- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi ootlg,
Tozer teaches that God dwells in a deep inner sanctum in every man.[“Man-the dwelling place of God”] Do you believe this?Quote (OneoftheLordsGenerals @ April 04 2006,00:01) Quote (Cubes @ April 02 2006,18:49) Question for Trinitarians: How many Gods do you see in John 1:1? How do you interpret or support your claim?
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
One God, i have never denied that. Athanasian Creed is a good way to explain the veiw. Also try reading A.W. Tozer, very insiteful writer. Check out this site.
I see two Gods. The Father and his Son, aka the Word.Why do you see One God when the Word — Jesus, is with God? Which scriptures do you use to interpret your understanding?
Here is at least one scripture that substantiates my interpretation as to there being two. Let me know if you need more. I am tired at this hour. e.g. Rev 5: The lamb is with Almighty God. The 24 elders and living creatures testify to there being two. Since they sing the song “worthy is the lamb that was slain” and tell the lamb that he redeemed us to God, it is evident therefore that:
1. there are two.
2. The lamb is not Almighty God.Ho cubes,
Satan is called by scripture “the god of this world”
and
Ps 95 3
” For the Lord is a great God, and a great king above all gods”
Ps 97.7
” Worship Him all you gods…For You are the Lord Most High over all the earth; You are exalted above all gods”
Jl 2.27
” Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel and that I am the Lord YOUR God, and there is no other”
Is 45.6
” I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God…There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord and there is no other”Indeed there is NO God to compare with our God
The Lord is the ONLY God of Israel and us.Our God is far above all other gods.
1Cor 8Hi Malcolm,
If a man made a plaster or wooden or stone object and worshipped it would scripture call that a god?Yes. Scripture is full of descriptions of such gods, which are called gods but which are not real gods but idols.
If men worshipped living beings such as men or angels would they be called gods in scripture?
Yes indeed.Such are the gods that are mentioned in Ps 97.7 who are commanded there to worship God Himself.
“For there are many gods and many lords” 1 cor 8 tells us.
Do any of these compare in any way with the one Jesus called “the only true God” in Jn 17.3?
None.
He is the greatest being under God, and he is called God too but he called the Father his God
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 04 2006,08:14) Ho cubes,
Satan is called by scripture “the god of this world”
and
Ps 95 3
” For the Lord is a great God, and a great king above all gods”
Ps 97.7
” Worship Him all you gods…For You are the Lord Most High over all the earth; You are exalted above all gods”
Jl 2.27
” Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel and that I am the Lord YOUR God, and there is no other”
Is 45.6
” I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God…There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord and there is no other”Indeed there is NO God to compare with our God
The Lord is the ONLY God of Israel and us.Our God is far above all other gods.
1Cor 8
Amen, Nick.Fair comment
It does say in Ps 110 (I think it is) The Lord said to my lord, sit here at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool, also in Heb 1 he Paul quotes the OT where it says …but to the son He (GOD) says your throne O God is an everlasting throne…therefore God even your God has annointed you with oil of gladness above your fellows. Scripture also calls those to whom the Word of God came gods…
I just misread the meaning of two Gods to be two co-equal beings
Quote (malcolm ferris @ April 04 2006,08:31) Hmmm two gods eh cubes
I agree with Nick – there is but one God.
Hi Malcolm, perhaps I'd better explain some more:I agree that the Father is the true God who is above all and the Most High God besides whom is no other.
In John 1:1, I am merely acknowledging that:
1. Jesus is the Mighty God spoken of in Is 9:6 and a handful of other places in the NT, including Hebrews 1:8-9.
2. YHWH said to my Lord sit at my right hand…..YHWH called Jesus “God” because he has been given to have such authority over YHWH's creation, being himself subject to the authority of YHWH. Does that clear things up a bit?
The point of my post to OOTLG is simply to say that there are two beings in John 1:1, the Mighty God Jesus is with the Almighty God his Father and the One True God.
Amen Nick, Amen Cubes
Sorry for the misunderstanding, One God and One Son of God who is Our Lord
Eph1 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.Hi Malcolm, the misunderstanding may even be used of God to help someone else understand. So I am glad that we have agreement in the word.
I believe that John 1:1 is a stumbling block for our Trinity friends. But again, they need to listen to all the witnesses in scripture such as the example shown in Rev 5 where the 24 elders and living creatures are clearly acknowledging two! So for us, John 1:1 is validated, interpreted and unbroken w/ the rest of scripture. Not so w/ the Trinity Doctrine.
Quote (Cubes @ April 04 2006,22:04) Hi Malcolm, the misunderstanding may even be used of God to help someone else understand. So I am glad that we have agreement in the word. I believe that John 1:1 is a stumbling block for our Trinity friends. But again, they need to listen to all the witnesses in scripture such as the example shown in Rev 5 where the 24 elders and living creatures are clearly acknowledging two! So for us, John 1:1 is validated, interpreted and unbroken w/ the rest of scripture. Not so w/ the Trinity Doctrine.
John, Chapter 1, is indeed one of the areas that “trinitarians” point to in order to claim support for that doctrine. Unfortunately, it has suffered at the hands of the Roman Church, as have many other parts of the Biblical texts, and in this instance the mere “capitalization” of the “W” in “Word,” has transformed the meaning into something it was not originally intended to mean. The “word” was not Jesus, the word was the spoken word of God directing the spirit to complete the actions spoken….had nothing to do with “Jesus.”
God spoke, the spirit moved, and creation proceeded; a simple reading of Genesis indicates this:1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The Hebrews, for thousands of years understood perfectly that Yahweh is God, and He used His active force, the “spirit,” to accomplish His purposes. That there is NO AUTHENTIC BIBLICAL SUPPORT for the “trinity doctrine” is admitted even by the very Roman Church that invented the doctrine 300 years after Christ died!
Please consider this from: http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/trinity.htm
“No Apostle would have dreamed of thinking that there are three divine Persons” (Emil Brunner, Christian Doctrine of God, Dogmatics, Vol. 1, p. 226).
“Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity” (Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 15, p. 54).
“The New Testament writers…give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three equal divine persons…. Nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead” (Fortman, The Triune God, pp. xv, xvi, 16).
“Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Vol. 11, p. 928).
“As far as the New Testament is concerned one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity” (Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, p. 38).
“The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity” (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Zondervan, 1976, Vol. 2, p. 84).
“The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence” (Karl Barth, cited in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, above).
“Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word Trinity appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord” (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in our Christianity, G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1928, p. 198).
“Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds” (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, p. 84).
“The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the TRINITY idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the…Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, coequal and united in One” (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 197).
“At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 1922, Vol. 12, p. 461).
“The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century…. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).
“Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching” (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).
“The New Testament gives no inkling of the teaching of Chalcedon. That council not only reformulated in other language the New Testament data about Jesus’ constitution, but also reconceptualized it in the light of the current Greek philosophical thinking. And that reconceptualization and reformulation go well beyond the New Testament data” (A Christological Catechism, Paulist Press, p. 102).Is the Holy Spirit a Third Person?
It is completely misleading to read into the Bible a third Person, the Holy Spirit. “The spirit of Elijah” (Luke 1:17) is not a different person from Elijah. Nor is “the Spirit of God” a different person from the Father. The Holy Spirit is the operational presence of the mind and influence of God as well as His character. It is God extended to His creation.
“Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person” (Edmund Fortman, The Triune God, p. 9).
“Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 49).
“The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view…The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptic gospels (Matt., Mark, Luke) and in Acts as a divine force or power” (Edmund Fortman, The Triune God, pp. 6, 15).
“The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person…God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly…The majority of New Testament texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, pp. 574, 575).
“On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power” (W.E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, 1960, p. 810).
“The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362…and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381” (A Catholic Dictionary, p. 812).
“[Matt. 28:19] proves only that there are the three subjects named,…but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor…This text, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1987, Vol. X, p. 552).
Note that it is impossible to establish that the Holy Spirit was believed to be a third Divine Person from New Testament times onwards. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, wrote in 380 AD:“Of our thoughtful men, some regard th
e Holy Spirit as an operation, some as a creature and some as God; while others are at a loss to decide, seeing that the Scripture determines nothing on the subject” (Oratio 38: De Spiritu Sancto).John 1:1
“In none of these instances [including John 1:1] is theos [God] used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ‘ho theos,’ that is, the Supreme God…If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as ‘God,’ is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?” (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1967-68, Vol. 50, p. 253).
The Word in John 1:1“The ‘word’ of God in the Old Testament [which sets a pattern for the New Testament] is sometimes spoken of as if it had an objective existence, and possessed a native power of realizing itself. The ‘wisdom’ of God in some passages is no more an attribute of God, but a personification of his thought. In Proverbs 8 ‘wisdom’ is God’s world-plan or conception, the articulated frame-work of the universe as a moral organism. Its creation is the first movement of the divine mind outward. Being projected outside of the mind of God, it becomes the subject of His own contemplation; it is ‘with God’” [Cp. John 1:1, ‘the word was with God,’ which does not mean that the word was another person] (A.B. Davidson, Hastings Bible Dictionary, art. God, Vol. II, p. 205, emphasis added).
English translations of the Bible before the KJV rendered the beginning of John 1: “All things were made through it and without it nothing was made that was made. In it was life….” Similarly a number of modern German and French translations describe the word as “it,” not “him.” There is no reason, therefore, to think of the word as a Person, until it becomes embodied in Jesus in John 1:14. Remember that “word” in the Hebrew Bible, the background to the New Testament, never meant a Person in all of its 1455 occurrences. There is no indication in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a person before his conception. The very opposite was taught: The Messiah would expressly not be God, but a unique, final “prophet like Moses,” coming into being from a family in Israel (see Deut. 18:15-19; Acts 3:22; 7:37).“We are not to suppose that the apostles identified Christ with Jehovah; there were passages which made this impossible, for instance Psalm 110:1, Malachi 3:1” (Charles Bigg, D.D., Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on Peter and Jude, T&T Clark, 1910, p. 99).
“Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it” (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).Hi tb4u,
How was the Word with God in the beginning?
Who is the only begotten Son of God?
What does”only begotten” mean?
When did the Son of God become a son?
How is it that the Son proceeded from God and was sent into the world?
How was he the Son before Abraham and David and JTB?
How do you explain the parable of the vinegrower?
Who came in the flesh and what does this mean?
How did all creation come through the Son?
What was the glory the Son said he had with the Father before the foundation of the world?
What did he give up before he partook of flesh and what does this mean?
Which other prophets are described as he is in these ways?
Why did the Son say he had descended from heaven?Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 05 2006,02:50) Hi tb4u,
How was the Word with God in the beginning?
Who is the only begotten Son of God?
What does”only begotten” mean?
When did the Son of God become a son?
How is it that the Son proceeded from God and was sent into the world?
How was he the Son before Abraham and David and JTB?
How do you explain the parable of the vinegrower?
Who came in the flesh and what does this mean?
How did all creation come through the Son?
What was the glory the Son said he had with the Father before the foundation of the world?
What did he give up before he partook of flesh and what does this mean?
Which other prophets are described as he is in these ways?
Why did the Son say he had descended from heaven?
Nick….some of your questions I can answer, others I cannot. Try as one might, and I have been studying for many decades (more than I care to admit!), there is still much room for confusion and misunderstanding.1. The “Word” (actually “logos” in the Greek) is merely the spoken word of God (Yahweh)…..it should not be capitalized at all. of speech
Logos: [Strong's 3004, 3006]
3006: a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground3004: to say, to speak
affirm over, maintain
to teach
to exhort, advise, to command, direct
to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say
to call by name, to call, name
to speak out, speak of, mention2. Yashuah (alt.: Yeschua)….or in modern English, “Jesus,” which is actually a corruption of the Greek/Latin Iesous.
3. When he was born of Mary, or perhaps more accurately, when conception through the actions of the holy spirit occurred.
4. Figuratively the Son proceeded from God, because he was conceived via the actions of the holy spirit, as directed by God.
5. Good question….this is one of the ones depends on “interpretation,” and I have no idea “which” interpretation may be correct. I, personally, prefer the figurative, in the sense that because Jesus was conceived through the actions of the holy spirit, there is a “spiritual connection” to Abraham, David, etc. There also seems to be some question of the “authenticity” of the text (as, for example, the ISBE indicates nearly every N.T. book has been rewritten, edited, added to, taken away from, altered, etc), which would really make it difficult (if not impossible) to analyze.
6. Gospel Reading : John 15: 1-10 — Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me (v. 4). Is this what you mean? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here.
7. Jesus came in the flesh (born of Mary)….through the actions of the holy spirit, and that means Jesus was/is the Messiah.
8. Good question….and apparently this concept is a product of the Roman Church's evolving theology in the late 3rd through 5th centuries, and the texts were altered to reflect (and support) this evolving theology. [This is the period during which most of the “trinity” verses were added, for example….although there were also later additions right up through the 16th century, such as 1st John 5:7.] I, personally, do not think Jesus had a “pre-existence” before being born of Mary, unless it would be in the sense of a connection with the “holy spirit,” but I think that would be really pushing it!
9. I believe here we are back in the realm of considering something for which there is much question as to the authenticity of the text. I, personally, do not believe in the “pre-existence” of Jesus, and I find it much more likely that the verses/passages supporting such pre-existence are spurious alterations/additions made by the Roman Church [many of which the Roman Church has already admitted].
10. You ask: “What did he give up before he partook of flesh and what does this mean?” I'm not sure where you are going with this…please elaborate.
11. You ask: “Which other prophets are described as he is in these ways?” In what ways? (Please elaborate.)
12: I think this is figurative, and is taken from his baptism at the hands of John, and the descending of the spirit upon him.
The above reflect “MY” own views and understanding, not those of any particular “church.”
Nick, there are HUGE problems with Bible study and research, and I doubt if most Christians have even the foggiest idea just HOW “huge” some of these problems are! At this point, after decades of study, I wouldn't give one thin dime for the supposed “accuracy” of the texts we see on the Christian Bookstore shelves today; anyone who thinks they can just pull one of the HUNDREDS of “versions” off the shelf today and be reading an “accurate text” is nuts!
Bible study, in depth, requires a LOT of time and effort, linguistic studies, historical studies, research into the history of the “church” itself (and Christianity in general)….I have colleagues who have spent a lifetime researching ONE “book,” for example…..and I, personally, would claim only that I “know” a little more than the average person regarding the Bible….even after decades, I do not consider myself an “expert” by any stretch of imagination, and I have changed opinions and views several times as new research shows new things to consider. The GREATEST DIFFICULTY in “Bible study” right off the top is to determine what constitutes an “AUTHENTIC TEXT.” The cold hard fact is, the ENTIRE Bible has been copied, recopied, rewritten, edited, added to, taken away from, altered, and revised so many times it is now virtually impossible to say with any amount of certainty what is, or isn't, “authentic text.” There are many alterations and changes we DO know about, yes; but there are also many that we have no direct knowledge of, other than that implied by textual criticism based on internal evidence, or by external evidence that shows a conflict in the text, or where different passages supposedly concerning the same incident/event show glaring discrepancies/contradictions that we are forced to acknowledge that “all” those passages cannot be correct, and it may even be that “none” are truly correct!
I, personally, am getting to the point where I am tempted to simply say “As long as you understand the message of salvation, and the requirements for salvation, don't even worry about the rest of the Bible!!” And who knows, perhaps that is, after all, the best thing to do?
If My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was God, he would know when the end is coming, he does not, only the Father knows. He sits at the right hand of the Father, he is the only begotten of the Father, my question is, Why does the Father say, 'this is my son in whom I am well pleased” could he have been displeasing?
Quote The “word” was not Jesus, the word was the spoken word of God directing the spirit to complete the actions spoken….had nothing to do with “Jesus.”
Interesting. I've never heard this before. It is true that “The word of Jehovah” or The word of God is an expression that, with slight variations, occurs hundreds of times in the Scriptures, and not with reference to Jesus.
But Jesus is called The Word in the Bible in another place, isn't he? (Rev 19:13)
I haven't actually read most of what you said yet, so I probably should before saying anything more.david
Hi tb4u,
Thank you for your frank and open reply. I will go over it in more detail later.I am sad that you have lost faith in the Word. Please pray for refreshment in the Spirit of God and God will show you how it still lives and breathes in completeness the Spirit of truth.If you do cast away this lamp to your feet what light will you have to guide you through the dark and difficult paths we walk? Are you just going to trust your own intuition? Is that safe or wise?
If you are to deny scripture it is not sufficient to infer conspiracy theories. If the Roman Church changed these scripture prove it for us. You must show evidence as to why each of the scriptures you have brought into question with proof of tampering. To not do so is to call the whole of the word of God into question. If one verse is added who is to say any verse anywhere in the bible is to be believed?
If you do not do this the obvious possibility arises that you are rejecting these scriptures because they do not fit with your preconceived doctrinal ideas. I am not saying that is so but you are speaking here with people who love and believe the Word but not all are mature enough to deal with such doubts.
If, however, you cannot show evidence that scripture has been tampered with or added to then you must look at yourself. Why are you denying scriptures that are true? Are you making yourself greater than scripture and all the writers the Holy Spirit has used to write it?
You have taken on your owm aegis to say some scriptures are allegorised without evidence that is so. Is that not also a doctrinal defence approach that brings the integrity of scripture itself into disrepute? Is that wise or done with the approval of the Master?
Submission to the Word is best, not arguing with it as you are arguing with truth itself.
Quote (truebelief4u @ April 04 2006,20:51) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 05 2006,02:50) Hi tb4u,
How was the Word with God in the beginning?
Who is the only begotten Son of God?
What does”only begotten” mean?
When did the Son of God become a son?
How is it that the Son proceeded from God and was sent into the world?
How was he the Son before Abraham and David and JTB?
How do you explain the parable of the vinegrower?
Who came in the flesh and what does this mean?
How did all creation come through the Son?
What was the glory the Son said he had with the Father before the foundation of the world?
What did he give up before he partook of flesh and what does this mean?
Which other prophets are described as he is in these ways?
Why did the Son say he had descended from heaven?
Nick….some of your questions I can answer, others I cannot. Try as one might, and I have been studying for many decades (more than I care to admit!), there is still much room for confusion and misunderstanding.1. The “Word” (actually “logos” in the Greek) is merely the spoken word of God (Yahweh)…..it should not be capitalized at all. of speech
Logos: [Strong's 3004, 3006]
3006: a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground3004: to say, to speak
affirm over, maintain
to teach
to exhort, advise, to command, direct
to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say
to call by name, to call, name
to speak out, speak of, mention2. Yashuah (alt.: Yeschua)….or in modern English, “Jesus,” which is actually a corruption of the Greek/Latin Iesous.
3. When he was born of Mary, or perhaps more accurately, when conception through the actions of the holy spirit occurred.
4. Figuratively the Son proceeded from God, because he was conceived via the actions of the holy spirit, as directed by God.
5. Good question….this is one of the ones depends on “interpretation,” and I have no idea “which” interpretation may be correct. I, personally, prefer the figurative, in the sense that because Jesus was conceived through the actions of the holy spirit, there is a “spiritual connection” to Abraham, David, etc. There also seems to be some question of the “authenticity” of the text (as, for example, the ISBE indicates nearly every N.T. book has been rewritten, edited, added to, taken away from, altered, etc), which would really make it difficult (if not impossible) to analyze.
6. Gospel Reading : John 15: 1-10 — Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me (v. 4). Is this what you mean? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here.
7. Jesus came in the flesh (born of Mary)….through the actions of the holy spirit, and that means Jesus was/is the Messiah.
8. Good question….and apparently this concept is a product of the Roman Church's evolving theology in the late 3rd through 5th centuries, and the texts were altered to reflect (and support) this evolving theology. [This is the period during which most of the “trinity” verses were added, for example….although there were also later additions right up through the 16th century, such as 1st John 5:7.] I, personally, do not think Jesus had a “pre-existence” before being born of Mary, unless it would be in the sense of a connection with the “holy spirit,” but I think that would be really pushing it!
9. I believe here we are back in the realm of considering something for which there is much question as to the authenticity of the text. I, personally, do not believe in the “pre-existence” of Jesus, and I find it much more likely that the verses/passages supporting such pre-existence are spurious alterations/additions made by the Roman Church [many of which the Roman Church has already admitted].
10. You ask: “What did he give up before he partook of flesh and what does this mean?” I'm not sure where you are going with this…please elaborate.
11. You ask: “Which other prophets are described as he is in these ways?” In what ways? (Please elaborate.)
12: I think this is figurative, and is taken from his baptism at the hands of John, and the descending of the spirit upon him.
The above reflect “MY” own views and understanding, not those of any particular “church.”
Nick, there are HUGE problems with Bible study and research, and I doubt if most Christians have even the foggiest idea just HOW “huge” some of these problems are! At this point, after decades of study, I wouldn't give one thin dime for the supposed “accuracy” of the texts we see on the Christian Bookstore shelves today; anyone who thinks they can just pull one of the HUNDREDS of “versions” off the shelf today and be reading an “accurate text” is nuts!
Bible study, in depth, requires a LOT of time and effort, linguistic studies, historical studies, research into the history of the “church” itself (and Christianity in general)….I have colleagues who have spent a lifetime researching ONE “book,” for example…..and I, personally, would claim only that I “know” a little more than the average person regarding the Bible….even after decades, I do not consider myself an “expert” by any stretch of imagination, and I have changed opinions and views several times as new research shows new things to consider. The GREATEST DIFFICULTY in “Bible study” right off the top is to determine what constitutes an “AUTHENTIC TEXT.” The cold hard fact is, the ENTIRE Bible has been copied, recopied, rewritten, edited, added to, taken away from, altered, and revised so many times it is now virtually impossible to say with any amount of certainty what is, or isn't, “authentic text.” There are many alterations and changes we DO know about, yes; but there are also many that we have no direct knowledge of, other than that implied by textual criticism based on internal evidence, or by external evidence that shows a conflict in the text, or where different passages supposedly concerning the same incident/event show glaring discrepancies/contradictions that we are forced to acknowledge that “all” those passages cannot be correct, and it may even be that “none” are truly correct!
I, personally, am getting to the point where I am tempted to si
mply say “As long as you understand the message of salvation, and the requirements for salvation, don't even worry about the rest of the Bible!!” And who knows, perhaps that is, after all, the best thing to do?
Hi tb4u,1. You have yet to answer how the Word was with God.
2,3The greek basis of “only begotten” is vastly different to that for “begotten” or “born”. It does not relate to physical birth but relates to sole and unique origin form God alone. So his conception in Mary does not relate to this word.Scripture says that God sent His 'only begotten' Son into the world.
1Jn 4.9
“..God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through him”Now this also cannot relate to his physical birth because he was a son before he was sent or tyhe verse makes no sense.
There are meny scriptures relating to the sending of the Son. All leave you with the same difficulty of explanation.
6. The parable relates to the vinegrower who finally sent his son to the rebellious tenants. Again the son, Christ, had to exist before he was sent.
8. If Jesus “came in the flesh” then he must have existed before he came. He is more than flesh like all of us men so to come in flesh is more than birth. Did you come in flesh too? He partook of flesh as Phil 2 tells us so again he had to exist before he did so or it makes no sense.
9.So the verses in Heb 1 and Collosians are additions to scripture or changed? We need evidence for this is a serious claim.
10-11.Phil 2.5-6says about Jesus
“He EXISTED in the form of God..emptied himself…being made in the form of Man. It speaks for itself. He was more than man. He was reduced to a lesser state and made like us.
The other is a quote from Jn 17.512. None of the above statements about Jesus are also found in scripture describing human prophets. The Son of God was unique in becoming Son of Man.
You have also claimed allegory for 5,8,12 without evidence why you should do this when there are clear and simple direct and appropriate meanings possible.
Mr Buzzard has a lot to answer for in his teachings.
Heres a question to ponder.
With so much obviously amiss with the Trinity doctrine and its obvious links to false religion why is it so popular.
It is probably the most popularly held concept of God in Christendom today and has been since its inception. Why? When it is so obviously errant?
Some might say its popularity proves its correctness.
Many might actually.
But is there another force behind it? I believe there is, it has very influential backers I would say.
The God of this world supports it thoroughly, the union of church and state, mandatory religion of the state and control of economic and political systems by ecclesiastic and other means has always been a staple of the world churches.
And it is all working towards one clearly stated purpose.
Don't you think?…Nick….I have no “easy answer” regarding the “pre-existence of Christ.” My personal belief is that he did not “pre-exist,” but there is support for the opposite view as well.
Hebrews 1:5: “….Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
5, 8, 12 are my personal opinions…..and there are many differing opinions regarding these things. At this point in time, I'm not sure there IS a way to settle the “pre-existence” debate. In fact, at this point, given all the evidence with respect to the text, it is arguable we may NEVER know how the “original” may have read. There are verses which DO support pre-existence, and verses which DO NOT…..who knows which are correct.
As for the “Word” being with God in the beginning, God's word (small “w”) has always been with him…..God's spoken (or thought?) commands WERE his “word.” [Your “words” have always been with you as well, but that doesn't make your word a “person.” At any rate, I would be the first to concede there are likely as many reasons to believe in Christ's pre-existence as not….I just happen to be one of those who do not believe in the pre-existence.
Regarding the expression “only begotten,” I refer you to the following: http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTARO16.htm
Jesus, I agree, was the “only begotten” Son of God, through the holy spirit (and I believe it is this that makes the distinction). Also, the following:“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
There are really two problems here, although only one appears on the surface. Should the proper translation be “only begotten Son” or should it be as the New American Standard Version renders it, “only begotten God”? This particular problem is not translational but textual because there is a difference in the Greek texts underlining these two translations. However, there is another problem that has to do with the Greek word monogenes. Both the King James and the New American Standard correctly translate it as only begotten. There is a growing movement to understand this word as unique, one of a kind, or simply only. We will deal with this difference first.
Many of the current handbooks on Greek syntax state that monogenes should not be translated as only begotten. [1] Instead, they take the word to mean only or unique. If this were true, the translation of the KJV would not be alone in its “error” for this is the translation of the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, and several other translations of the twentieth century.
The problem here is a misunderstanding of the Greek language (both Koine and Modern). The word monogenes does means one or unique in the sense that an only child is the only one of his parents. It does not mean unique, as in special, such as in the phrase, “his work is very unique.” Here the Greek would be monadikos, not monogenes. As we examine the New Testament we find the word monogenes used eight times (not counting its usage here in John 1:18). In every case it is used to describe a relationship between a parent and child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Since this is how the Holy Spirit uses the word in the New Testament, we must accept this definition when reading John 1:18. [2]
The evidence establishes that Jesus Christ, although God (John 1:1), is also the only begotten Son of God. None other can claim hold to this title. Those who accept Christ as their personal Savior are spiritually born of God and are called His sons (John 1:12). But no human can lay claim to the title of only begotten Son.
Even some that served on the textual committee for the UBS-4 recognized that the proper reading of John 1:18 is only begotten Son. Dr. Allen Wilkgren, who served on the committee, writes, “It is doubtful that the author (i.e., John) would have written monogenes theos, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition.” [4] Additionally, Professor Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has noted that he believes the original reading is monogenes heios and not monogenes theos. [5] Although Professor Ehrman did not serve on the UBS-4 committee, he is a recognized scholar in the field of Biblical textual criticism. [6] Thus, not all scholars agree as to the original reading in this regard.
The majority of orthodox church fathers support the reading monogenes heios, as do the majority of existing Greek cursive manuscripts. The reading contained in the majority of uncials (such as A, C3, K, W, Q, Y, D, P, X, and 063), Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, and the Old Syrian also support the reading monogenes heios.
Since we know the Greek word monogenes concerns the parent/child relationship, and that God is never called monogenes (accept for Christ in His relationship to the Father), it is clear that monogenes heios is the correct reading.
Apparently the “begetting” took place at conception, and even though Christ was, indeed, “unique,” I don't think this leads to “pre-existence,” except perhaps in an allegorical sense (because the holy spirit was involved), but this is my personal opinion, based on what I see as the context of the matter.
Phil 2:5-6 cross-reference: 2 Cor 4:4: “..in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=2co+4:4&t=nasThe wording of the text (Phil 2:5-6) varies in the manuscripts, and this is one of the problems in analysis….the term “emptying/empty” does not appear in some, while it does appear in others. I also refer you to the following which shows an issue with the linguistic analysis: (The first reference is for Phil 2:5-6) (The second reference is for the “Word,” John 1:1.)
http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/73.htmBefore continuing this, I would just like to reiterate that given the evidence for millenia long revision of the texts, I have great doubts that we will ever know what the “original” may have said. You are probably familiar with the ISBE and if you read the entries for each Bible book (and assumed authors), you will find that there isn't a single Biblical book that doesn't show both internal and external evidence of massive revision over the centuries (or millenia, in the case of the O.T.).
I know I haven't answered all your questions, but let's take your questions one at a time, rather than wholesale, if that's ok with you…..which question first???
Please ye scholars of old, study not in the American Standard Version, I hear a warning regarding the wording, apochrypha, I do not know why I say this but, I feel a dire warning against this volume, inscription, cryptic, ancient scrolls run amiss, potentate, belgium, March, 1961, scriptural reference, Ebeneezer, Care Bears, KGB, Peace Keeping Era, Baroque, lunar eclipse, war over America,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
