of the only true church, or congregation, the “one body” of genuine worshipers. These were the disciples of Jesus, known as Christians.—Ephesians 4:4, 5; Acts 11:26.david.
Quote Well I happen to be a Christian… C.O.G.I.C. Church of God in Christ and I was raised on the beliefe of trinitarianism. I fear the fact that denoucing Christ as Lord might be the wrong decision. I am prayin very hard about what I am reading. Try some explanations in lamens terms. I would like to show my pop(dad) these too so Lamens. It would be easier to just read it to him without having to double back. If you dont mind me askin, What religion are you 2 that replied to my ?'s??? In answer to that last question, I am of the religion that will come to your door and actually want to talk with you or your dad about the Bible. (Mat 24:14; Mat 28:19,20)
No one is suggesting that you 'denouce Christ as Lord,' as you say. No one on here would ever suggest that.
Jesus is definitely a Lord (meaning “master.”)
1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6
“For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”
Notice the distinction.What I am suggesting is not that we denouce Jesus as Lord, but rather I am suggesting that Jesus is the Son of God, and that that is exactly what it means: “son” “of” “God.”
Jesus is referred to as the Son.
Jehovah (or Yahweh) is referred to as his Father.Mr. H, is your Father equal with you, in age, wisdom, etc?
Why would they be described in these terms?“Explanations in laymen's terms,” you say?
As T8 said, there is a lot of discussion on the trinity on this site. But if you want just one simple thought:
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?
Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
(Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
(If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
(Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”
The Hebrew word Shad·dai´ and the Greek word Pan·to·kra´tor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.
I hope this helps.
david.
Quote (david @ Feb. 02 2006,04:50) Quote Well I happen to be a Christian… C.O.G.I.C. Church of God in Christ and I was raised on the beliefe of trinitarianism. I fear the fact that denoucing Christ as Lord might be the wrong decision. I am prayin very hard about what I am reading. Try some explanations in lamens terms. I would like to show my pop(dad) these too so Lamens. It would be easier to just read it to him without having to double back. If you dont mind me askin, What religion are you 2 that replied to my ?'s??? In answer to that last question, I am of the religion that will come to your door and actually want to talk with you or your dad about the Bible. (Mat 24:14; Mat 28:19,20)
No one is suggesting that you 'denouce Christ as Lord,' as you say. No one on here would ever suggest that.
Jesus is definitely a Lord (meaning “master.”)
1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6
“For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”
Notice the distinction.What I am suggesting is not that we denouce Jesus as Lord, but rather I am suggesting that Jesus is the Son of God, and that that is exactly what it means: “son” “of” “God.”
Jesus is referred to as the Son.
Jehovah (or Yahweh) is referred to as his Father.Mr. H, is your Father equal with you, in age, wisdom, etc?
Why would they be described in these terms?“Explanations in laymen's terms,” you say?
As T8 said, there is a lot of discussion on the trinity on this site. But if you want just one simple thought:
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?
Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
(Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
(If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
(Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”
The Hebrew word Shad·dai´ and the Greek word Pan·to·kra´tor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.
I hope this helps.
david.
You finality admitted it”I am of the religion”, there you have it “you are of a religion” and not a child of God just a child of the JWs.
What about Matt. 10:28?hmmm. Kenrch,
I don't remember saying I was a child of JW. You said that, not me. I do remember saying that I am of the religion that would actually care enough about him that we would and will and most likely recently have come to his door to discuss the Bible with him personally, as Jesus fortold his followers would. (Mat 24:14; Mat 28:19,20)
And so, the answer is obvious, whom I am associated with.Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.Do you not have a religion Kenrch?
Of course, I could have said: 'I am a Christian. I am a follower of Jesus.' But if asked that question, Hitler would have said these words too. He wanted an actual answer and I gave him what he wanted.The Church that Jesus built existed before the JWs and all denominations. That is the Church that I belong. The original one, the only one. All others are nothing but fulfillment of what Paul said would happen.
Acts 20:29
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flockI know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.Nearly all denominations were created when a man or men drew men to themselves. Some denominations are even named after there leaders like the Lutherans or example. The JWs had Russell and others.
But we should be followers of Christ and not let ourselves be drawn unto men. We should have pure devotion to Christ.
Interestingly, some of the Jews asked whether the activity of Jesus Christ represented “a new teaching.” (Mark 1:27) Later, some Greeks thought the apostle Paul was introducing a “new teaching.” (Acts 17:19, 20) It was new to the ears of those who were hearing it, but the important thing was that it was the truth, in full harmony with God’s Word.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour.”
—Isaiah 43:10, 11, (American Standard Version.)Jehovah God had witnesses on earth during the thousands of years before Jesus was born, streching all the way back to faithful Abel. After Hebrews chapter 11 lists some of those men of faith, Hebrews 12:1 says:
“So, then, because we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also put off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.”Jesus said before Pontius Pilate: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37)
He is called “the Faithful Witness,” and “the faithful and true witness.” (Rev 1:5; 3:14) Of whom was he a witness? He himself said that he made his Father’s name manifest. He was the foremost witness of Jehovah.—John 17:6.
Jesus told his disciples: “You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.”—Acts 1:8.
Hence, the one group today telling the good news of Jehovah’s Kingdom by Christ Jesus in over 230 lands feel that they properly refer to themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses. The true Christians have always been an organized group, as they would have to be to accomplish the commission given them by Christ. (Mt 28:19,20; 24:14)
While there are many reluctant to even use God’s name, there is one group that is not.
ACTS 15:14
“Syḿeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.”Ask yourself: How does this scripture fit me?
Are you part of the group that is “a people for his name?” (Acts 15:14)
Are you “called by my [Jehovah’s] name”? (Isaiah 43:5-7)MICAH 4:5
“For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah our God to time indefinite, even forever.”T8, the very one representing you, Nick Hassen completely disagreed with you on the subject of hellfire. One of you was wrong, and he was representing your website. Yet, you say I am wrong because I feel it is important to be a part of the group, the only group that is ‘walking in the name of Jehovah.’
Quote “The Church that Jesus built existed before the JWs and all denominations. That is the Church that I belong. The original one, the only one.” T8, How do you determine if someone belongs to your church? Is it someone that agrees with everything YOU say?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
