- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote Quote: from GJG on 10:11 pm on Aug. 30, 2003
To t8,Due to the Divine conception of the man-Christ, do you think it is possible that the ‘true-self’ of this unique man, is the ‘greater Spirit’ within Him?
Also, due to the same reasoning, do you think it is possible that any ‘Divine Attributes’ of this unique man, are refering to that very same Spirit?
So that, the "title of God" and "Son of God title" are completely in harmony with each other.
No.
The flesh is the human nature. The Spirit is God’s nature or gives God’s nature and he (Jesus) chooses which one to obey. He chose the Spirit within HIM.
Jesus is a unique person. "The Son".
We are unique people. "A Son or sons".
We are not the Spirit within, just as we are not the flesh. We are the soul.
Jesus is the LOGOS.To Global,
With regards to your last post. You concentrate a lot on the supposition that we shouldn't render John 1:1 as anything less than Jesus being “the God”. I couldn't disagree more. You basically say that the lack of an article is not significant and doesn't denote a difference from the other uses of GOD with the article in John 1. Again I disagree. Try taking the next verse and add the article and you will see a very big difference and hence the essence of what I am saying.
Let us look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil. Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities of a devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought.
Now in John 1:1, the most natural reading of the text shows that there are two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two equal gods.
Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique. This one is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten” and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “god.” So either there were two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike (a quality) individual talking to the Almighty God. There are no other possible explanations as far as I can see.
I personally see that the scriptures including the Book of John as backing up the second view, that the Father is greater than the Son. That the Father is the God and the Son is the Image of The God.
Below I have posted some quotes from other writers and scholars who hold a similar view to myself. I would also like to point out that my conclusions came to me by leading of the Spirit and scripture, (no indoctrination whatsoever). I have only read the thoughts of others such as what I quote below, after I was shown this truth. In fact I have read these only in the last 2 days.
The Father is surely the one true God”, and I have found that I am not alone in this revelation. It is just that there is no reputable organisation setup to promote this truth. The Trinity doctrine has the Roman Catholic Organisation and other denominations actively promoting their doctrine. But the truth that there is One God the Father should be taught within the true Church (Body of Christ) itself. Jesus true identity should also be taught within the Church. We don't need to set up another organisation to do it. The lack of an external organisation doesn't mean it is not true.
QUOTES
======“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all', as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the pre-existent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone', and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not'. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as
being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v[erse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction?
There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite…In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
—Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.
—G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.
—The Translator's New Testament, p 451.We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used (in the final clause.) For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine' (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the Absolute sense of the name…In a second passage in the Prologue (I 18) the textual evidence
attests 'only-begotten God' more strongly than 'only begotten Son', but the latter is preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with Johannine usage and with the succeeding clause, 'who is in the bosom of the Father'. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named 'the Son of God.
—Vincent Taylor, The Expository Times, January 1962. p. 117.As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.The late Dr. William Temple in His Readings in St. John's Gospel (1939), 4, obviously accepts Moffatt's translation, for he says, 'The term “God” is fully substantival [shows identity, who, or what, 'the God', the Father, is] in the first clause pros ton then [“with the God”, both “the” (ton) and “God” (Theon) being spelled accusative case endings] it is predicative and not far from being adjectival in the second – kai theos en ho logos [“and (a) god was the Word”]
—R.H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel (3rd ed., 1941).The closing words of v[erse]. 1 should be translated, “the Word was divine.” Here the word Theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective”…Taken by itself, the sentence kai theos en ho logos [and (a) god was the Word] could admittedly bear either of two meanings: 1) 'and the Word was (the) God' or 2) 'and the Word was (a) God'…E.F. Scott's statement about the Philonic doctrine (The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, Edinburg, 1908, p.151): “The Logos appears sometimes as only an aspect of the activity of God, at other times as a “second God” an independent and it might seem a personal being.” We have seen that 'and the Word was (a) God' is a possible, if unlikely, translation of kai theos en ho logos. This is apparently accepted by E.F. Scott
—J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Expository Times, July 1951, pp. 314-316.It would be impossible to speak about Jesus without considering the words of John's 'Gospel: “The Word was God”. The Greek of that phrase is Theos en ho logos. This does not mean Word was God. In Greek ho is the definite article. [there are eighteen other ways to spell the 'definite' article in the Koine Greek of the first century of the common era] In Greek, if two things are identified [shown to be the same entity] the definite article is used with both. If this phrase meant the Word was God it would be Ho theos çn ho logos. There is nothing strange about this. We do the very same in English. When in English, or in Greek, a noun does to have the definite article, it becomes the equivalent of an adjective. [a description rather than an identification, how the subject is rather than what of who the subject is] If in English I say: “John is the man,” then I identify John with a definite and particular specimen of the human race; but if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere of man.” So then, what the Greek really says [means] in not “The Word was God,” but “The word is in the same sphere as God; it belongs to the same kind of life [spiritual life] and is one with God [cp. John 17:20-23 on “one”]. (Notations is brackets added by this reviewer.)
—William Barclay, Who Is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., 1975, pp. 35-6.Here “God” is used predicatively, without the article: the Word, whom he has just distinguished from the Person of God, is nevertheless a divine being in his own right.
—Bruce Vawter, C.M., The Four Gospels an Introduction, p. 38.The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed.
—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition, 1934, p. 767.God – divine in nature…God (in kind)”, [footnote to John 1:1c]
—The Cross Reference Bible, American Standard Version, Harold E. Monser, Editor-In-Chief; Associate Editors, C.R. Scotville, I.M. Price, A.T. Robertson, M.S. Terry, Jr., R. Sampey, J.W. Monser, G.C. Eiselen, R.A. Torrey, A.C. Zenor, 1959 edition.John 6:70
“Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”Was Judas really “a devil” i.e. Satan himself? No. He was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of Satan.
B.F. Westcott comments on this: “Judas…partook of that which is essential to the devil's nature.” (The Gospel According to St John, p. 253) Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite); he was not a devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is the devil'; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is devil'. Since the word order is, 'devil is', and a form of “I am” comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in these examples including John 1:1c.
Quote Quote: from t8 on 9:55 pm on Sep. 1, 2003 Quote Quote: from GJG on 10:11 pm on Aug. 30, 2003
To t8,Due to the Divine conception of the man-Christ, do you think it is possible that the ‘true-self’ of this unique man, is the ‘greater Spirit’ within Him?
Also, due to the same reasoning, do you think it is possible that any ‘Divine Attributes’ of this unique man, are refering to that very same Spirit?
So that, the "title of God" and "Son of God title" are completely in harmony with each other.
No.
The flesh is the human nature. The Spirit is God’s nature or gives God’s nature and he (Jesus) chooses which one to obey. He chose the Spirit within HIM.
Jesus is a unique person. "The Son".
We are unique people. "A Son or sons".
We are not the Spirit within, just as we are not the flesh. We are the soul.
Jesus is the LOGOS.Dude! What’s the difference between "spirit" and "soul"?
I sorta thought they were the same thing:(
lookin 4ward 2 ur reply:)
To GJG,
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.So when we die, our body returns to dust and our Spirit returns to God. The next verse shows us that we have at least 3 parts.
1 Thessalonians 5:23
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.So the soul comes to life with the breath of life. Breath and Spirit are the same thing. The word in the Hebrew is 'hmXn' (N@shamah) and is translated as the following words in the King James version; breath 17 times, blast 3 times, spirit 2 times, inspiration 1 time, souls 1 time.
In the Greek the word Spirit is 'pneu'ma' and is translated as the following words; Spirit 111 times, Holy Ghost 89 times, Spirit (of God) 13 times, Spirit (of the Lord) 5 times, (My) Spirit 3 times, Spirit (of truth) 3 times, Spirit (of Christ) 2 times, human (spirit) 49 times, (evil) spirit 47 times, spirit (general) 26 times, spirit 8 times, (Jesus' own) spirit 6 times, (Jesus' own) ghost 2 times, miscellaneous 21 times.
The word Soul in the Greek is 'yuchv' and means the breath of life, the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing; the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc); the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness; the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life; the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body). The word 'soul' is translated as the following in the KJV; soul 58 times, life 40 times, mind 3 times, heart 1 time, not translated 2 times.
So it appears that we are the Soul (life, mind) and we are clothed in flesh (a human body) and we have the Spirit inside us that gives life to our soul.
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.So we have body soul and spirit and the above verse makes a distinction between soul and spirit. I think it is possible that 'our spirit' is the same as 'our soul'. But 'The Spirit' is God's Spirit.
1 Peter 3:4
Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.Romans 8:16
The Spirit (pneu'ma) himself testifies with our spirit (pneu'ma) that we are God's children.So we are connected to God who is a Spirit by our spirit. Our spirit maybe the same as our soul. If not, then we the soul have a body and spirit and in addition God's Spirit.
So if we have a body and soul and God who is a Spirit abides inside our soul, then The Word who partook of human nature/flesh who also had the Spirit of his Father in him must surely not be either the flesh nor the Spirit. But he would have his own Spirit/Soul. That is if we (mankind/sons) are like the Son. Otherwise Jesus wouldn't be like us (soul, body, spirit).
You seem to say in your teachings that Jesus is God's Spirit in human flesh and gives no unique identity to Jesus. Hence your belief that Jesus is God in human flesh. Or that Jesus is the flesh, or that Jesus is the God part of the union.
This is why I say that Jesus is actually the Word. The Word was with God in the beginning and he is like God. We know that the Word became flesh and he is the image of the invisible God. We also know that the Word who became flesh is Jesus Christ (Yeshua) of Nazareth and he was raised from the dead by God and he is now glorified in Heaven and refers to his Father as His God and our God.
The Son of God is not God. He is the Son of God, the Image of God, the Wisdom of God and the Word of God. He is like God.
Yes, we are souls and the soul is not God's Spirit.
If God's breathes his Spirit into Adam/Soul and he lives, then Adam who is his soul cannot be God's Spirit. Rather the Spirit gives him life.Now I am not sure if the spirit of man is the same as his soul, but either way Man is a soul and the spirit of man is different to the spirit of God.
1 Corinthians 2:11
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.Proverbs 23:14
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death. [ 23:14 Hebrew [ Sheol ] ]Matthew 16:25
For whoever wants to save his life[ 16:25 The Greek word means either life or soul; also in verse 26.] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.We are souls, so our souls are made in the likeness of God who is a Spirit. Jesus Christ is the image of God, his Father. He is not that Spirit. He is in unity with his Father in spirit and so he invites us to be in unity with them in spirit.
A soul is "who" we are and flesh is "what" we are. The spirit in us is not us but the life and power of God which keeps this flesh alive.
<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/deity/Jn1_1.html" target="new1">http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/deity/Jn1_1.html</a>
Hi Kel,
Welcome to this Forum.
I checked out your page and I want to commend you on a work well done.
I pray that God will continue to lead you into all truth, by His Spirit.Maybe you didn’t write this, but the fact that you agree with it is still worthy of appreciation.
Quote Quote: from Kel on 12:01 pm on Sep. 8, 2003
A soul is "who" we are and flesh is "what" we are. The spirit in us is not us but the life and power of God which keeps this flesh alive.<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/Trinity/Verses/Jn1_1.html" target="new1">http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/Trinity/Verses/Jn1_1.html </a>
Welcome dude:)
Thx for the short and simple answer.
Now I see what t8 was saying.
thx again guys.
To GJG,
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God and not God himself, or do you still hold to the Oneness Doctrine?
To all,
Rev 1:8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
When we read this, God the almighty declared himself to be the Alpha yet at the same time the Omega. He is the beginning and the ending at the same time. What is a beginning that is also the ending at the same time ? Does not this actually regards to one of GOD’s characteristic of being Eternal. That he is never can be positioned within any boundary, He is God, the almighty, he can’t be sized up in lenght, height, width or even time. He has no beginning and he has no End. He spans from eternity through internity, infinite on his own, and sustained by his own.
Now let’s us take a look at the topic at hand between Global and T8
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.I dont have vast knowledge or any strong to actually understand the original language perhaps one of you can do that and try to verify the translation. But as I understand it, In the Beginning there was the Word. It said explicitly that in a certain point of time, there was the Word. And the word was with God. And the Word was God. I’m not sure as this verse really just said that in the beginning the word already exist or is it the word exist at that precise moment of time called the beginning (we know God don’t have a beginning or End).
Now the second sentence seems to be the cornerstone of this confusion. The Word was God. However if you combine with the first sentence and Rev1:8, and the intepretation above, this becomes quite a challange as well. God is not supposed to be contained within Time. I see this as enother contradiction as to make the Word eternal. I’m sure one of you can enlight me on this issue.
To Global
I can’t help to read your post. You are a very resourcefull man, and I’ve read all thread and challenges on this forum. Your argument seems to be the most sound argument of any trinitarian that I’ve ever read. I would like to try to sum up your point and raise my question.
1. God is a Classification.
2. Yahveh, Christ and the Holly Spirit are of one substance.
3. This one substance is in turn the member of God classification. Bearing in mind that there can only one member of the classification, so this substance that embodies Yahveh, Christ and the Holly spirit is that member. Am I correct so far ?
This is a confusion to me, since now I will have to defined what (rather than who) is that substance ? Is the member of God, this subtance is a substance with three personality ? The God the all mighty would be summed up as this substance rather than Jehvah, Jesus or the Holly Spirit.
To say that Yahveh equal to Christ equal to Holly spirit is still also not proven by this. They are of the same substance, but they are not proven to be of the same quality, or in equality. I think this is the point that T8 is trying to raise to you. Jehovah, Christ and The Holly spirit is a member of one substance which is the only member of the classification GOD, yet they are not necessarily means that they are at the same quality as T8 has previously pointed out on his numerous argument. I believe this is one of the foundation in Trinitarian teaching as well, that they are all the same body and are all equal. I think we need you to share with us more on the equality.4. The trinitarian translation is the only consistent and correct treatment of John 1:1 => where did this come from ? I believe this is personal. Lets’ set aside this and stick to the word of GOD as the only consisten and correct treatment of anything. we are seeking the truth, not seeking justification of our understanding, belief, and reasoning.
5. Rev 22:13. This is another confusion. Depending on who is saying the word. If this is said by christ then this all would be difficult to understand. Or is it that Christ is trying to say that he spans from the beginning until the end ? That he is the start of all thing, and would be the end of all thing that reside within time. In that case if, this would also be difficult as now we have to have two different interpretation of the same words. Let me know what you guys think.
6. Regarding the statement by Thomas, " My Lord and my God". Do you see that the Word God has a posessive adjective of "my". We know that in history human has called many things as their Gods, but not necessarily "The GOD". I believe this is supported by the many scripture that has been discussed as well.
The point i’m trying to raise is, my is a possesive clause. In claiming Jesus to be his God, Thomas never claim that Jesus is God of all Universe, that Jesus is the almighty God which is above all. There are however passage that says, The Father is the migthty God, that he is the only God.
Compare this to the statement of David "The Lord said to my lord". Here you again see the possesive clause. The Lord could be refered to the one and Only because of the article. My Lord is David’s Lord, which is different to The Lord. The point of the two being different of course does not contradict to Trinity concept. However the possesive clause does seems to be strange. The possesive could also be read that the later is the Lord to David, and the first is not limited which would give qualitative difference.
If Jesus has been given authority for all which is on earth (by God the Father), he could in a sense become God to all Gods creation but certainly not God to The Father who gave that authority to him as Paul had said.
In this regard as He was given authority, and as he himself has declared humbly that he is not greater than God The Father, he can’t be equal to God the Father.
You will argue that he speaks in his humanity. Then I will say, if Jesus is both Fully God and Fully Man. Then there would be a lot of lie or partiality when Jesus was asked of his identity. You see, the answer should include both. Jesus could not lie or be partial on his answer because that would mean he is hiding something from his disciple, so he can’t answer that he is christ, he can’t simply answer he is the life, the way and the ressurection. He must also include a statement that he is God the All Mighty, to make everything in Full harmony.
Again we will comeback to the satemetn "I AM". Frankly speaking, I failed to see it as a statement to say that He is God. I am, is a statement of self. I am who I AM. I can say that to anyone without them raising stone on me. In regards to Jesus statement "Before Abraham, I am", this word can be interpreted in alot of way other then interpretation of him refering to himself to be God. Trying to relate God’s word "I AM who I AM", is a bit forced I believe. Never in my lifetime I couldl’ve come to that conclusion has I not learned it from other people. I’m not saying this is wrong, but I’m not also seeing it as by saying "Before Abraham, I am" Jesus is claiming him self to be God, The Father. Which is also contradicts again, as they should be a separate entitiy, which is of the same substance. But the one who said that word is believed to be God the Father. If by saying ‘I Am" Jesus is refering himself as God the Father than it will again break the personality of each person of that one substance. As far as I understand "I Am" stood for identifying a person identity not his gender or classification.In this, I also failed the reason to see why is Satan trying to test Jesus. As it would be senseless. It would be stage performed by God, the obidience of Christ would be a simple acting. For if he is Fully God, he can never fall into sins. He can never be tempted no matter what Satan do. So salvation by suffering and obidience would become questionable, because Jesus never really defeated Sins because being fully God and fully man he is incapable of Sins.
Another contradiction to this is the nature chance of Jesus. If you read hebrew 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little
lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Now this raise another question. One of God quality is eternal that he never change in nature. Could Jesus be lower than Angel had he been fully God and Fully man ? Another contradiction is the statement that Jesus taste death. Being Fully God and Fully man, how can he taste Dead. If he is fully God he cannot taste Death, for God is beyond death.Please bear with my silly arguement and question. Let us seek the truth based solely on th words of God. Let not our pride takes our senses.
Global and T8 and all others thank you for this wonderfull discusion. I believe this discussion has strengthen many people in their believe (Trinitarian or not), and their understanding of the Bible
In christ
DonnyMy question part II
In the following in Revelation 1:
4John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits[1] 5 before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
6To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father–to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.Take a closer look to verse six. "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a Kingdom and priests to server his God and Father". This would be in accordance with another verse found in John 20
17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ "In that occation, Jesus acknowledge that he has a Father and he has a God, his own God. This I believe is a very explicit statement from Christ (both occured after Chirst has been crucified and rise, the one of John is right after he rouse, and the one of Revelation after he had gone to the Father, to His God and our God). It also a very clear statement from John his deciple of who is Christ in regards to his position to God.
This would again become a very strong statement from the bible (which we all agree is the Word of Gods), that there is a qualitative difference of who Jesus is and what is his relation in regards to God The Father. The Father is as he said His Father and His God. The same as God the Father is our Father and our God. Hence, I failed to see how this can be put in accordance with the Trinity concept that bear equality between God the Father, Son of God and the Holly Spirit.
Bear in mind, I do not raise question regarding their personallity. We’re very clear on the fact that they are two different personality. But the statemetn to say that they are equal is a question. As there are distinct explicit statement that contradict to this.
Rev 2 :
7He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.Here again another time that Jesus make a reference to God. He said and I quote " Which is in the paradise of God." Again, this is Christ after he has risen and meet The Father, yet the reference of who the paradise belong to is still reffered to God. Wouldn’t it simply be more accurate to say it belong to us had He (Christ) been part of that substance which is the member of the Class of God? "Which is in the paradise of ours" would make more sense imho.
Then again here is a very strong indication of God aknowledgement by Christ. Four times Christ refer to the Father as My God.
Rev 3:
12Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new nameYou might again try to reason with the humanity of Christ. But then again, even so you have contradict your own statement. If you said that christ is Fully God and Fully Man, he can never be only Man or Only God at one time. He must be both. And since God is eternal, He should be eternal and never change in His nature. He is both God and Man. So in reasoning by saying that, Christ is saying that out of his human nature you have nullified your early argument to say that Christ is fully Man and fully God. The word "and" means both statement or condition must be true at any time.. This is basic logic. If Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY Man, he can’t be at any time become only man and at another time only God. If this is the case that Jesus is not Fully man and fully God, he is half man and half God. For in what the other half is, the other half is not. So you can refer to jesus as God or Man. Which is also again contradict to Trinity understanding of the bible.
Jesus has a God. Who is his God. In this He (Christ) refers in John 20:17 that His God is His Father. Which is also our Father and our God. If Christ is a part of God, could he refer to another part of himself as His God ? I find this difficult to understand. Perhaps someone could offer some explanation on the other point of view.
I think there are pleny of evident of Jesus stating His Father as His God. This account occured in the bible numerous time, too much to be ignored. And this in turn, has create confusion to some of us who hold the trinitarian teaching.
Please bear in mind, I’m neither supporting nor attacking either side. It is not my intention to do that. If I seems to be questioning, it’s purely out of curiosity and the spirit of learning, seeking and finding the truth. The truth of which is based on the word of God.
In that I pray that we all be blessed and the Holly Ghost work on us to reveal the truth of the Words of God in regards to the identity of Christ.
In Christ
Donny(Edited by dmateo at 4:33 am on Sep. 12, 2003)
(Edited by dmateo at 4:35 am on Sep. 12, 2003)
(Edited by dmateo at 5:11 am on Sep. 12, 2003)
Quote Quote: from t8 on 7:50 pm on Sep. 9, 2003
To GJG,Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God and not God himself, or do you still hold to the Oneness Doctrine?
I suppose for me the "oneness" of God taking on the "name" of a created vessel while maintaining all the Godly attributes, is the only reasoning I see as being closest to harmonizing with the Bible as a whole.
To RamblinRose,
Good to hear from you again.
I read them. I particularly like the first one as it was simple and to the point.I had also read one of the other ones previously and used some of the content in a previous post.
Peace to you who is loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:
To GJG,
You are entitled to believe what you want to believe and as I am sure that you are aware; I believe that Oneness and Trinity doctrines to be the teachings of men that lead men astray from the simple and expressed truth in the scriptures.
First of all, your belief denies that Jesus has a life of his own. You say that God clothed himself in flesh and then that so called union was named Jesus and that became the name of God. However, this belief denies the truth that the Son has a soul/mind of his own, that Jesus has his own will and that he is a unique person seperate to God, but unified in spirit and purpose.
Matthew 26:38
Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”John 12:27
Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.Matthew 26:42
He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”In addition to the fact that you do not believe that Jesus is a unique person, you also deny in that belief, that God had/has a son, a seperate but similar person to himself who has his nature.
I can only conclude that you are decieved and that you decieve. You do not hold to the words of Christ in that you choose not to believe who Jesus says he is. Instead you prefer to follow what certain men say and you have blocked the way for yourself to become a true disciple of Christ. How can you claim to be a true follower of Christ, when you do not even believe that Christ exists as his own person. Instead you believe that he is God himself, in human flesh. In this you demonstrate that you do not know Christ.
Now we know that no one can come to the Father but through the Son and if coupled with your belief, you must conclude that we come to the Father by the flesh that he supposedly inhabited. Otherwise you would say that no one comes to the Father except through the Father. Both ways of looking at it are not only error but they are plainly stupid.
Why can't you accept what Jesus and his disciples said, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God. This is the true faith and it is really simple, even a child can understand it. But no, you would prefer to follow the complicated philosophies of men and in doing so, you prove yourself to be opposed to the truth and to Jesus himself. I pray that you will repent and truly know him who loves us and saved us from our sin.
1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[1] you will indeed die in your sins.”John 10:36-38
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.
38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”Quote Quote: from t8 on 9:41 am on Sep. 13, 2003
To GJG,You are entitled to believe what you want to believe and as I am sure that you are aware; I believe that Oneness and Trinity doctrines to be the teachings of men that lead men astray from the simple and expressed truth in the scriptures.
First of all, your belief denies that Jesus has a life of his own. You say that God clothed himself in flesh and then that so called union was named Jesus and that became the name of God. However, this belief denies the truth that the Son has a soul/mind of his own, that Jesus has his own will and that he is a unique person seperate to God, but unified in spirit and purpose.
Matthew 26:38
<font color=red>Then he said to them, "<b>My soul</b> is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."</font>John 12:27
<font color=red>Now is <b>my soul</b> troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.</font>Acts 2:31
<font color=red>He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that <b>his soul</b> was not left in ####, neither his flesh did see corruption.</font>Matthew 26:42
<font color=red>He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may <b>your will be done</b>." </font>In addition to the fact that you do not believe that Jesus is a unique person, you also deny in that belief, that God had/has a son, a seperate but similar person to himself who has his nature.
I can only conclude that you are decieved and that you decieve. You do not hold to the words of Christ in that you choose not to believe who Jesus says he is. Instead you prefer to follow what certain men say and you have blocked the way for yourself to become a true disciple of Christ. How can you claim to be a true follower of Christ, when you do not even believe that Christ exists as his own person. Instead you believe that he is God himself, in human flesh. In this you demonstrate that you do not know Christ.
Now we know that no one can come to the Father but through the Son and if coupled with your belief, you must conclude that we come to the Father by the flesh that he supposedly inhabited. Otherwise you would say that no one comes to the Father except through the Father. Both ways of looking at it are not only error but they are plainly stupid.
Why can’t you accept what Jesus and his disciples said, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God. This is the true faith and it is really simple, even a child can understand it. But no, you would prefer to follow the complicated philosophies of men and in doing so, you prove yourself to be opposed to the truth and to Jesus himself. I pray that you will repent and truly know him who loves us and saved us from our sin.
1 John 5:13
<font color=red>I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. </font>Matthew 7:22-23
<font color=red>22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, <b>’I never knew you</b>. Away from me, you evildoers!’</font>John 8:24
<font color=red>I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[1] you will indeed die in your sins." </font>John 10:36-38
<font color=red>what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.
38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."</font>Steady on almighty one! (only God knows the hearts of all men):(
I never once said that I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God!
But then, like trinitarians, you make false accusations!
JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD!
JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD!
JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD! umm, I already know that.sheesh, not even global shot me down like that!
hhhhmmmmm maybe binitarians are worse?
Your out of line dude, way out of line!
You claim this is a site to put across ones views, but now you say I must be exorcised…..oops, now that was an unfair accusation, sorry:)
I’ll leave you to your own ways dude!
Just take it easy on others that don’t hold to your view dude:(
CYa, like never!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
